1977-01-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43,1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the continuing revelations of the deceit being practised by Cuba involving the unannounced expulsion-and I emphasize "unannounced expulsion"-of a number of Cuban diplomats last June, including the second in command in the Cuban embassy in Ottawa, Mr. Alfonso Perdomo, whose improper activities were connected with certain subversive attempts in our foreign aid program and notwithstanding the recent expulsion of Cuban diplomats from Montreal, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That this House condemns these improper and reprehensible acts and that all aspects of aid and trade with Cuba be investigated by the subcommittee of External Affairs dealing with CIDA while at the same time further aid to Cuba be suspended until the situation is resolved by that committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can only be presented to the House with its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the statement by the Prime Minister on October 13, 1976 that he would look into the matter of the dismissal of Walter Rudnicki and of the alleged blacklisting of civil servants, and in view of the fact that to date this House has received no explanation whatsoever of these very serious allegations by a former senior civil servant, and in view of the potential for a serious violation of civil liberties reminiscent of the McCarthy era, I move,
seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, with power of subpoena, so that a full and thorough investigation of these most serious charges by Mr. Rudnicki be carried out and that any list of names not be released publicly by this committee or anyone else in view of the serious damage that could occur to persons who would be on that list and have no opportunity to defend themselves and who could be smeared thereby.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion can be presented to the House only with its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


FINANCE
Mr.   Rent@: Matte (Champlain): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the humiliating reliance of the economy of all Canadian provinces on our southern neighbours' high finance, in view of the fact that this reliance causes great harm to the advancement of this country, and since quite concrete solutions could be brought by this parliament, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That the government allow the Bank of Canada to make long term loans to the provinces so they be able to meet their administrative duties.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore the motion cannot be put.

January 25, 1977
Energy Conservation


MANPOWER
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising out of the failure to include any constituency in British Colombia in the list of those eligible for the $30 per man-hour week allowance for material costs in the new Canada works program. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That this House ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration for an explanation of this failure to extend the supplementary program into the province of British Columbia thus adding one more to the long list of federal programs that do not reach across the Rockies.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented to the House pursuant to Standing Order 43 only with its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF HOME INSULATION PROGRAM TO CONSERVE ENERGY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerns the announcement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) several weeks ago that special programs of assistance were offered to the province of Prince Edward Island amounting in value to $11.5 million, and to Nova Scotia amounting in value to $63 million, to help with home insulation and to help industrial and commercial users conserve power, which offer of federal assistance was made to those provinces only on the basis that these were the provinces most highly dependent on oil-fired steam power for electrical energy production and therefore most requiring special assistance.
Since the net generation of electricity from now on in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador must be by thermal means, since the cost of heating oil in Newfoundland is substantially higher than in Prince Edward Island or Nova Scotia, and since the economic position of Newfoundland residents considering per capita personal income, the cost of living and other factors is at about the same level as that of citizens of Prince Edward Island but considerably lower than that of citizens of Nova Scotia so that their needs are even greater with respect of energy and other costs, I move, second-
[Mr. Speaker.)
ed by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That this House urge the government to cease discriminating against eight of the ten provinces of Canada by offering to all the provinces of Canada and the citizens thereof the special programs of assistance with reference to home insulation and assistance to industrial and commercial users to conserve power now offered to Prince Edward Island and to Nova Scotia, so that all citizens of Canada will be treated equally rather than suffering from the present discriminatory policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL HOLIDAYS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House urges the government House leader to call Bill C-30 for second reading not later than during the week commencing January 31, in order that parliament can reach a decision on this bill in sufficient time so that National Heritage Day can be observed on Monday, February 21, of this year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be presented to the House for debate only with its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED CONSERVATION OF ENERGY BY RECYCLING OF WASTE PAPER-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my motion under Standing Order 43 is prompted by the delivery this week to offices on Parliament Hill and elsewhere in Ottawa of telephone directories of Bell Canada, and of the government service, creating therefore tons of excess waste paper to add to those produced daily. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston):
That this House take positive measures to urge government departments and industry to take immediate steps to conserve wasting forest and energy resources, by using more recycled waste paper in paper production.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such motion can be presented to the House for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Now that the minister has had time to review the 1977 economic forecasts of the Conference Board and the OECD, which indicate that our real economic growth will slow this year to the 3 per cent or 3.5 per cent range, down over 30 per cent from last year's growth rate, last year having been a rather slow year itself, can the minister advise the House whether he agrees with these forecasts and, if not, what is his own forecast for real growth in 1977?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, of course we will take into account forecasts of these kinds, along with others. My own statement on behalf of the government will be made in the context of the budget.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As some reputable forecasting institutions, the Conference Board and Wood Gundy for example, have predicted that slow growth rates will continue into 1978, can tne minister tell the House whether a slow growth policy with its resultant unemployment is part of his strategy for controlling inflation, bearing in mind that the working paper "The Way Ahead" has argued that growth itself may be a contributing factor to inflation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the government has stated its policy many times; it seeks to overcome the problem of inflation which has been plaguing the Canadian economy for the last several years while attaining the levels of growth necessary to meet the aspirations of Canadians. I, of course, will have an opportunity to elaborate on those particular guidelines during the course of the budget statement.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a final supplementary question to the Minister of Finance? Considering that the minister has made statements outside the House about possible administrative mechanisms which may be put in place when the economy is decontrolled, can the minister now tell the House what his tentative proposals are? Specifically, is the minister contemplating a price monitoring mechanism after controls and is he proposing any national consultative conference to set policies in any decontrol period?
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have engaged in discussion with members of the private sector across Canada with regard to the decontrol and post-control period. I also expect to meet both the executive of the Canadian Labour Congress and the provincial governments next week for the purpose of discussing the decontrol possibilities and those in the post-control period.


INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the Prime Minister has been assuring me continuously over the past two years that the government would be introducing "soon" a program of productivity incentives to be made in direct proportion to the increase in productivity so that we can lower costs and selling prices, increase volume and provide more jobs, can the minister now advise the House when such a program will be announced?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Soon, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as the minister's answer obviously has no more validity or meaning than the answers given by the Prime Minister over the past two years, I would ask him this question. Does he ever get a headache from keeping his head in the sand so much of the time?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister confirm to the House the government's intention to turn over the CNR to private enterprise. If so, will he tell us what the government means by this? Does it mean specifically that any section of the CNR that is operating at a profit will be sold off in whole or in part to private investors?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, any formal decision by the government with regard to selling shares in any part of its Crown corporations to the public will of course be announced in a more appropriate way at the time such a decision is taken. What the government has done to this point is indicate to corporations like CNR and Air Canada

Oral Questions
that it wishes them to operate with the best possible management, directing themselves toward making a success of their enterprise and, therefore, in that sense paralleling the kind of operation which would go on in the private sector. We also indicated that where we believe a special duty should be imposed upon such a corporation we ought to quantify the cost of that special duty and pay for it so that it does not have to be melded by the Crown corporation into the fare structures or other rates charged to individuals in the operation of its business. These things together clearly, if directed to a Crown corporation along a path which at some time could lead to a consideration of whether some shares in some parts of it might be sold to the public, is a flexible way of financing as is done of course in other competitive sectors in the private sector.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister took a long time not to answer the question. Considering the fact that CNR came into being just after World War I because a number of private railways went broke and wanted the people of Canada to bail them out, and considering that even the profits that CNR allegedly is going to make in 1976 are dependent upon a $200 million subsidy from the people of Canada, will the minister assure the House that the government will not as a matter of policy sell off part of our great national railway system to the private sector after countless decades of subsidy coming from the people of Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that sounded more like an elaborate argument than a question. I presume the hon. member is not critical of the fact the railways were taken over at the time they were bankrupt and put together in one particular operation. Perhaps that demonstrates it was not for any great purpose of having a railway that we ended up in the railway business but because there was no other way than to bail out a particular series of railway operations. What the hon. member fails to notice is that the people of Canada as shareholders of a corporation like CNR may indeed benefit greatly if it has the flexibility in raising funds to not only borrow but to sell some shares in subsidiaries which, after all, is done by its major competitors.
I take it the hon. gentleman does not assume that when a corporation like the CPR or other large corporations sell shares in subsidiaries they are somehow giving something away to the public or to the buyers of those shares. They are entering into a commercial transaction for the good of the overall operation and the shareholders, and if anything were contemplated with regard to a Crown corporation it would be for the same reason- the good of the Canadian people who are the shareholders.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: If the minister is assuring the House that however the government plans to change the financing operations of the CN not one penny will be lost to the taxpayers by way of funds going out to private investors entering at this late point, we accept his answer. But so that we may gather the

January 25, 1977
general intention of the government's overall policy, will the hon. gentleman assure us that in terms of other great public enterprises in this country-I am thinking, for example, of Air Canada-the government has no intention of selling off parts of these operations to the private sector, directly or indirectly, once they become wholly profitable?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is a repetition of the previous question.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the present dissatisfaction felt by some categories of unemployed who are told that they are not eligible for unemployment insurance, can the minister tell the House whether he intends to take the necessary steps in the very near future to remedy the situation with regard to the eligibility for unemployment insurance in some sectors such as agriculture, construction and commerce in general? I would like to specify that I am thinking here of the worker whose father owns an industry or a farm, and of the possibility for the father to insure those of his sons who work for him.


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I am not certain I understand the representation made by the hon. member-whether he is referring to training in particular skills or a particular enterprise or not. But I will examine the question, and reply.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Would he inform the House whether at any time he received for his own personal perusal and action a document and list which was identified as an extra-parliamentary opposition list, and if so what action did he take to comply with the suggestions made on that list-actions against persons who are in the employ of the Canadian government and others?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard of or seen such a list.


Frank Oberle: I should like to direct a supplementary to the Minister of Supply and Services. Did he at any time have cause, in response to information which he might have received
January 25, 1977

from the security service of either the Department of the Solicitor General or the RCMP, to construct such a list identified as an extra-parliamentary opposition list, and did he at any time circulate such a list among his colleagues in cabinet?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, security within the government is not the responsibility of the Minister of Supply and Services.


Frank Oberle: The next question should obviously be directed to the Solicitor General. I should like to ask him whether he had cause to examine or structure a list such as I have mentioned, a list identified as an extra-parliamentary opposition list? May I ask him on what information he acted in constructing such a list; whether he has ever received such a list from his predecessor in office and whether such a list has been circulated among senior cabinet ministers?


Miss Bigin:: Senior or junior ministers?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: I have not had cause to circulate the type of list referred to by the hon. member. Perhaps I should admitt-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Francis Fox: -perhaps I should explain, Mr. Speaker, that in cases where people within the public service take positions where security clearance is required, a departmental security officer will ask for security clearance of the individual involved and that is the extent of the matter.


ALLEGED BLACKLISTING OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES-REFERENCE TO LETTER DATED JUNE 15, 1971
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask the Solicitor General very directly if he has seen such a letter under date of June 15, 1971, signed by his predecessor in office, and what sort of procedures were used to group names together in the context of an extra-parliamentary opposition group and under whose control and supervision was this done?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I am unable at the moment, without going over the files in detail, to check out everything that the hon. member has said, and to reply in breadth and depth to his question.


REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF HOME INSULATION PROGRAM TO CONSERVE ENERGY
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister announced in December a special assistance
Oral Questions
program for P.E.I. and Nova Scotia amounting to $63 million and $11.5 million to assist citizens with insulating their homes and also commercial and industrial users. In view of the fact that the net generation of electricity in Newfoundland now is all from oil-fired steam, that the cost of living and per capita incomes are higher and lower than, and the people of Newfoundland have a need just as great as, people in other provinces, can the minister tell the House whether the government will extend that program to all other provinces of Canada, in addition to P.E.I. and Nova Scotia? If not, why not?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to learn that the hon. member, by implication, agrees with the importance of the conservation reinsulation program which is offered to the two provinces of Nova Scotia and P.E.I. It is a program that I would very much like to be able to offer to all provinces if we had the funds to do so. The hon. member must know that the reason it was offered to these two provinces is that they are more dependent on oil for their electrical generation than any other province. Indeed, in the case of P.E.I., 100 per cent of their electrical generation comes from oil; in the case of Nova Scotia it is 66 per cent, which is double, I am told, the percentage of the next nearest province.


John Carnell Crosbie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources realize, or would he agree, that the fact that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That preamble sounds very much as though the hon. member is heading for an argument instead of asking a question. Perhaps the hon. member would put a question.


John Carnell Crosbie: Did the hon. gentleman take into consideration the fact that the average temperature in Newfoundland and Labrador is lower than in P.E.I. and Nova Scotia, that 70 per cent of the households in Newfoundland are oil-fired households, and that the average family expenditure on heating in Newfoundland is higher than in Nova Scotia and P.E.I., or was the fact that these are the only two Liberal governments in Canada a factor that the minister took into consideration?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already made it quite clear, both a moment ago and on previous occasions, that the reason we did so was the dependence on oil by these two provinces for electrical generation; they both have very high electrical costs; in the case of P.E.I. by far the highest electrical costs in the country, and in the case of Nova Scotia very close to P.E.I. with a substantial increase in the offing.


PARTICIPATION IN MARITIME ENERGY POOL AND CONSTRUCTION OF GENERATING PLANTS
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the same minister. Now that the minister of energy has announced a plan of federal assistance

January 25, 1977
Oral Questions
to Prince Edward Island as an energy conservation measure, and in view of the government's willingness to develop a similar program with Nova Scotia, has the minister won from either of these provinces a commitment to participate in a maritime energy pool or an agreement to give priority to the construction of electrical power plants in the maritimes to permit the maximum economies of scale?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be premature to say that at the moment I have a commitment from the two provinces, or indeed from the three maritime provinces, with respect to a maritime power pool. I think I can say, though, without being unduly optimistic that there is a good deal of interest now among those three provinces in examining the benefits of a power corporation which might not only generate electricity and be involved in the transmission of electricity, but perhaps also purchase electricity from other provinces.


POSSIBILITY OF DEVELOPING GULL ISLAND SITE
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister indicate whether there has been a reassessment of the position of the development of the Gull Island site so that energy could be developed and be of benefit to all the Atlantic region?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will perhaps know already from my previous answer, this was a reference I made with respect to a power corporation. One of the purposes I have always seen for the Maritime Power Corporation was just that, as a mechanism for purchasing power from other provinces and, in particular, of course, power from the Gull Island development, perhaps in the order of 1,000 megawatts a year.


REASON FOR FAILURE TO CHANNEL MORE FUNDS THROUGH HOUSING PROGRAM TO INSULATE HOMES TO CONSERVE ENERGY
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, in the announcement made originally in respect of insulation, which is concentrated to help Nova Scotia, I wonder whether the minister discussed with his colleague before making the announcement the fact that there is in existence right now and has been for five years a residential rehabilitation assistance program which provides for insulation and other things to conserve energy, and why are more funds not extended into that very excellent program?


Alastair William Gillespie: As the hon. member will perhaps have already noted, Mr. Speaker, the proposals we put forward were in respect of a grant program rather than a loan program.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Can he tell the House whether the recent massive lay-offs in the textile industry, more particularly in Quebec, will induce him to take immediate steps to counteract dumping from the United States?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the matter is now under study. As the hon. member knows, last November we announced measures for the textile industry which were rather controversial. I am aware of the problem with regard to imports of certain fabrics from the United States. Still it has yet to be established that they constitute dumping. The department is now making an inquiry and we hope to act as soon as we have had a definitive report on the matter.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General and is somewhat supplementary to one asked earlier by the hon. member for Central Nova. My understanding of the minister's answer was that he was somewhat familiar with the list that has been alleged, or at least the letter that his predecessor may have written about the list, but that those included in the list were subjected to security clearance because of access to sensitive information. I would like the minister to clarify his answer now to the House as to whether any persons included on such a list were there because they were given information which may be adverse to the security of the state should it be released?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, as far as current practice is concerned there is no such list in existence. What I was trying to explain to the House is that whenever a civil servant is appointed to a position where there is access to confidential information which ought to remain secure there is a security check carried out.


REQUEST FOR REPORT ON PRIME MINISTER'S INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED BLACKLIST
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the government House leader. As recorded in Hansard for October 13, the Prime Minister indicated that on this matter of Walter Rudnicki and the extra-parliamentary opposition, he would inquire and

investigate because at that time he had no information about it. Could the government House leader now indicate to the House whether in fact such an investigation has been carried out and whether various Cabinet ministers have been canvassed as to whether such a list was circulated to members of his Cabinet?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am able to say that I am not aware of any such list. I have not seen any such list and, to the best of my knowledge, no such list exists or has existed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. On December 20 last the minister told me that he was going to have an independent inquiry made into the case of William Biggs, an employee in Germany who was found innocent of charges but severely punished by being dismissed from his employment. The minister said he was going to ask the Ontario ombudsman to investigate the case. Some four days later, however, the minister changed his mind completely and wrote to William Biggs informing him that he was not improperly fired. The minister also had the gall to wish Biggs a happy holiday. Could the minister inform us what happened during those four days to induce him to reverse his position and deny an impartial hearing to Mr. Biggs?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I discussed this case with the hon. member, and suggested alternative ways of dealing with it in a satisfactory manner. There was no commitment made in respect of any such inquiry. I do not even know, and did not at that time, whether the Ontario ombudsman would even accept such a reference. In the interim I made a very thorough study of the case, as I had been doing up till then, and came to the conclusion that no further purpose could be served; it was a normal management decision, there was no question of Mr. Biggs' integrity involved at all but was a management decision which was made by competent management authority. He was not in the armed forces nor was he employed by the armed forces, and I am satisfied that the proper decision was made. I do not expect Mr. Biggs to necessarily agree with that decision as I never did when I got fired.


An hon. Member:: Stop your histrionics.


Mr. Nowlan:: There were different reasons for you getting fired.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister. While Biggs may not have been in the armed forces, he was employed by them in that his superiors were members of the armed forces. To ensure that justice is seen to be done in this case I would ask the minister to refer the case of the dismissal of William Biggs to the Standing Committee on External Affairs National Defence, for that committee to be authorized to call such witnesses as may be necessary and to make recommendations to the House for a fair and just settlement of the case. Will the minister grant such referral?


Barnett Jerome Danson: No, Mr. Speaker. I think it has been dealt with in a proper way and I am satisfied that justice was done in this case.


MANPOWER
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that countless requests are being received by many members indicating the difficulty encountered in obtaining information regarding the Canada Works Program, will the minister consider extending the deadline beyond February 4 for submission of applications under Phase I of the program?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, in view of representations that have been made to extend it, I am looking at that suggestion. I am endeavouring to determine how many applications are coming in now and how many are going to beat the deadline. It would seem inappropriate to extend the deadline too far if we have a sufficient number of applications by the deadline date, but I will look at this, not only the numbers but the actual areas from which the applications come.


William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, since a similar situation exists in respect of the Young Canada Works Program, would the minister consider extending the deadline in respect of this program to enable submissions of properly constituted and well developed proposals to help reduce student unemployment?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, that is an area I am looking at.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fraser Valley West.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Speaker, my colleague stole my thunder.
2344
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

January 25, 1977


SOVIET ACTION AGAINST SYMPOSIUM OF JEWS IN MOSCOW- POSSIBILITY OF CANADIAN PROTEST
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of External Affairs who I believe is the government House leader. What steps has the Canadian government taken to indicate its dismay to the Soviet government at the stifling of the December symposium in Moscow, a symposium which was organized by Jews who wished to discuss the present state and possible future development of Jewish culture in the U.S.S.R.?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check into that particular situation to determine whether any comment was made by the Department of External Affairs or the government on the point.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, will the minister also check to see what effect this action will have on the intent and the meaning of the Helsinki Accord?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


GARRISON DIVERSION-POSSIBILITY OF PRIME MINISTER DISCUSSING SUBJECT WITH PRESIDENT CARTER
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister without Portfolio from Manitoba. It relates to the Garrison diversion project and the proposed visit of the Prime Minister to Washington to meet with the new President and his administration. Could the Minister without Portfolio indicate to the House whether the Cabinet has looked at the IJC report, and specifically whether the Cabinet has instructed the Prime Minister to raise the Garrison diversion project with the new President as a matter of urgency and priority during his meetings in Washington?


Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the hon. member for Selkirk that my reason for being in Cabinet is not to report on what goes on within Cabinet as such.


An hon. Member:: What is the reason?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Why are you there, Joe?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that I am looking at the matter, specifically the Garrison project of which he is speaking, and I assure him that I will bring the important matter to the attention of the Prime Minister.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, would the same minister indicate whether the Prime Minister is going to raise the Garrison matter with the President of the United States as a matter of priority and urgency?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Ask the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is the minister in a position to report to the House on the discussions he has had with officials of the Abenaki Motel, that is a project which comes under the purview of his department, in relation to the new financing of the operation of that motel which is an Indian project?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had discussions with the representative of that motel myself but officials of my department have in the last day or two. As soon as I get a report, I will be pleased to give it to the House.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the minister responsible for the status of women.

In view of the encouraging increase in the number of women filling senior positions in the civil service, will the minister assure the House that the spirit of International Women's Year shall be carried into 1977?

In other words, will the minister continue to encourage the trend toward women seeking greater participation in senior positions within the public service?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great pleasure that I was able to announce that last year there has been a substantial increase in the number of women promoted to important positions within the government, whenever these nominations were the cabinet's responsibility, that is when they have been appointed by order in council. I can assure the honourable member and the House that the government aims again at increasing this percentage for the current year, and I hope that the statistics we will publish next year on that matter will reflect significant improvement in the situation.
January 25, 1977


HARBOURS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Since negotiations between the federal and provincial governments concerning the wharves which provide communications facilities along the St. Lawrence have been going on for around three years, would the minister tell the House whether these negotiations will one day come to an end? Will they produce results or are we going to negotiate for the rest of this century?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations have been going on a long time and I am trying to ensure that they are brought to a conclusion. But, of course, in negotiations of this sort where two parties are involved it is not always possible for one to do anything about it.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Of course I understand there are two parties involved in this process, but would the minister tell the House whether since the arrival of a new government in Quebec there have been some talks with the new Quebec minister in charge and whether he seems prepared to come to a logical agreement which would better serve the Quebec population in this area?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have not had such a meeting with the minister of transport in the province since the change of government. We have a regular committee structure of both officials and ministers in the two transport departments, and I look forward to such a meeting before very long.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. I should like to ask him whether, in view of his interesting trip to Nova Scotia and particularly to CFB Greenwood, his comments there about the establishment of a French language unit at Base Greenwood is a definitive announcement, notwithstanding the fact that I wrote his predecessor in office on December 3, 1975 a two and one-half page letter asking that at least six serious considerations be taken into account before an announcement is made and asking for a reply to that letter. Can the minister tell us the present status of the matter?
Oral Questions


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I made it quite clear in Halifax and in Greenwood, as well as in discussions with the troops in Greenwood, that indeed the spirit of the French language will continue. This has received overwhelming support from the people on the base and from the fine people in that area in Nova Scotia. As I indicated at that time, the details are to be worked out so that we can do it in a constructive way that will bring the best results for all the people involved, and this is the spirit in which that French language unit is proceeding at Greenwood.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My colleague from Edmonton has a supplementary question, but first I have a very short supplementary question to put to the minister. It is very short.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Unfortunately, such questions do not take into account plus or minus the spirit of the French language. In my letter-I and other members of the House voted for the act overwhelmingly in 1968-the spirit of the language was taken into account. My question is put in view of the fact that this was a political decision overriding military considerations, and in view of the fact that Greenwood is a NATO base in which the English language is the language of communication with the French, the Dutch and the German pilots, if there are such French pilots, why did the department not take into consideration the counterproposal to establish a unilingual French unit at CFB Summerside, a search and rescue unit, where French and English are used in communication with the ground, since that base has jurisdiction over northern New Brunswick and Quebec?


Barnett Jerome Danson: As I pointed out, that was my impression, but I have no right to speak on behalf of the hon. gentleman, and I would be surprised if the representative of parliament in that area objected to this procedure. If one wants to raise excuses for not doing these things, one can find lots of them. But if you want to find the reasons for doing so and for taking advantage of an opportunity, as the men on the base want to do, we will find them and it will be done in a positive and constructive way.


REASON FOR MOVING UNILINGUAL FRENCH UNIT FROM EDMONTON
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of National Defence. The minister has been haranguing the good people of Nova Scotia because some of them questioned the wisdom of having a unilingual French-speaking Argus squadron attempting to operate in close co-operation with other unilingual English-speaking units. At the same time the minister is moving No. 1 Commando unit of the airborne regiment, a unilingual French unit, out of Edmonton where it had been warmly welcomed and has contributed a great deal to better understanding between the French and the English. Can the minister explain his policy which tries to force a unilingual
80008-1 lVz

January 25, 1977
Oral Questions
unit where it does not fit in one area while taking another unilingual unit away from where it fits beautifully?


An hon. Member:: Pourquoi?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is asking for logic in some of these situations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Just answer the question.


George Harris Hees: You never heard of logic.


Barnett Jerome Danson: What my hon. friend does not appreciate is the fact that there is a military decision to be made and it has to be taken in concert with the bilingual policy of the government. Military decisions are not made to accommodate the bilingual policy but rather it is the bilingual policy which has to accommodate military tasks. What we are doing here is to enhance the armed forces as was announced, as most military people appreciate and understand. If the hon. gentleman would care to come to my office, I will draw some pictures for him to explain the situation.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the logical Minister of Agriculture.


An hon. Member:: Are you kidding?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the fact that over 70,000 cattle have been imported into Canada in the last two years from Michigan where an environmental accident occurred in 1973 and poisoned large numbers of livestock with a chemical called PBB, I should like to ask the minister whether or not he can explain to the House why only about 700 cattle were tested for this chemical, especially since the government knew it occurred since 1974 and especially since there is a vast surplus of cattle in this country?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that you do not test every animal that is slaughtered. You take spot checks on cattle. Many of the cattle that are fed in Michigan are not raised in Michigan. They are put in feedlots, fed in Michigan and then shipped into Ontario. We are concerned about this. We have done the tests, as I am sure the hon. member is aware because my officials have told me they have given him in fact the same information they have given me. It may be necessary to continue with further testing of the fatty tissues in the meat to trace this chemical, but our officials feel sure that they have done everything humanly possible to ensure that these tests are accurate. The last group of cattle in which it has been found

have been held in detention until further tests, and I understand that those tests have been taken yesterday in Ottawa and I do not know what the results of them are.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the fact that the substance went into the feed and most of the cattle in Michigan ate it and that medical studies just a few weeks ago revealed that out of the 1,000 people tested in Michigan nearly a third had suffered adverse health effects, possibly because of having eaten meat contaminated by PBB, I would like to ask, in order to protect the Canadian people in the future, whether the minister is willing to designate a group of officials in his department to monitor any environmental incidents which might affect the food system. This particular problem was known about three years ago and nothing was done.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member himself recognizes that that feed was manufactured three years ago. Surely to goodness he does not think that feed which was manufactured three years ago is still being used. There is now a different feeding program, and those cattle are no longer in existence. They were destroyed by the Michigan and the Agriculture health authorities in the United States of America. Any evidence that they had of cattle consuming that feed at that time was destroyed.


BEEF CATTLE-INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBILITY OF DEFICIENCY PAYMENT
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is there going to be a deficiency payment made this year to beef producers under the beef support program for cattle marketed in 1976, and if so, when will the minister make the announcement?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, there is a program. The decision was made some time ago, and I believe the announcement has been made already today that the price would be $40.16 per hundredweight, and it would be made on a quarterly basis.


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but I see he has momentarily left the chamber.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the fact that a welfare recipient is entitled to some money to compensate for the loss of his property as a
January 25, 1977

result of a fire or a disaster and since an elderly person cannot obtain that assistance from the Department of Social Affairs in Quebec and does not receive the old age security pension even if under the Canadian constitution it is strictly under provincial jurisdiction, can the minister tell the House whether he intends in the near future to correct that oversight through the Canada Assistance Plan which would enable a senior citizen in receipt of an old age security pension to enjoy the same rights as welfare recipients following a fire or other disaster?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the matter of social assistance in exceptional cases such as that mentioned by the hon. member comes under provincial jurisdiction. The Canada Assistance Plan now provides federal government sharing of the amounts allocated by the provinces to persons in need for that purpose. Consequently it would not be necessary to amend the federal law. If the province wishes to assume its own responsibilities in that field, we will share the necessary costs up to 50 per cent.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, who was directly involved with the issue I raised in my motion under Standing Order 43. I would like to ask the minister if he could either confirm or deny allegations that one Alfonso Perdomo, once second in command of the Cuban embassy in Ottawa, was expelled from Canada last June along with a number of his colleagues for deceitful practices towards this government regarding foreign aid to that nation, and if the minister can confirm this expulsion, why was it not made public at that time?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the hon. member is probably subsequent to the action recently taken by the government of Canada when it sought the departure from Canada of a number of Cuban officials because of the conduct of intelligence operations in Canada. That action has been taken and is an indication of the seriousness with which the government looks at these activities.
With respect to earlier cases it has been the policy to apply similar principles with respect to requests made to foreign countries. In this particular case we have secured the removal of these persons, and we hope that we will be able to overcome any difficulties which might have been created by this event in our relations with Cuba.
Oral Questions


SUGGESTED COMMITTEE STUDY OF ALLEGED SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES OF CUBAN DIPLOMATS
Otto John Jelinek: I would like to assure the minister that this case has nothing to do with the recent expulsions of people from the Cuban consulate in Montreal. These revelations which are presently being made in the affirmative have not been denied by officials of the Department of External Affairs. I am wondering whether the minister would be in a position to form a parliamentary committee or perhaps use the subcommittee of External Affairs dealing with CIDA to study the charges which are being made with regard to the expulsion of Cubans, to study all aid directed to Cuba and to stop any further aid to Cuba until these allegations have been looked into.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: With respect to Cuba, we have at the present time a $10 million line of credit which provides for the purchase in Canada of Canadian goods and provides for the supply of Canadian technicians for operations in Cuba. There is no direct cash transfer to the government of Cuba. All the funds are expended in the way I have described and have to do with the building of the social and agricultural infrastructure in Cuba. I believe that it is entirely appropriate for any committee of the House to deal with the adequacy of such a program, which is a people to people program based on the necessity for economic development in Cuba. I also believe that it is wise to detach from that consideration the question of security, which is entirely different and which in the normal course is not given the same public disclosure as would be the case with our aid program to Cuba.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has been travelling across the country saying that Canada needs to develop a national integrated food policy, and the Minister of Agriculture, when speaking to the York County Soil and Crop Improvement Association, stated that Canada already has a national food policy. Which one of the ministers was telling the truth? If we have a national food policy, would the minister table it in the House?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, in this country we have food which is cheap when we consider this country has 23 million people, is 4,000 miles wide and the cost is only about one per cent different from that in the United States. If anyone can improve on our food policy, any member of my cabinet or otherwise, let him do so. However, I have not read what the hon. minister was saying. I will not go solely on what the hon. member said because in the past he has been wrong.

January 25, 1977
Oral Questions


Arnold John Malone: Would the minister respond by saying whether he considers the tremendous increase in the number of quotas on imported food which have been lowered over the past year is part of that national food policy as it refers to honey, fruits, vegetables and particularly the tremendous increase in the importing of offshore beef from the oceanic countries?


Eugene Whelan: This minister has probably used the laws of this land more frequently than any other minister. When we used quotas in 1975, hon. members opposite said I was a very bad fellow. Then former President Ford triggered his meat import laws and used quotas, and that country has quotas on practically everything with which we compete. The hon. member should be aware that we will use quotas whenever the United States uses them. I used mine in a very fair manner when 1 invoked them against the United States. They retaliated and used them in a very unfair manner. We are looking forward to great things from the new administration in the United States.


LEVEL OF CHEESE IMPORTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Wise: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It relates to the ongoing and mounting dissatisfaction and uncertainty in the Canadian dairy industry with respect to the unacceptable high level of 50 million pounds of imported cheese. Last year the former minister of industry, trade and commerce fortunately disregarded the advice of the Minister of Agriculture given on November 4, 1974 for doubling these amounts and acted on the appeals of the opposition by freezing imports for one year at the 50 million pound level. Would the minister clarify if reports in the press attributed to the chairman of the Canadian Dairy Commission that the freeze has been extended for an additional one year period are correct?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the statement of the president of the Canadian Dairy Commission. I will inquire, but the hon. member should know that I generally get along quite well with my colleague the Minister of Agriculture.


John Wise: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the government has adopted the generally accepted policy of compensating producers on the basis of the previous five-year averaging concept, would the minister give immediate and serious consideration to applying this principle in establishing a more acceptable and equitable basis for cheese import levels? Does he not recognize if such a principle were adopted our cheese import level would be somewhere around 38 million or 40 million pounds and the Canadian dairy industry would

benefit by $4 million and Canadian cheese manufacturers would have the opportunity to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 96, 143, 155, 627, 703, 716, 739, 763, 834, 908, 912, 981, 1,035, 1,036, 1,096, 1,140, 1,144, 1,241, 1,370, 1,420 and 1,421.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On what date was Mr. G. Cousineau appointed Chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and on what date did he leave this position?
2.	What was the total amount of money he received in (a) salary (b) expenses during his term of office and what portion was for travelling?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. Appointed June 29, 1972-Left May 27, 1976
2.	(a) DM1 level salary range $41,000-$54,000 effective April 1, 1975. (b) $20,161.62 of which $16,737.15 was for travelling.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the Fiscal year 1975-1976, what contracts for professional services were let (a) for studies, surveys and analyses into present or future policies, programs or information analysis, and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) into the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Department of Labour?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
3.	What were the comparable figures for the fiscal year 1973-1974?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: 1. (a) M.
Bossen-study of aspects of part-time work in Canada $17,744. C. J. Connaghan-study of West German Industrial Relations $2,987. Canadian Economic Systems Ltd.-study of industrial relations $11,904. Iain Campbell-study of system for employment injury benefits $8,875. Dr. J. Willard-advise on policy related to development of controls and post-controls $3,976. G. McCaffrey-consulting on matters relating to the development of tripartite discussions concerning industrial relations $27,600. (b) R. Smith-consultation on departmental objectives $30,012. R. Weiler & Associates Ltd.-consult
January 25, 1977

on departmental organization, objectives, operations, etc.- $32,241.
2.	See 1(a) and 1(b) of above.
3.	(a) $87,908. (b) $12,712.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	On what date was the Bibeau Report commissioned?
2.	How many persons were involved in (a) research (b) writing of the Report and, in each case, what (i) were their names (ii) was their rate of remuneration?
3.	To date, what has been the total cost of the Commission?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: 1.	November 7, 1974.
2.	Thirty-one persons were involved in the research and preparation of the report and of this group, eight also contributed to the writing of the report; their names and their rate of remuneration are as follows:
Per Diem
Research	Writing	RemunerationBibeau, G.	Yes	$ 175.00Boutet, J.	60.00Cardinal, R.	37.50Charbonneau, R.	Yes	100.00Dagenais, A.	Yes	75.00Duchesne, L.	75.00Edwards, H. P.	Yes	175.00Ellard, K.	150.00Gardner, R. C.	200.00Germain, C.	150.00Hee Chung, V.	60.00Jobidon, L.	40.00LaForge, L.	150.00LeBlanc, G.	100.00LeBlanc, R.	Yes	175.00Lemire, G.	120.00Lemire, M. C.	60.00Mackey, W. F.	Yes	175.00Massey, M.	150.00Mercier, N.	100.00Normand, S.	150.00Pampalom, J.	40.00Porebsky, O. R.	175.00Simard, G.	50.00Smyth, F.	150.00Thivierge, L.	40.00Touchette, C.	150.00Tousignant, R.	Yes	175.00Trahan, M.	150.00Tremblay, M.	75.00Wesche, M.	Yes	125.00
Order Paper Questions
Aside from individuals, some institutions and consulting firms were also involved in the provision of psycho-social analysis, standardized questionnaires and computer analysis and processing of data.
3.	The total cost to date of the Bibeau Study has been estimated at $552,000.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What is the cost per issue of the Post Office publication Communication for (a) editorial staff (b) printing?
2.	(a) How many copies per issue are printed (b) to whom are they distributed (c) are they distributed free?
3.	Is there a full-time editor for the publication and, if so, (a) what is his salary (b) what support staff does he have?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: The publication "Communication" has been suspended for reconsideration of its format and frequency as part of the government constraint on expenditure.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) What was the total number of boats using the Rideau Canal during the 1976 season (b) what percentage was (i) American (ii) Canadian?
2.	What was the comparable figure for (a) 1974 (b) 1975 and, if there was a decrease, what was the (i) percentage (ii) reason and did the introduction of tolls in 197 5 have anything to do with it?
3.	What was the total amount of tolls collected in (a) 1975 (b) 1976?
4.	(a) What was the total operating cost of the Canal in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976 (b) in each case, what percentage of the cost of all operations was paid for by tolls?


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. (a) 6180 vessels (estimated), (b) (i) 26 percent American (ii) 74 percent Canadian.
2.	(a) 1974, 7900 Vessels (estimated), 35 percent American, 65 percent Canadian (b) 1975, 6550 Vessels (estimated), 33 percent American, 67 percent Canadian There was a decrease in vessels using the Rideau Canal in 1975 and 1976. (i) In 1975 vessels using the Rideau Canal decreased 17 percent from 1974. In 1976 vessels using the Rideau Canal decreased 22 percent from 1974. (ii) Reduction in number of vessels using the Rideau Canal in the opinion of Parks Canada was due to-1. Poor boating weather of 1976. 2. Bicentennial year in U.S. and premium on Canadian dollar. 3. Increased costs of fuel and service in 1975 and 1976. 4. Introduction of Canal tolls 1975 and continuation of revised tolls in 1976.
3.	(a) 1975 tolls collected $44,050. (b) 1976 tolls collected $34,772.
4.	(a)(i) 1975 Operations and Maintenance costs $2,241,000 (ii) 1976 Operations and Maintenance costs $2,431,000 (estimated); (b)(i) 1.9 percent (ii) 1.4 percent.

January 25, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Coates: 1.	What are the names of individual lawyers who are employed by CMHC in the Constituency of Cumberland-Colchester North and how was each selected?
2.	How much did each lawyer or law firm receive in fees and expenses in each fiscal year 1970-71 to date?
3.	Do individuals or corporations who secure financing through CMHC have to use law firms determined by CMHC in the legal work associated with the loans in question and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1 and 2. The following lawyers were retained by CMHC, in Cumberland and Colchester Counties, N.S., to process mortgage documentation arising from CMHC direct lending, from 1970 to September 1976: Amherst, W. B. Fairbanks; E. C. Hicks, Q.C.; Truro, Kenneth J. Brooks; W. J. Grant, Q.C.; H. R. Latimer; D. Arthur Nichols. Legal fees in connection with CMHC direct loans are paid by the borrower, and CMHC therefore, has no record of the amounts paid to these lawyers. The following lawyers were retained from 1970 to September 1976, to handle action where arrears on loans approved in Cumberland and Colchester Counties, N.S. required legal action:
Costs and Fees
Amherst E. C. Hicks, Q.C.	$7,357.52
Halifax Mclnnes, Cooper and Robertson	$2,824.28
Block, Prossin and Schelew	$4,381.84
3.	CMHC has, as a general rule, followed the practice of all government departments and agencies and employed agents approved by the Minister of Justice. The present practice with respect to CMHC is that, with the approval of the Minister of Justice, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs from time to time provides the Corporation with the names of legal agents who may be employed for these purposes in various municipalities throughout the country. In the case of loans for the provision of housing to persons of low income, requests for the employment of the borrower's solicitor or notary are in many cases granted where the employment will produce a financial advantage to the borrower. In addition, in the case of loans on existing housing, where the borrower has employed a solicitor or notary to carry out the work of acquiring the title to the property, CMHC may employ the borrower's solicitor or notary to act on behalf of CMHC.


Mr. Muir: How many individuals or firms hold consultant contracts with the Cape Breton Development Corporation at this date and what (a) are their names (b) is the objective of the contract (c) is the amount and term of the contract?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: As of October 20, 1976, twelve individuals and firms held consultant contracts with the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
(a)	(b)	(c)Name	Objective of the contract	Amount	Terms of contractCanada Consulting	Study the feasibility of	$13,325	April 1976 contract nowGroup Ltd.	manufacturing and marketing recreational vehicles	completedStudy the feasibility of manufacturing and marketing various types of mining equipment	21,500	April 1976 to be completed b) December 31, 1976Nova Scotia Research Foundation	Study the feasibility of manufacturing and marketing brick in Cape Breton	12,000	July 1976 awaiting ReportsD. Murray	Consultant for the opening development and operation of an 18th century mine as a tourist attraction	31,000	December 1973 to November 30, 1976R. MacKeen	Consultant on Marine Facilities in the Bras d'Or	67,000	January 1, 1974 ends December 31, 1976A. Forgeron	Consultant in scheduling and monitoring underground coal development	67,083	October 1, 1974 ends December 31, 1976

January 25, 1977

Order Paper Questions
(a)	(b)	(c)(vi)	N. Strong & Assoc.	Hardwood studies and mapping of forest resources	18,110	October 15, 1975 to November 1976(vii)	J. Lalanne	Design consultant and manager of 18th century French restaurant	18,000	January 1, 1976 to October 31, 1976(viii)	C. Gaye Johnson	Investigation the Salmon River Mine Project	2,000	Two weeks, report received October 23, 1976(ix)	K. Wardell & Assoc.	Advise on retreat extraction of coal barriers between longwalls in Lingan and No. 26 Collieries	1,500	Estimated one week(x)	John T. Hepburn Ltd.	Assessment of the condition of mine hoists	5,000	Estimated two weeks(xi)	Charles Smith	Design, organization and management of tourist restaurant Princess Colliery	6,690	July 1, 1976 ended October 31, 1976(xii)	N. Lynk	Wood utilization	1,673	July 1975 and as required.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	To the date this question is answered, what would be the current all-items Consumer Price Index if calculated from 1913 expressed in terms of 1949 equalling 100?
2.	(a) What was the all-item Consumer Price Index, if calculated from 1913 and expressed in terms of 1949 equalling 100, as of October (i) 1976 (ii) 1970 (iii) 1964 (iv) 1958 (v) 1952 (vi) 1946 (b) what was the percentage of change from the preceding six year period for each such period?
3.	What would be the current Consumer Price Index for (a) food (b) shelter (c) services excluding shelter (d) goods other than food, if calculated from 1913 and expressed in terms of 1949 equalling 100?
4.	What was the Consumer Price Index for (a) food (b) shelter (c) services other than shelter (d) goods other than food, if calculated from 1913 and expressed in terms of 1949 equalling 100 as of October (i) 1976 (ii) 1970 (iii) 1964 (iv) 1958 (v) 1952 (vi) 1946?
5.	What was the percentage of change for each period in Part 4 from the preceding six-year period?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports: 1. The All-Item Consumer Price Index for the month of October 1976 stood at 261.3 using 1949=100 as the time reference base.
2. (a) The All-Items Consumer Price Index, using 1949=100 as the time reference base, stood at the following
levels for the periods specified: (i) October 1976, 261.3; (ii) October 1970, 168.3; (iii) October 1964, 135.6; (iv), October 1958, 126.0; (v) October 1952, 116.0; (vi) October 1946, 79.5.
(b)	The percentage change in the All-Items Consumer Price Index between the corresponding months of these six-year periods was as follows: (i) October 1970 to October 1976, 55.3 per cent; (ii) October 1964 to October 1970, 24.1 per cent; (iii) October 1958 to October 1964, 7.6 per cent; (iv) October 1952 to October 1958, 8.6 per cent; (v) October 1946 to October 1952, 45.9 per cent.
3.	In October 1976 and using 1949=100 as time reference base, the Consumer Price Indices for the commodity groupings specified were as follows: (a) Food, 270.2; (b) Shelter, 328.6;
(c)	Services excluding Shelter, 385.2; (d) Goods other than Food, 197.4. It is to be noted that the composition of these groupings have slightly changed over time due to addition, deletion or reclassification of particular items. However, this does not impair the continuity of the index series since standard index linking procedures were used at time of change.
4.	The Consumer Price Indices for the commodity groupings referred to, stood at the following levels, using 1949=100 as time reference base, for the periods specified:
		(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)
				Services excluding	Goods
Food	Shelter	Shelter Services	Excluding Food(i)	October 1976	270.2	328.6	285.2	197.4(ii)	October 1970	159.9	209.9	237.3	139.9
2352

January 25, 1977
Order Paper Questions
		(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)
				Services excluding	Goods
Food	Shelter	Shelter Services	Excluding Food(iii)	October 1964	131.0	155.1	174.4	120.6(iv)	October 1958	123.4	139.6	151.5	115.6(v)	October 1952	115.1	121.5	121.1	113.1(vi)	October 1946	73.0	92.4	Not available 1	Not available 1
1 This grouping did not exist prior to 1949.
5. The percentage changes in the Consumer Price Indices sponding months of these six-year periods were as follows: for the commodity groupings specified between the corre-
		(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)
				Services excluding	Goods
Food	Shelter	Shelter Services	Excluding Foodper cent	per cent	per cent	per cent(i)	October 1970 October 1976	69.5	56.6	62.3	41.1(ii)	October 1964 October 1970	21.7	35.3	36.1	16.0(iii)	October 1958 October 1964	6.2	11.1	15.1	4.3(iv)	October 1952 October 1958	7.2	14.9	25.2	2.2(v)	October 1946 October 1952	57.7	31.5	Not available 1	Not available 11 This grouping did	not exist prior to 1949.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Has the government made an agreement to grant CBC a 5 percent increase in funding next year over and above inflation?
2.	What is this year's budget for CBC, not including the moneys allocated specifically for the Olympics?
3.	Does the government contemplate an increase in CBC's budget for next year of approximately $50 million?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: 1. In furtherance of the plans and priorities of the CBC, the Government has agreed to the principle of an average growth of 5 percent per year in real dollars, for a period of six years starting in 1976-77 subject to year by year parliamentary approval. In addition, allowance is made for increases in the Consumer Price Index and the relationship of government salaries to the C.P.I. as it applies to salaries and wages of the Corporation.
2.	The 1976-77 budget of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is $343.4 million for operating expenditures and $61.3 million for capital expenditures, excluding payments of $ 11.2 million to the CBC for coverage of the Olympics.
3.	Based on the calculation outlined in paragraph 1 above, the increase contemplated for the corporation in 1977-78 would be approximately $50 million but this will be for parliament to decide in the context of the 1977-78 Main Estimates.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many financial officer positions are currently budgeted for the Unemployment Insurance Commission, Chief of Control Systems and Quality Review Branch?
2.	How many are filled?
3.	Who is the current Chief of Control Systems and Quality Review?
4.	Since the establishment of the Chief of Control Systems and Quality Review position, in 1973, how many months was the position vacant?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. Seven positions.
2.	Five, one in each region.
3.	Vacant
4.	Vacant since 27 June, 1975, (Position established 1 April, 1974) as the commission is presently utilizing D.S.S. Audit Services to direct this function.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Were any instructions issued to District Managers or to anyone else in the Unemployment Insurance Commission to conduct, as quickly as possible, an immediate purge of their Central Registry Files of any confidential documents contained therein and, if so (a) on what date (b) by what means (c) by whom (d) what was the purpose leading to such instructions (e) for what reason (f) in what offices have steps been taken to purge such files (g) in what locations have such documents been placed in each case?
2.	Were any documents destroyed and, if so, on whose authority?

January 25, 1977


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Epp: 1.	What methods of purchase does the AECL use in the supplying of goods and services in the (a) safety division (b) stores division?
2.	Are tendering procedures being used in the supplying of AECL goods and services and, if not, what are the reasons for the present practices?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows: 1. Goods and services required in the (a) safety division and (b) the stores division are obtained on the basis of competitive quotations, where possible, for all requirements in excess of $500 value. Goods/services under $500 are procured at the discretion of a Purchasing Agent, based on his knowledge of the market.
2. Yes.


Mr. Bawden: What is the number of continuing employees in the Department of Supply and Services, on strength, September 30, 1976 for the following categories (a) executive (b) scientific and professional (c) administration and foreign service (d) technical (e) administrative support (0 operational?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: (a) 61; (b) 380; (c) 2,420; (d) 96; (e) 4,866; (f) 1,511; Total: 9,334.


Mr. Bawden: 1.	Did the Canadian Commercial Corporation grant an interest free loan of $1,742,780 from the Defence Production Revolving Fund and, if so (a) to what contractor (b) for which project?
2.	What is the nature of the claim that the contractor has with the CCC?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. The Department of Supply and Services under authority of the Defence Production Act entered into a $3.9 million interest free loan agreement on October 6, 1972 with CAE Aircraft Ltd., Winnipeg, and CAE Industries Ltd., Montreal for the overhaul of U.S. military T-39 Sabreliner aircraft, covered by a contract between CCC and CAE Aircraft Ltd. The contract was placed as a result of the acceptance by the U.S.A.F. of a bid by the contractor in response to a U.S.A.F. invitation for bid (IFB)-competitive tender. The present residual value of the loan is $1,742,780.
2. The contract was terminated for convenience of the customer government and the contractor is claiming for all costs incurred both prior to and after receiving notice of termination.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Howie: 1.	(a) What is the function of the Community Employment Strategy Office located at Fredericton, New Brunswick (b) how many persons are employed (c) as of November 1, 1976, what is the total of the annual wages (d) what is the rental for the premises (e) on what date did the Office open?
2.	Have any programmes of community employment strategy been (a) proposed (b) accepted (c) implemented and, if so, on what date in each case?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. (a) The Community Employment Strategy Office located at Fredericton, New Brunswick, is a joint federal-provincial operation which has, as its function, implementing and providing administrative support for CES in the Province of New Brunswick, (b) A total of seven persons are employed. Three of these are employees of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, (c) Total annual wages as of November 1st, 1976 for the three persons employed by the Department of Manpower and Immigration are $59,683. (d) Rental for the premises is $870.00 per month, (e) The office opened on November 10, 1975.
2. (a) An employment strategy outlining Manpower and Immigration implications for area activity in St. Quentin-Kedgwick was approved by the minister in August 1976. A number of provincial programs and services have been proposed and implemented along with federal initiatives. Federal programs proposed for this area include: (i) Five Local Initiative Program projects; (ii) Limited additional funding for four of these projects; (iii) Two "one-stop" service (integrated services) facilities; (iv) A number of additional training and other programs and services, (b) (i) LIP-approved; (ii) Additional LIP funding-approved; (iii) Integrated service facilities-approved; (iv) Additional training and other programs identified within the initial employment strategy-approved in principle, (c) (i) LIP-one project implemented ($67,000) November 1, 1976-Others as per regular LIP process; (ii) Supplementary funding-one implemented ($7,000) November 1, 1976-Others as per regular LIP contracts; (iii) Integrated Service Facility-implemented August, 1976: program cost to date-$1,400; (iv) Employment Strategy components-will be implemented as appropriate commencing January, 1977. One component of the strategy already implemented consists of $16,304, Manpower Training on-the-job contract relating to Native and Rural Housing. Program and service activity of both levels of government in the St. Quen-tin-Kedgwick area has directly affected 64 persons for employment or training. A second CES area in New Brunswick, Fredericton, has recently been approved (November, 1976). An employment strategy outlining program and service activity of both levels of government is now being developed.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): Has a task force on relocation of departments and agencies to Hull been formed and, if so (a) who are the members (b) what are the terms of reference (c) has it begun to function (d) on what date is a report expected and will it be Tabled in the House or published as a White Paper?
80008-12V2

January 25, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Robert Knight Andras: No. (a) not applicable; (b) not applicable; (c) not applicable;
(d)	not applicable.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is the government aware of the statement made by the Director of the Processed Food Division of the Japanese Food Agency in Vancouver recently that "Canada either cleans up the aggravating grain handling situation which is a discredit to the Port of Vancouver or Japan will turn to other suppliers for its wheat and barley supplies" and, if so, what action is the government taking to ensure that the negative results of snowslides, insufficient storage and loading capacity and labour disputes will be overcome in the future?


Otto Emil Lang: As a result of government awareness of West Coast grain handling problems, the Canadian Transport Commission appointed a Grain Car Co-ordinator to coordinate efforts to improve the throughput of grain through Vancouver. More recently the Canadian Wheat Board has initiated a storage construction incentive program which has led to proposals for the construction of an additional 10.4 million bushels storage capacity. This will significantly improve our west coast grain throughput. At the same time efforts are also being directed at achieving a more consistent use of the elevator at Prince Rupert. The Canadian Wheat Board storage incentive program has been extended for Prince Rupert while the Canadian Grain Commission has requested proposals from the grain trade aimed at ensuring a better utilization of this facility. Both railways have ongoing programs aimed at stabilizing rock walls and reducing slide problems in the Fraser Canyon. At the same time, new rail interconnections have been constructed in the Vancouver area. These actions will have the effect of reducing, if not eliminating, many of the rail delays that have occurred in the past. Vancouver port labour problems have been the focus of much attention in recent years. Thanks to consistent efforts by all concerned there has been a steady improvement in labor relations at the port. In summary the government is aware of the past problems of moving grain through the west coast and has in hand programs designed to reduce these problems.


Mr. Cadieu: Has compensation been paid to any individual, group, association or the Government of Saskatchewan by the Department of National Defence for the lease of land for the Primrose Lake bombing range in Northwestern Saskatchewan and, if so (a) on what date (b) to whom and by what method (c) how much?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes. (a) Annually on March 31. (b) To the province of Saskatchewan by government of Canada cheque, (c) 1954-74 $88,813 per annum; 1974-76, $453,570 per annum.


Mr. Beatty: 1. What was the cost to the taxpayer of the advertisement on the back cover of the December 11, 1976 issue of Weekend Magazine informing readers that the (Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).]
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs likes fairness in the marketplace and supports Canadians' right to "receive honest information"?
2.	Did the Minister visit his Department's offices in Place du Portage at any time prior to placing the advertisement?
3.	Was the mailing address in the advertisement and, if so (a) for what reason (b) is this the Minister's departmental address?
4.	Would the Minister agree that giving the address of his departmental offices as "Place du Portage, Ottawa/Hull" is an example of misleading advertising?
Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): 1. $16,860.
2.	Yes the Minister has worked in the departmental office regularly since his appointment.
3.	(a). Yes, to provide an address for consumer responses, (b) Yes.
4.	No.


Mr. Lawrence: For the 1973 taxation year, how many persons in Canada with a taxable income of (a) $20,000 to $25,000 (b) $25,000 to $50,000 (c) $50,000 to $100,000 (d) $100,000 and over, received unemployment insurance benefits and, in each income class, what was the total amount paid?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: See reply to question 1,047 answered December 17, 1976.


Mr. Lawrence: For the 1974 taxation year, how many persons in Canada with a taxable income of (a) $20,000 to $25,000 (b) $25,000 to $50,000 (c) $50,000 to $100,000 (d) $100,000 and over, received unemployment insurance benefits and, in each income class, what was the total amount paid?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: See reply to question 1,048 answered December 17, 1976.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 753 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately. The reason is the length and complexity of the requested information.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure that question No. 753 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
January 25, 1977


Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31,1975, March 31,1976 and September 30, 1976, how much had the government loaned to or invested in Crown corporations, including departmental corporations, agency corporations, proprietary corporations or any other type of public enterprise entity and, what were the 10 largest corporations or entities in which or to which the government had invested or loaned money?
2.	(a) What was the (i) net profit or loss for the 10 largest Crown corporations (ii) aggregate profit or loss for all Crown corporations for each fiscal year since 1968 (b) what is the aggregate percentage of return for all Crown corporations on government investment to date?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, January 24, consideration of the motion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen):
That this House approves the radio and television broadcasting of its proceedings and of the proceedings of its committees on the basis of principles similar to those that govern the publication of the printed official reports of debates; and
That a special committee, consisting of Mr. Speaker and seven other members to be named at a later date be appointed to supervise the implementation of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. When the amendment was moved by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) yesterday, the Chair expressed reservations about the procedural regularity, and it was reserved until there was an opportunity to examine the matter further.
On the one hand I recognize that the motion before the House calls for approval of the televising and radio broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and for implementation by a committee without interim report to the House. An hon. member who supports both the approval of the televising and broadcasting of our proceedings and also the implementation of them, but who seeks, perhaps, implementation in a different manner, ought to have an orderly way available to him by which to put before the House an alternative proposal for implementation by way of amendment-perhaps even including some constraints, although they would have to be viewed individually at the time-so long as such amendments in the subsequent paragraphs do not introduce the possible negation of the primary paragraph of the motion as amended.
Broadcasting House Proceedings
On the other hand, the amendment that was offered by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, in referring the matter to a standing committee for study and report, seems to me to invite some decision by the House when the report or reports are received. Since such a decision might be negative, the effect would be that by voting in favour of the amended motion, the House had approved something in the first paragraph respecting which it was at least guarding the option to disapprove in the later paragraphs of the amendment.
Further, by paragraph 3, the amendment seems to raise a new notion of experimentation. This may be a new proposition, and an additional difficulty may be that it leaves unclear, after a vote on the amended motion, whether the House has in fact approved the implementation of the televising and broadcasting of its proceedings, or whether it has approved only a trial.
Since, after examining these difficulties, I am left with some considerable doubt, I thought it appropriate to indicate to those hon. members involved that I would invite argument on the matter at this time. I would hope to give consideration to the arguments presented and render a decision before five o'clock this afternoon.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker).


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I understood what you said, but so that my argument may be directed to the exact point you raised, may I conclude from what you said that viewing the questions that were raised yesterday by Mr. Deputy Speaker, those questions are not in issue and that the issue I have to face is that raised by yourself? I wonder if I could have that matter clarified, as it would make quite a difference in the argument that I think I should put forward in answer to both points.


Mr. Speaker:: To paraphrase what I said, there were two difficulties. Of course, I am inviting argument, and other difficulties may be raised by those who participate in the discussion. 1 see two difficulties: first, that the amendment, certainly by way of experimentation, may be raising a new proposition which entirely lies outside the scope of the original motion. Second, both by asking for a decision by a standing committee and by making reference to the possibility of a trial basis, the motion may offend the citation on page 389 of Erskine May's nineteenth edition, which reads as follows:
Every amendment proposed to be made, either to a question or to a proposed amendment, should be so framed that, if agreed to by the House, the question or amendment, as amended, would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
Therefore, the difficulties that I see are twofold: the amendment may become inconsistent with itself in agreeing to a certain proposition in its first paragraph and leaving out the subsequent disagreements in the later paragraphs, and also by introducing a new proposition by way of experimentation. That is, of course, subject to any other argument that may be raised, but that is what I am asking hon. members to comment upon.


Walter David Baker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With respect to our motion put forward yesterday, first you

January 25, 1977
Broadcasting House Proceedings suggest that the amendment may permit the committee to which it is referred totally to reject the principle of broadcasting. This is, in fact, negativing the basic purpose of the motion. I gather that Your Honour's second point is that you feel the paragraph referring to an experiment may be a totally new proposal which is incompatible with the motion.
On the first point I should like to suggest that the principle of broadcasting is specifically not touched by the amendment which, as you know, does not amend the first paragraph of the motion. It is the intention and direction of the amendment to set the committee to work, with the clear knowledge that the principle has been discussed and approved by this House. Nowhere in the body of the amendment does it say that the committee may examine the fundamental question of whether televising and broadcasting are to be allowed.
Hon. members may have noted that most of the amendment is a direct quotation from the 1972 report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. As the government House leader noted in his speech, this report approved the principle of broadcasting. Actually, the amendment specifically asks for the cost of and technical study of buildings, equipment, personnel and other requirements consequent upon the introduction of radio and television broadcasting. There is no mention in the amendment of the advisability of broadcasting. That particular proposition, as I view the amendment, is accepted for better or worse by the motion if it is amended in this way. I simply want to make it clear that the material tabled could well be supplemented by other material which I am sure has already been prepared, or may have been prepared. I would be surprised if it had not been prepared.
The last paragraph of the proposed amendment goes further than the 1972 report which suggested that the committee may make further recommendations for ultimate decision. I moved in my amendment that the committee should be authorized, in light of such studies and experiments, to make further recommendations to the House before permanent broadcasting facilities are installed. That is the point of my argument. If I had intended my amendment to permit a rejection of broadcasting, I would have said that there should be further recommendations as to whether permanent broadcasting facilities should be installed. In the context of the motion, the word "before" means ahead of, or prior to, in time. I suggest that is how the matter ought to be interpreted.
May I now speak to the middle paragraph dealing with privilege. That paragraph openly gives the committee the reference which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) said was intended for it during his speech. It is always possible that the committee, despite the motion, could produce a hostile report. I suppose that theoretically could happen to a bill in committee. Theoretically, it is always possible for a committee to do something unexpected or procedurally incorrect. If and when that happens, the Chair must examine the report and make a ruling at that time. I suggest, however, that such report is not contemplated by the

amendment I proposed yesterday and would, indeed, be contrary to its explicit acceptance of the principle of the motion. The amendment lacks any wording which would justify the reopening by the committee of the fundamental question. That is the argument I advance to justify my position. However, with respect to the second point-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I interrupt the hon. member in order to clarify one point. There is not merely the concern that the committee may steer the matter in a direction such as the hon. member has just described. My difficulty goes beyond that and it is this: The committee may make a report which is not inconsistent with the view taken by the House now; but if the committee is to report, in my opinion that presumes that when the committee reports the House must make a decision on the basis of the report. If there is no basis on which the House can take a decision, presumably there is not much point in having the committee make a report. On the other hand, if there is to be some basis on which the House can take some future decision, my difficulty becomes apparent, and it is this: the procedure set out by the amendment would leave it open to the House at a future time either to fail to concur in the report, to reject the report, or in some way to take a negative position with respect to the report of the committee. That would mean that the House says it approves the televising of its proceedings, but may in the future disapprove. That is the fundamental difficulty of the amendment.


Walter David Baker: Sir, I suggest that is neither implicit nor explicit in the words of the amendment, an amendment to a motion which approves in principle the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House. That is what I meant when I said that the Chair would have to examine the report and make a ruling with respect to it after it had been brought forward. With respect, I do not think that ruling ought to be made now. I specifically do not think it ought to be made, in light of the wording of the motion proposed. As I have said, such a report is not contemplated by the amendment. Frankly, I think such a report would be contrary to the explicit acceptance of the principle of the motion. There is, as I have said, a lack of words in the amendment which would justify the committee's reopening the fundamental question of the motion.
The second point which I understand is troubling the Chair concerns the reference to an experiment. That suggestion, I admit, was also taken from the 1972 report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. That committee favoured only a closed circuit experiment. I brought forward that suggestion because I intended the term "experiment" to be part of my elaboration, for the committee's benefit, of the word "implementation" in the original motion. If the reference to that experiment stood alone as an amendment, or if that term were read in the context of a paragraph giving the committee permission to examine the whole principle of the question and bring in a report contrary to the principle of the motion, then I would agree that there would be a substantial alteration in the direction of the motion. However, if Your

Honour were to read the said paragraph in conjunction with that part dealing with the acceptance of the principle, I think my intent would become clear. The committee should be able to assure the House, after an experiment, that any technical equipment, personnel or procedural problems may be eliminated or can be eliminated if lessons learned from the experiment are applied when the permanent facilities come into operation. That is the context in which the matter ought to be viewed.
In my speech yesterday I said that my party accepts the principle of broadcasting the proceedings of the House but is concerned about the nature of the implementation process and the lack of input by parliamentarians. I put forward this amendment because I wanted to spell out what could be discussed by the committee supervising the implementation. I thought the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization more suitable for that kind of supervision than the committee proposed by the government. I suggest that in some ways I clarified, and in some ways expanded, what the government had put forward in the motion. But the motion, amended or unamended-the point is important-will lead to the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House after input by the committee during the implementation stage. That is putting the matter in the proper order.
I suggest, in closing, and I say this with respect, that we differ only on the detail and not on the basic intent of the motion. I hope I have assisted the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: There is one point on which the hon. member and the Chair seem to be in disagreement. The difficulty arises from the fact that the hon. member's amendment removes the actual stage of implementation from the motion. The motion now includes both approval and implementation. The hon. member's amendment would set up some intervening steps before implementation; in fact, it would remove the implementation step. Because the implementation step is left open, the Chair is left in the position that the House may later decide not to implement, when in fact the original intent of the motion was to do so. That is part of the difficulty. Perhaps the hon. member would consider that while other hon. members argue this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when you read the paragraph from page 389 of May's nineteenth edition, you quoted the citation on which I base my argument in connection with this motion. I point out that those same words appear on page 171 of Beauchesne's fourth edition as part of citation 203(1), which reads in part:
Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the House the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.


Mr. Benjamin:: The Tories are not consistent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am looking at page 171. I note one or two other references, although my argument will be based mainly on the citation I have already
Broadcasting House Proceedings read. But we are also told, in subparagraph (3) of citation 203, that:
An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and cannot be moved.
I suggest that in so far as the proposed amendment brings in something that is foreign to the main motion, namely, a committee to consider whether or not, as opposed to a committee to supervise implementation, the amendment is foreign to the purpose of the main motion. I congratulate my friend, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), for recognizing the point that Your Honour made from the Chair and for trying to deal with it. As I take Your Honour's point, you are telling us that if this amendment were carried and the House had to vote on the motion as amended, we would have before us a proposition that would be inconsistent with itself. On one hand we would be saying that we approved the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House, but on the other hand we would be saying we are not going to do this until the committee has conducted experiments and made certain studies, that committee having the right to make further recommendations to the House. I appreciate the attempt of my friend from Grenville-Carleton to say that he does not intend that that committee should have the right to abrogate the approval that is contained in the first paragraph, but I suggest that that right is contained in the words of the amendment.
The original motion provides for a committee to supervise the implementation of something to which the House has agreed. The amendment proposes a different kind of committee, a committee to study the "ifs," "ands", "buts" and "therefores," with the right to make further reports before implementation is proceeded with. If we had that kind of motion before us, a motion amended in that way, we would have something that would not be intelligible. It would not be consistent with itself. In fact, the House could well be in a quandary as to how to vote on such an amended motion. On one hand it would say we approve the broadcasting of our proceedings, and on the other hand it would say we do not approve that process until there has been a committee study, it being accorded to the committee that it could make further recommendations. Since there is no limit to the recommendations it could make, the committee could recommend that we not go ahead with the proposition. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton cannot ask to have it both ways. What we ought to have is a clear vote on whether we go ahead or not. The hon. member is asking that we seem to say "Yes" in paragraph one, but that we say "Maybe yes, maybe no" in the rest of the paragraphs.
I do not think that the debate needs to be dragged out. Your Honour stated the questions that face us with regard to this amendment. I think you were right in quoting the paragraph you did from May's nineteenth edition. Because this amendment would put before us an unintelligible and inconsistent proposition, I think it should not be allowed as being procedurally in order.

January 25, 1977
Broadcasting House Proceedings


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, the main motion is amended in one particular only. It substitutes one committee for another. Only the second paragraph of the main motion is deleted. There is no derogation whatsoever about the question of approval of the radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of this House. At page 2303 of Hansard, second column, appears the amendment put forward by my colleague. There is nothing new; it concerns only the nature of the committee. The amendment substitutes a House committee on procedure and organization to look into the matters outlined. The main motion has a special committee under Mr. Speaker to supervise the implementation of the resolution.
If that committee failed to look into all the points contained in the amendment, I respectfully submit it would be derelict in its duty. If it found something very objectionable or very difficult, it might find it necessary to come back to the House. One must not close off the possibility that the committee envisaged by the main motion would have to come back to the House, unless the people on the committee are going to be mere sidewalk superintendents gawking at a technical installation. If the committee finds, for example, that there is a very grave difficulty with regard to the law of libel, what is its position? Under its mandate to supervise the implementation that committee might have to come back to the House and say there has to be a change in the law of libel. Supervision of the implementation covers everything, not just the mere technical installation.
If we look at the committee that was envisaged, the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, there is nothing contained in those words which derogates from the approval that is given. I want to be very careful about the language here, "That the committee be authorized"-merely be given permission, if need be-to make further recommendations. To do what? To make a recommendation with regard to the law of libel? I suggest that the committee under the chairmanship of the Speaker would have to do precisely that. So what is the difference? Its proper supervision of the implementation includes all of those things and possibly many more.
The House committee is only to be authorized; it does not have to, but is merely authorized. As a matter of fact, a proper drafting of the first resolution would have given the committee under Mr. Speaker direct authorization to make reports if it felt it should. Since it does not, all I will say as a member of this House is that if the committee runs into some very serious difficulties in the implementation of the resolution and fails to report to this House, fails to seek recommendations from this House, it will be derelict in its duty. To that extent, I submit there is a proper amendment because the nature of the committee has been changed: there has been a change from one thing to another. There is nothing foreign at all. It is a mere quibbling of words to say that there has been a fundamental change in the nature of the resolution.

Therefore, I submit that the amendment is perfectly correct in that it does not in any way derogate from the approval given by the House. The committee is in one case given permission to report to the House; in the other case the committee will be extremely derelict if it fails to do so. To that extent, I submit the amendment is in order.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that you and your deputy took the admissibility of this amendment under advisement yesterday, because we on the government side have grave reservations about its propriety and suggest it is out of order for reasons to which Your Honour made reference this afternoon as well as those mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
Yesterday Your Honour referred to two citations from Beauchesne's which bear upon this matter, citations 202(6) and 202(15). The first of these states:
It is not an amendment to a motion to move that the question go to a committee.
I would simply point out that the last part of the proposed amendment obviously raises this problem about which Your Honour spoke earlier this afternoon. It means, presumably, that the committee, as Your Honour suggested, might recommend that somehow the principle of an electronic Hansard might not be proceeded with, and in this respect the amendment might have the effect of referring the question to a committee and might well be out of order in light of the citation from Beauchesne that I have just put on record. There is the further difficulty that it raises the possibility of the House approving two inconsistent propositions in the same breath, as it were.
I should like to refer more extensively to citation 202(15), which reads in part:
An amendment approving part of a motion and disapproving the remainder is out of order.
And later on in the same citation, this wording is used, "An amendment to disapprove what the main motion approves is out of order." This aspect was referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I would like to make two points about it. In the first place, the supervision of the implementation of the resolution by a special committee consisting of Your Honour and seven other members constitutes an important principle-the direct involvement of the Speaker as the key individual responsible for the implementation of the resolution. As such, it is a central part of the question to be decided. The amendment, by establishing an entirely different mechanism for supervising the implementation of the resolution, disapproves what the main motion approves and is, therefore, I suggest, out of order.
Second, paragraphs three and four of the amendment instruct that experimental broadcasts be undertaken in consultation with the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, and that the committee be authorized to make further recommendations to the House before permanent broadcasting
January 25, 1977

facilities are installed. This, in effect, disapproves what the main motion approves, since the first paragraph in the main motion authorizes broadcasting on principles similar to those governing the publication of the printed official reports of the debates. Beyond doubt, a central principle governing publication of printed reports is that the reports be complete. The amendment would have the effect of instructing that an incomplete or experimental record be produced. Moreover, it would establish a committee which would not be empowered to arrange for broadcasting the debates on principles similar to those governing the publication of the printed record. This clearly frustrates the purpose of the main motion, that is to say, to establish a committee empowered to supervise implementation.
For these reasons, as well as those addressed to Your Honour by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I suggest that the reservations expressed yesterday were well-founded and that the proposed amendment is out of order.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say something first of all about the motion itself. I believe that intrinsically it is sound in the sense that it is not out of order. In other respects, I believe it is a very bad motion, that it is inequitable and that it should not have been put down in its present form. However, this is not enough to enable me to suggest that it ought not to be accepted. If that were the case, over the last 13 years a great many motions put forward by the government would have been thrown out.
I precede my few comments by saying that I, personally, favour the principle of broadcasting the proceedings of the House by way of television and radio. I have been of this mind for a number of years and I shall say so again when I speak later this afternoon. I thought I would tell the Chair that, so that the Chair might know I am not trying to suggest that anything be done which would interfere with the motion being put. Possibly this is a case where the Chair, acting in a judicial capacity, might consider equitable principles in addition to the application of the Standing Orders.
The motion in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) asks the House to approve the radio and television broadcasting of its proceedings, and the proceedings of committees, on the basis of principles similar to those which govern the publication of the official reports of debates. This, Mr. Speaker, involves a set of principles going back 135 years, changed, twisted and tortured from time to time by discussions, debates and decisions of the Chair in the House of Commons both at Westminster and here. Your Honour will know from your experience in the Chair that a number of these principles are even yet not firmly fixed. You will recall that a special committee of the House, under your chairmanship, has been given responsibility to deal with certain of the aspects covered by those words I have mentioned. I refer to the special committee on rights and immunities. That committee has not yet reported, so I shall not go into that aspect in detail. But Your Honour will recognize the difficulty attaching to some of the problems with which the committee is dealing. I say this as one who is strongly of the belief that
Broadcasting House Proceedings radio and television broadcasting of our proceedings should be brought about.
I am not without concern with regard to related problems. As I say, the special committee under Your Honour's chairmanship will be considering some of the very issues which are bound to be brought to the attention of another committee should the present motion go through. I can look ahead and envisage the possibility of two committees reaching two different decisions, one committee being compelled to report to the House and the other authorized by the motion before us to proceed with the implementation of the principle of televising and radio broadcasting our proceedings.
In these circumstances, as a friend of the court, one might say, I make the following suggestion. I am sure the President of the Privy Council is aware of these problems and I shall deal with them later on when I speak. My hon. friend from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has adverted to them. I have considered these things over a number of years, and Your Honour is aware that they are not easy issues to determine. I am sure it is not without some interest to hon. members to know that in most jurisdictions where the televising or radio broadcasting of proceedings has been permitted, accompanying legislation has either been enacted or recommended. My hon. friend for Edmonton West put his finger on this; we have considered it. I think it is most likely, when we open this Pandora's box, as we must, and set loose some of the objects inside the box, that we may well be driven to enacting some form of legislation.
I should like to think that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), and my hon. friend for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), would consider reframing this motion in terms which will give effect to the kind of concern that a number of us, who still favour televising our proceedings, have so as to permit a committee of the type envisaged in this motion to consider this particular aspect and, if necessary, to report back to the House. I do not need to recall to Your Honour that there is no constraint placed upon this particular committee which is to be established under the motion to report back to the House; it is a mechanism for implementation, which is, of course, one of the problems Your Honour has raised.
In view of those facts, I think we would be very unwise to let this motion go without having an opportunity to study the kind of caveat I have attempted to make and which has been referred to by my hon. friend for Edmonton West. Perhaps a motion could be drafted which would take into account these matters, not one which would prevent the passage of the motion or one corresponding to it, or the implementation of the motion, but which would take into account the very serious difficulties which lie ahead.
There is nothing to stop the committee, on the basis of this motion, from meeting under Your Honour's chairmanship and two months from now proposing that implementation commence forthwith, having regard to what might be called the physical and mechanical situation. Much as I favour and

Broadcasting House Proceedings strongly approve of so much of what might be done and can be done by broadcasting the proceedings of this House, I would be very unhappy unless there were some constraint in respect thereof and the dangers that exist were taken into account. I make this suggestion, Mr. Speaker, in the hope that some time might be given to allow the debate to continue. It may well be possible to frame a motion which does not in any way restrict what the government is proposing to do, but which does take into account the potential dangers that 1 have tried to point out.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, given the importance of the subject you have dealt with in the House of Commons, that is whether or not the motion on resolution No. 8 was acceptable, I would like to make the following point: resolution No. 8 is in fact a statement of principle. It comes down to saying that the House approves, in a general way, the radio and television broadcasting of its proceedings and of the proceedings of its committees on the basis of principles similar to those that govern the publication of the debates. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is a resolution which on the whole is non limitative and which constitutes acceptance in principle of the television broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its committees. The resolution does not indicate any application date. In the second paragraph, it says that there will be a committee.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the creation of this committee is precisely what should incite you, with all due respect, to accept the resolution submitted by the hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker). For the very simple reason that the government motion proposes:
That a special committee, consisting of Mr. Speaker and seven other members to be named at a later date, be appointed to supervise the implementation of this resolution.
The first part of the motion amounts to a mere approval of the broadcasting of the debates of the House of Commons to allow Canadians to know how we are working. In the same breath the government proposes the creation of a special committee over which you will preside and which will supervise the implementation, but the implementation of what? The implementation of technical measures relating to the approval in principle of the first part of the motion, the broadcasting of the debates, which, Mr. Speaker, indicates that the government will study the technical details when and only when the broadcasting of the debates will have been adopted in principle.
Mr. Speaker, contrary to the opinion of my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who referred to citation 203(1) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms where it is said that the essence of a proposed amendment should not be changed, the amendment that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) proposed does not change the government motion. As far as I know after reading and rereading it several times, it is not opposed to the broadcasting of the debates either.
[Miv Baldwin.]
Mr. Speaker, the amendment of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton in no way opposes the essence of the government motion, quite the contrary. But the principle or the aim of the amendment, and this is what we should remember, is that a special committee be created. Instead of proposing the creation of a special committee, the hon. member proposes to refer the matter to the Committee on Procedure and Organization. Before approving in principle the broadcasting of the debates, the hon. member proposes that we study right now the technical aspects relating to the approval of the broadcasting of the debates.
Mr. Speaker, consequently his amendment is not opposed to the essence of the motion presented by the leader of the government. Strictly speaking, we want to know if we are really going to be aware of the consequences of the broadcasting of the debates before or after approving the motion.
In his resolution the government leader proposes that we accept to have the proceedings broadcast and that a special committee be appointed under your chairmanship to supervise the technicalities of the implementation of such a resolution. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) proposes that we do not oppose the televising of proceedings and that the question be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization-which already exists and which is a committee of the House of Commons-for a study of its technical implications. As the second paragraph of the resolution puts it:
That the cost and technical studies of building, equipment, personnel and other requirements consequent upon the introduction of radio and television broadcasting of the House of Commons and its committees be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization for study and report.
The question before us therefore is not whether to refer to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization the principle of broadcasting House proceedings, for that would not be the situation if we were to adopt the resolution of the hon. member of Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). This committee would not be responsible for studying the principle of broadcasting House proceedings. This is irrelevant and therefore I submit that the motion of the hon. member of Grenville-Carleton is in order; it would allow us, before we start broadcasting House proceedings, to know what are the technical implications, the costs, the periods of broadcasting and what consequences it would have on the rights and immunity of the members of the House. I sincerely hope that Your Honour will recognize that the amendment moved by my colleague the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is in order.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for indicating that I might be able to say something at the close about what has been said during the course of this discussion. With respect, I do not think I should deal in considerable detail with the provisions in our rules referred to by the parliamentary secretary. He referred to citation 202 of Beauchesne's, I think paragraph (6), and I think he also referred to citation 201. However, I gather from what Your
January 25, 1977

Honour said at the outset that that is not the issue which is troubling you.
In respect of the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), I certainly would have no objection to sitting down with the government House leader to see whether something acceptable could be worked out in the way of terms of reference to that committee in the spirit suggested by the hon. member for Peace River. I tried to make that clear in my speech yesterday, as I tried equally today to make it clear that in terms of broadcasting the procedures of the House, the position of this party, as well as my own personal position, is as has been expressed by the hon. member for Peace River. If something can be done in that respect, I would be the first to agree with the proposal; I think it is constructive.
All of us in the House want this matter to proceed in a proper and orderly way. I must confess to you, Mr. Speaker- and I think it is proper that I make my confession here-that I am very much concerned about the fact that Your Honour will be the chairman of the committee proposed by the government to deal with the issue. This has been one of my concerns, though I have not said it before, and that is why I am confessing it here. I am concerned about the fact that you will find yourself as chairman, firstly from your personal point of view, certainly, but as well from the point of view of the institution of the Chair as it has developed in this House. I can see the possibility of dangers for the Chair, and I do not think Mr. Speaker should be involved in that way.
There is another aspect of concern. If the hon. member for Peace River is correct in terms of what he is urging in the context of his speech, that the committee examine, then the committee Your Honour would chair under the motion as originally drafted, as opposed to the committee 1 suggested should be constituted, namely, the committee on procedure and organization, might very well refer the question of privilege, immunities and rights to another committee chaired by you, namely, the committee in which the hon. member for Peace River is involved. All in all, I think this is not the most constructive way of proceeding, notwithstanding the fact that I believe we should proceed in the way suggested and approved of in principle; that is, by way of a committee of the House with the responsibility of dealing with the important matters it ought to consider in terms of the implementation that is set forth and agreed to, as I tried to make clear in the first part of my motion.
In terms of the merit of the questions that you have put to me today, Mr. Speaker, I should like to advance one further proposition, and that is a proposition well known to both of us. In a parliamentary sense, at least, it is the proposition that I would call, for want of a better phrase, that of reasonable doubt. This is a proposition that applies to drafting generally. If there is or might be, some doubt as to the purport of an amendment, then that doubt ought to be resolved in favour of validity. Naturally, I would hope Your Honour would not be
Broadcasting House Proceedings driven to that point, but I would respectfully remind you, without repeating it, of the proposition I put first.
I want to close by saying that my amendment was advanced very seriously, out of a very serious concern for this institution. It was advanced in the spirit of the statements I made in my speech yesterday on the principles involved in broadcasting the proceedings of this House. As I said in my speech, I find great difficulty, and others may not, in suggesting to the people of Canada that they do not have the right to see what goes on in their own parliament. That is the spirit in which the motion was advanced, and that is the spirit in which I am prepared to accept the suggestion put to me by my learned predecessor. I would be delighted to meet with the government House leader to see if we can resolve this matter.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the importance of the commments made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) on the irregularity of this amendment. I believe that as the argument unfolded in the debate it became clear that in a sense the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton was presenting a proposition different to the one embodied in the main motion.
I support the argument by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when he suggested that acceptance of the irregularity of the amendment would place the House in an inconsistent position in dealing with the motion, because if the amendment were adopted it would be inconsistent with itself. The motion provides for a particular framework, and the motion must be looked at as a whole. It calls for the acceptance by the House of radio and television broadcasting of its proceedings and the proceedings of committees in accordance with principles similar to those that govern the printed record. Part of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton contradicts that particular proposal because he talks about special or experimental broadcasting.
We have deliberately sought this committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker as a very important element in the framework because of the authority and prestige the office holds, and because this is a committee of implementation and not of study and report. In a sense, that is the framework we have put forward. As I understand the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, it is entirely different: it is a different proposition calculated to do different things.
I am not arguing against the desirability of new proposals being advanced, or suggesting that this is the only way in which this can be done. However, looking at it from a procedural point of view, I am persuaded that there is here a new proposition and that the application of Beauchesne's citation 202(15) goes directly to this point. Beauchesne refers to an amendment ruled out of order, and indicates that the Speaker has ruled that an amendment disapproving the principle of the main motion is out of order. Surely the amendment is designed to disapprove the basic framework that we have proposed.

January 25, 1977
Broadcasting House Proceedings
I argue, therefore, in support of your intimations and the cogent argument made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that this amendment is out of order. I take note, of course, of the comments made by the hon. member for Peace River, picked up by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, that it may be possible through negotiations to reach a common motion incorporating some of the elements that have been proposed and the elements that I regard as essential.
It was my view that in giving the committee the power and the authority of the House to implement, obviously it would take into account the personnel requirements, the equipment, the cost and the technical studies. These matters will be very much in the purview of the committee, as would be the rights and the immunities of members of the House. The implementing committee could deal with these, and indeed I could find myself, with a change of wording, accepting the third paragraph. Instead of talking about "experimental broadcasts", if we talk about "special broadcasts" prior to the implementation of a permanent system, then that, too, could be discussed further. But I do not believe we could accept any proposals that would prejudice a decision taken now by the House in support of the principles of television, charging a committee with implementing it. However, certainly it was my intention that that committee seek out and ensure that proper safeguards are put into place in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of the amendment. So there may be room for bringing together a composite motion that would be desirable, because this question is a matter for the House as a whole. If we could do it in that way, it would be much better, and certainly I would seek to do it within the parameters that are important to me and taking into account the factors that are important to hon. members and upon which they have laid particular stress.
In reply to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton with respect to the chairmanship of this committee by Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we have had in the past Mr. Speaker act as the chairman of the committee on procedure and organization when we had to deal with unsettled matters by the House. Here we would be settling the principle and saying to the committee that the principle is settled and that now the committee should implement it in accordance with whatever exhortations we may want to put in the resolution as a whole. But I have confidence that Mr. Speaker and a group of seven members could be given the authority of the House to implement this motion.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for your indulgence, that this latter part of my comments did not deal directly with the point of order, but I did want to respond to the comments made by the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I indicated at the outset, on the one hand I have some sympathy with the position of the hon. member who in looking upon this motion is in favour both of what has been described as the principle of televising and broadcasting the proceedings of the House and of implementa-

tion, but has some misgivings about the matters raised by way of the amendment of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). That position is conceded on all sides to be a valid one, expressing concerns about some aspects of the motion without attempting to depart from the main thrust of the motion, that is to say, the implementation of televising and radio broadcasting of our proceedings.
I have a special sympathy for that position in view of the fact, as I think hon. members will understand, that a motion such as this, distinct from a bill or a matter of budgetary estimates, does not have a committee stage built into it at which members who have concerns about cost and other considerations have the opportunity to question the minister who is taking responsibility for the carriage of the particular budgetary item or the particular bill before the House.
Accordingly, in a situation where a member seeks to give his approval to a motion that is on the order paper, but at the same time wishes to obtain clarification of whether certain costs are involved, whether certain structural changes might affect or prejudice the House, or whether there are questions about the rights and immunities of members, and whether it is appropriate that the committee be of one form or another, he does not have the opportunity to gain that sort of exchange in a debate on this kind of motion.
I therefore hope that hon. members will realize that I deeply sympathize with the position taken by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. In the final analysis, however, I am left with what is perhaps a narrow difficulty, but one which in my opinion is insurmountable; that is, that the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has one fatal flaw, despite all its merits which have been conceded on all sides. Here I must disagree with the description of that amendment put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert); and I think it is innocently done. While the intent of the amendment clearly seems to be that the implementation procedures simply be changed, I am driven to conclude that the fact the implementation procedures are removed is the fatal difficulty, because the amendment does not say anywhere that instead of a Speaker's committee or some other committee implementing it in the way the motion is described, the committee on procedure and organization will supervise the implementation. What it does say is that, instead, the matter will be sent to committee for study and report and that certain steps will be taken before implementation, but it does not say that implementation will in fact take place.
In my opinion, this means that the two difficulties remain. One is that implementation may not take place if the amendment is adopted. If the motion is amended and adopted by the House, it leaves the matter of implementation open, and that is inconsistent with the initial proposition. It is, in my opinion, a new proposition. Secondly, what it does on the very narrow ground of the citation in May's nineteenth edition to which so many hon. members have referred, is to leave the House in a position, if the amended motion is adopted, of approving what is supposed to be the implementation and yet leaving it open in
January 25, 1977

the future to disapprove the very thing it has approved in the first paragraph of the motion.
It is because of the removal of the actual implementation language that I am left with the difficulty. I feel, therefore, that on the ground of that citation I must indicate that the motion as amended would be inconsistent with its own terms. Surely the effect has been achieved, and that is consistent with all the remarks that I made in which I have indicated my sympathy with the position of the hon. member who wishes to support the motion, but at the same time expresses concern for the matters raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, that there may be negotiations between House leaders to see whether or not a proper addition to the existing motion might be achieved which would take care of those concerns.
Certainly, it is valid to say that any committee over which I would preside would want to take all those considerations into account before advancing any implementation. However, further to such negotiations, I am sure it is not necessary to say that, having examined the wording of this ruling and the arguments that have been put forward at this time, not only are such negotiations open as the debate continues but it is open to other members to put forward other amendments which, if the negotiations fail, may make another attempt to achieve the same result.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, normally I would be quite sympathetic to some of the arguments put forward by hon. friends on my right about the need to delay, scrutinize and not just to accept the resolution, because televising is a most significant and historic step. However, I have a tremendous sense of urgency about what is happening in this country at the moment, and that sense of urgency leads me to believe that it is vital that we not only televise the House of Commons but that we do it as quickly as is humanly possible.
Television is a medium which has many faults. It can distort, but what medium cannot distort? Television has one unique characteristic; that is that it reaches every corner of the country. It is a way of reaching people unlike any which has ever been devised by mankind. At this time when I think our country is in serious danger of disintegration, a desintegration which may come about because of ignorance, misunderstanding or the suspicion by one part of the country for another, it is vital that the people of Canada see directly what is going on in their House of Commons. I am sure that if people saw what was going on in the House of Commons, it would be a reassuring thing: they would be proud to be citizens of this country and they would want to stay in this country.
I think the fears which have been voiced, while they are real, can be overcome. With regard to the use of television, I am quite prepared to trust Mr. Speaker to be fair with the members of this House, considering the history of fairness of Speakers of this House. Not only our present Speaker, who is highly regarded, but also Speakers before him have honoured this House with their chairmanship of this chamber. On
Broadcasting House Proceedings
occasions when the Chair may in fact not behave in a way with which we agree, there are redresses. The House has control over itself; it can change things. If we find that some things are happening with which we do not agree and which could be done in a somewhat better manner, we can certainly make changes, just as we have changed legislation and the rules of this House over the years.
The urgency is such that I think we must proceed. A great deal of work has already been done with regard to television. We have had much discussion and there has been much examination regarding the arguments for and against the use of television, but I think the urgency which exists regarding our survival as a nation is such that we have to proceed with television.
Last night when speaking to the House I made the point that the continuous televising of proceedings in the House would take this House out of the hands of the press gallery. We desperately need that to be done. Even if we say that the newspapers, radio and television of this country are doing as good a job as they are capable of doing, nevertheless the information we get from those media is second-hand, selected and very often, unfortunately, hysterical and antagonistic. We have to take that power out of the hands of the press gallery. Certainly the gallery will still have its role to play. It can go on interpreting, and perhaps its role will even be enlarged. But there has to be something besides interpretation: there has to be a direct view of what is happening in this place.
The reformed Canada Elections Act provides funds for campaigns, and I think the same kind of situation applies here. The reason those funds were supplied was to assist people running for parliamentary seats, whether sitting members or contestants. The idea was to take that funding out of the hands of the big powers and to make members of parliament less beholden to others so that they could speak in an independent way. That also now has to be done with the media. The proceedings of this House have to be taken out of the hands of the media and broadcast directly to the people of this country.
In my remarks last night I referred to one aspect only of the media. I said that it was the nature of the media to look for headlines, to be antagonistic and to be almost anti-establishment by choice. However, there is one other aspect of the media which is critical at this moment. Last night I was talking essentially about the English media. Now I want to talk about the French media. The English media sees its role in a certain way, and from what I have been able to see the French media in the province of Quebec sees its role almost entirely as separatist.
I do not think there has been any greater influence for tearing this country apart than the people in the media in Quebec, and it is important-in fact, vital-that this House be able to speak to the people of Quebec and appeal to them to stay in confederation, without having to run the gamut of prejudice and bias that exists in the French media. It is all right to say that people who work in the media, whether newspapers, radio or television, have a perfect right to be separatist if they so choose, and of course that is so, but they

January 25, 1977
Broadcasting House Proceedings do not have a right-and this has been consistently abused-to use this position to influence others who are not inclined that way. It is frustrating, when this country is in such critical danger and when events are moving so fast, to try to decide what action we can take.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) says that English Canadians have to demonstrate to French Canadians that we love them. I am paraphrasing the Prime Minister, but I think that is essentially what he has been saying. How can we say "We love you" when the carriers of the Valentine are not going to let that message get through? I know my own constituents may grumble about bilingualism and other things in connection with Quebec, but when we really get down to it there is no doubt in my mind that my constituents want this country to hang together. They want Quebec to stay in confederation, and I feel somewhat frustrated in trying to get that message across to the people of Quebec. I think that by televising the proceedings of the House of Commons we will be able to say what we feel and what we know to the people of Quebec without worrying about what kind of distortions will take place once our words get into the hands of the French media.
I want to refer back to something I started to talk about last night. I was talking about our responsibility as members of parliament. Without television in the House, and with the prodding which takes place in the corridors, there is a tendency for members of this House to think of their ridings in particular, rather than to see themselves as part of one of the great parties which exist. There is a tendency to see themselves as other than part of something called responsible government. We do not sit here as freelance individuals, but as members of a group who have taken a certain position. We have gone to the electorate with that position and we hold ourselves collectively responsible for that position.
One of the great difficulties, and perhaps one of the reasons democracy is fragile and falls into danger, is that people become too particularized. People tend to listen to loud voices, whether they come in the form of a letter or from someone on the street, and think these are the voices of the grass roots. A member of parliament can get a misleading impression by reading only the mail that comes across the desk or by listening only to the loud, broadcast voice or organized group voice.
On the question of English and French Canada, for instance, we could think that everybody in English Canada is ready to bid Quebec goodbye. That is the kind of mail we get. I am sure the same thing is true of the people of Quebec and the mail Quebec members get: Let English Canada go, sort of thing. But if you probe a little more deeply, as many of us do with questionnaires, and ask everyone-not just those who feel constrained to make representation to their member-you get an entirely different impression.
Another impression that comes through quite clearly in my riding, and I am prepared to say this and take whatever

political risks are consequent upon it, is that people want the member of parliament to be a leader; they want the member of parliament to make a decision. Basically, they say, "You are there. You are in the debate. You are listening to the argument. You accept the responsibility and we will judge you at election time to the extent we think you have behaved responsibly, wisely, intelligently and to our benefit."
A member expressed concern that television was going to give him a national audience and he does not want a national audience; he just wants to talk to his constituents. We have to do more than talk to our constituents, Mr. Speaker. The problem of talking only to our constituents is that it reinforces the bigotry and prejudice that exists in every riding; it is to assume that such is our riding when in fact it is not. It is really to play, not to the gallery but to the dug-out. We have to avoid that even if it means political risk. We have to be able to go back on occasion-and I think the time is ripe now-and say, "We are in trouble. We are in danger. Those loose lips, those irresponsible remarks, are no longer in fashion. There is too much hanging on what we say and what we do." I think that message has to come from this House.
I will give an example, Mr. Speaker. Members know where their constituency is itching. Maybe it is in respect of textiles, shoes, storage of grain, the price of cattle-who knows? It may affect one constituency only, or a few, but it is reasonably important in those constituencies. Yet the party position is just the opposite. So members make a speech, send it back home, and nobody in the press pays any attention because they know it was just a throw-away speech that pleases the people back home. It reinforces all the misconceptions that exist. Then the party takes some other position because, after all, the party has to speak nationally. I think that is wrong, Mr. Speaker.
We cannot always agree with our party-there are cases where we have to digress-but we have to take the consequences. The party system is important. We are not a rabble, not a group of anarchists. We belong to groups of people who have come together for certain kinds of programs so that we can be identified, and when people vote for us they know what we stand for. Parties are important in this House in a way that the individual is not. Parties have to be held responsible and the individual has to be held responsible within the framework of the party. Some of us who are more inclined than others to be mavericks may not like this, but it will result in a great deal more discipline and each member being held responsible for what he says in this House. It will not be a matter of mailing an excerpt from Hansard to a constituency; everybody in the country will hear what a member of a party has to say on a given issue. I think that is important.
Mr. Speaker, my time is nearly up. I would say to my hon. friends on the right that I understand their reservations. I know there will be some problems, but I ask them to consider with some urgency the fact that we must have television in this House so that we can speak directly to the people of Canada. I know my friends on the right, as members of the opposition, understand that the nature of television is to favour the government and not the opposition. We can quarrel about that,
January 25, 1977

but it is an opinion that I feel strongly. I know it is going to favour the government, and therefore there may be some tendency on the part of the opposition to oppose it. That is a natural tendency. It will favour the government.
My friends on the right look at the latest Gallup poll and see themselves as the next government. The only thing I can say to them is that unless we settle what I think is a critical problem in this country between English and French Canada, there may not be a country for them to preside over even if they win the next election. For that reason, I think the most important contribution we can make toward understanding between English and French Canada is to put this House on television, and do it right away.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to start my remarks by saying, first of all, that I am delighted to have the opportunity of taking part in this debate. I am of those who, publicly as well as behind the scenes, have worked for months, even years, to bring in this change which, to my mind, is essential. I mean, to take the debates of the House of Commons to all Canadians, through the most modern of media, namely television.
I must confess that for quite some time I used all the resources at my command and the influence I may have in Ottawa in an effort to convince government circles of holding a debate, as the earliest possible date, on the resolution before us today, which I shall endeavour to defend as best I can.
First I should like to stress the most important point, that whether we admit or not television is today the best of all means of communication. We have come a long way since Gutenberg discovered printing. The printed medium, which is still being used in all industrialized countries, is indeed quite different from television, in that it is a lineal medium. We learn what goes on by reading in a newspaper or a document a sequence of words, while television, through pictures, brings us information that is strictly global and which informs the spectator first hand. Television is the perfect medium, I repeat. Since the middle '60s, we have realized that the earthly globe is in fact an electrical network that links all human beings in such a way that they are no more and no less than tied to each other without being aware of it.
Perhaps the one who expressed this best is Professor McLu-han from Toronto who spoke the famous words that have now become a cliche: The medium is the message. In addition to being an extremely modern and a very powerful medium, television could solve today one of the most serious problems we are facing in the area of information. This problem which I would like to discuss for a few minutes is the growing lack of objectivity among newsmen, especially among writers.
As Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State of Canada, I have relatively often the opportunity to meet people who produce programs for private or even public television and
Broadcasting House Proceedings radio stations. Again last weekend, I had a discussion with the moderator of a very important and very popular public affairs program on the French network of the CBC who stated flatly that objectivity was a thing of the past. People in the field of information want to be able to say what they think, whether others agree with them or not, and I may be repeating the words of the previous speaker who, for his part, did not agree with them. Perhaps he is right. Perhaps people who work in the media should try to be more objective and to report events as they happen. But reality is different. Today's reporter wants to give his own opinion. And unless we censure and control what is happening in the information fields, I think that it would be very difficult for parliamentarians to change the situation. The only way to do so would be to give the spectators, the voters, direct access to the event, thus avoiding the screening now done by those responsible for information.
Direct access to the event is the central point of the present debate. The question we must ask of ourselves is as follows: Are we afraid that what happens in this chamber and which concerns everyone in Canada will be known directly by the public and that the public may judge the validity of the proposals debated in this House? This is the question. In my opinion, it is also the first good thing that would come out of broadcasting the proceedings of the House.
If it were possible, we, the government, the Liberal party, would like all Canadians to be able to get into this House at the same time to witness what we are saying, to hear what concerns them and to determine by themselves whether such a speaker is right or whether what another one is saying makes more sense.
This is not physically possible, but with the help of wires and cables, television will bring our speeches to the homes of all citizens who will want to tune in to the station carrying our message.


An hon. Member:: The Conservatives are ashamed of that!


Jacques Guilbault: I think that one aspect-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Jacques Guilbault: I am ready to reply to the questions of the hon. member if he will allow me to conclude my observations. I think the one point we should not forget concerning the proposed program is that the material filmed or produced here would be available to the electronic media, that is television and radio.
So, far from undercutting the television stations, far from by-passing them, this proposal would allow them to obtain excerpts they could use which would only increase tenfold the potential work by the present media. I think we should immediately start the broadcasting on an experimental basis. I have it from Bell Canada that they could provide us on very short notice and at a minimum cost with a system that would allow us to reach the people who subscribe to the four cablevi-sion companies in the Ottawa-Hull area. So those people

January 25, 1977
Broadcasting House Proceedings could-and there are 175,000 families-on very short notice on an experimental basis see at home what is going on in this House, and we all know that the Ottawa-Hull area is probably the area in Canada where voters are the most aware of federal politics since they hear about it everyday through their traditional media.
It would be just as easy to extend this service to the Montreal and Toronto cable networks using what Bell Canada is using, its occasional network of television channels. This would allow to reach an additional one million homes. After that, the rest of Canadian homes could be reached via satellite or other appropriate means. I will come back to those technical considerations later. But seeing that someone on the other side wants to speak to me I could perhaps excite him a bit by saying a few words about the veiled opposition coming from the other side of the House to the resolution now before us. I say "veiled opposition" because we are told they want to introduce an amendment which far from going against the principle would seek to amend it somewhat. It is not difficult for a parliamentarian who has been in this House for a few years to distinguish dilatory tactics from normal amendments. But I think that what they are proposing is much more like something aimed at giving a nice second class burial to the resolution before the House.
But what in hell does Her Majesty's Official Opposition have to hide? Are they afraid that soon Canadians will be able to see what is going on in the House, everything that is said here on one side as well as the other? I do not know exactly, but I have my idea. Maybe they are afraid that the non-constructive attitude with which they are discharging their opposition responsibilities would become apparent and visible to all Canadians. They always say: The government is wrong in all respects, the government is responsible for all evils on earth. The policies proposed by this government are always irresponsible. Well, if the opposition wants to hide this fact I have no objection. And I have no objection if the government proposals-I usually find them correct, but I can be mistaken-I do not see why all Canadians should not see them as they are presented in the House and I am ready to submit to that examination.
Would the official opposition of Her Majesty like to hide the fact, for instance, that its leader is very seldom in the House, that he was not here yesterday at the opening of the debates, preferring to travel across the country and shake hands with people, an approach which is probably more beneficial politically but much less efficient for a party leader anxious to level constructive criticism at the government here in this House where the action is. Maybe that party wishes also to hide or delay as long as possible the knowledge on the part of Canadians that they have no program and no solution to the problems facing Canadians? It might be for those reasons that the opposition tries through dilatory tactics to delay the adoption of this resolution.
Well, let us turn to something more cheerful. I would like to suggest a way of broadcasting the programming of the House

debates and one such method to get our message across to the homes of Canadians would be to use the cablevision network.
I must be understood that Canada has the greatest number of cablevision networks in the world. No other country has as many independent cablevision networks nor as many cablevision outlets in private homes. A simple example would be the hearings of the Quebec Commission of Inquiry into Organized Crime which, as we all know, are broadcast by Quebec cable distributors to more than a million viewers, which is a considerable number. Although important the Quebec Commission of Inquiry into Organized Crime has certainly not the weight of the federal government. Nonetheless, it interests a million viewers who want to see what is going on. We can well imagine the reaction of Canadian viewers to debates on subject that interest them more closely and are discussed here in Parliament.
I would like to describe a bit more precisely the way the message of the Quebec crime probe is transmitted to the viewer. The commission hearings are prerecorded, that is they are filmed by a group of technicians working for the various cable distributors. The cassettes are then transmitted during the night to the various cablevision networks and the prerecorded message is broadcast the following day. At first hand, this would seem to be less advantageous than direct broadcasting but it turned out to be quite the contrary.
What happens is that that very same night the constituent sees something exciting during the news broadcast. He sees a short thirty second sequence on a certain point of the inquiry, he is thus interested in seeing the full proceeding, and seeing what the various protagonists have said, in length and in context. We might perhaps consider this method of broadcast for our debates? I offer this as a suggestion.
I would now like to go to some arguments in my favour which are worthy of mention because they back up this proposal rather strongly. The first is that little or no discomfort will be caused because new cameras can operate without increasing light levels in the House. The cameras themselves and the technicians will be unobtrusive and will not be placed on the floor of the House or allowed to move about. It would arouse interest in parliament and in the democratic process. Every member of this House knows that is badly needed.
This place is the weaker if it is not fully reported to our fellow citizens and reported in ways which they can plainly see, understand and feel involved in. It would focus attention on the way in which we conduct the nation's business. We would do it more efficiently and the broadcasting of our proceedings would show up our deficiencies and help us to overcome them. That is for those of us who are not afraid of being scrutinized.
We should use the most effective medium of communication that is available to the public today. That is, without doubt, television. Television will be good for parliament, not because it will allow us to keep our traditions completely but because it
January 25, 1977

will be a catalyst for change. Those of us who want change and progress in this institution, who want it to evolve toward a more businesslike and efficient procedure, will welcome television because it will assist us to that objective. It would help to show the public what are the hurdles and obstacles in the way of progress in parliament. It would help us to explain to our constituents the problems which confront us in our day-to-day work. It would demonstrate the weakness of MPs in trying to influence the government and the executive.
More than 20 countries already broadcast their proceedings. Cameras have already been allowed to broadcast selected government events. There is no reason why we should not allow them in here for good. The UN and the Council of Europe have long been accustomed to cameras recording their proceedings.
I wish to say a few words about a fear that some have, namely, that grandstanding will begin and our proceedings will be changed. In my opinion, the buffoon would be exposed as a buffoon. Experience in Germany has shown that the stars are not the flowery orators, comic performers or the buffoons. They are those members of the Bundestag who know what they are talking about. However badly they may deliver their speeches, and however inadequate they may be as orators, if they know what they are talking about and if what they talk about finds an echo in the experience of their audience, they become the stars of that program. There would be more opportunity for members who are now never invited to appear on television-people who know their subject very well but who have to demonstrate their knowledge in committee rather than on the floor of the House. It is no excuse for keeping cameras out to say that viewers would misunderstand what is happening-empty benches, for example. Viewers would quickly discover and understand what happens in parliament.
Broadcasters are responsible people and have shown themselves to be so. Broadcasters would do a better job than the press does now. Being an electronic medium, it is more prone to show the truth because it shows things as they happen. If we think that television will distort parliament, we should ban the press from parliament. Who in this House is ready to do that? Television has a much better record of impartiality than does the press, for the reasons I have mentioned. You cannot play too much with the media.
How will we know whether televising parliament is good, or bad, if we do not carry out an experiment? We should move now while cable channels are available. With the exception of Toronto, in most cities across the land they were empty a couple of years ago. They are now crowded in Toronto and will soon be crowded in Montreal and Vancouver. If we want to move in this direction, we should move now. Otherwise it will be too late.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member who spoke before me, I would like to call upon Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to review their position, to support the motion in order to better serve democracy and Canadians as a whole. If they were right in their repeated suggestions in this House that
Broadcasting House Proceedings the Liberal government have such a poor performance, that our policies are so bad, why in heavens are they afraid that Canadians see what goes on in this House? The whole nation could observe the government develop their policies. If the Progressive Conservatives are right in their analysis, they would have a tremendous political interest in allowing television.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) allow a question by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert)?


Jacques Guilbault: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in the event that the proceedings of the House and of its committees are broadcast, could the hon. member tell me who would be responsible for broadcasting not only from a technical point of view but on a national basis? Who would carry the cost? Will they be broadcast on a regular basis or will broadcasting be limited to small parts of our proceedings, on national news reports?


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to tell the hon. member that I am indeed a parliamentary secretary but not to the President of the Privy Council, and I am not aware of everything which happens there. One thing is for sure, the committee which will be set up by the House will make recommendations which will be submitted to Parliament and which will provide a better answer to hon. members' questions.
If the hon. member wants to know what I think of it, I am prepared to give him immediately my true opinion. In my view, a parliamentary body should be responsible for recording and production. If a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker must be responsible for the implementation of this resolution, I suggest that this committee should designate people to operate the machinery and it would seem desirable that those be employees of the House of Commons. On the other hand, I would say that there are numerous ways of broadcasting. I referred earlier to cablevision. I, for one, have made in-depth research in this area. I know for instance that CBC would not be able to broadcast a large part of our proceedings because they would have to reorganize completely their programming. I know that already. It would probably be the same in the private sector. Therefore, the options at our disposal as regards distribution are probably cablevision, and then other means that we could decide to set up but which would probably be more costly. This is the answer I wanted to give the hon. member for the time being.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes which are left before five o'clock I do not suppose I

January 25, 1977
Broadcasting House Proceedings shall move too many worlds. Let me say first of all, however, that I approve the attempt by the government and the House to introduce a system of broadcasting and televising our proceedings, as do a number of other members of the party to which I belong. We may not all be of the same mind. We do not follow the herd principle as do other political parties. It is my view that issues of this kind, like issues having to do with the rules, are the property of the members of the House and not of political parties, and it is for hon. members to listen to their conscience on this issue and decide as they see fit. Parties have a considerable role to play, but an issue of this kind is one which should reflect the views of hon. members.
I agree with a good deal of what was said by the hon. member who just resumed his seat. Some of the reasons for which he indicated that members on this side would not favour the measure will not, in my opinion, be borne out. But even if he is right in his assumption, I believe members on this side would have far more to gain from television. No one who has been in this House for the last two or three years and observed the litany of shame which has dogged the footsteps of the government, from the illegal tendering practices of the CMHC in connection with Rochdale College in Toronto right up to the time of the CANDU sales, will have failed to observe an aura of scandal around the periphery of the government and its officials. It can only remind me of a prehistoric monster bogged down in primeval slime and lifting one foot to get out, only to be bogged down in more of a mess. I suggest that any objective observer would conclude that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has far more to gain from watching the operations of the kind of government we have seen here.
As for the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) who said, in effect, "Let us get on with this without spending any more time on it", I would say such an attitude is the trade mark of the socialist party which has been trying for years to construct a socialist heaven without any measure of success. They remind me of a contractor who builds a 60-storey apartment building starting from the sixtieth floor and trying to reach down to the foundation.
As I say, I am in favour of such a motion as this, but we have to look at it carefully. I support it for a number of reasons, many of which have been stated by hon. members who have spoken previously. But this does not mean we ought to sit idly by and let the measure pass without expressing certain concerns which we feel, or offering suggestions for dealing with the serious impediments which face the House or which would face any legislative body attempting to introduce a method of communicating its proceedings to the public through the electronic media.
The future is rife with difficulty. Many have suggested that this country is in trouble because all too often we have passed, too readily, ill-digested legislation without giving consideration to the consequences. Time and time again we have been obliged to introduce amendments in an attempt to make good what looks bad, to remove difficulties and make a bill or a project work. The hon. member asks us to pass this quickly and then, presumably, forget about its implications. Mr. Speak-

er, it is our responsibility to understand that this is a serious and important step which the House is being asked to take. I want to make sure that it works and that it is not left in the position of so many of the things we have done-things which were ineffective and which did nothing either for this House or for the people of Canada.
There are certain conditions we ought to consider. I hinted at some of them in the course of the remarks I made during the procedural argument. At the present time the House has a written Hansard based on a statute of the United Kingdom passed in 1840, and supplemented as to the rights of members, as to what they can say in the House, as to the right of the media to print or broadcast what we say, and as to the rights of the public. All too often the rights of the public are forgotten in debates of this kind. It is my intention, before I complete what I have to say, to affirm that the public has rights and that we would be delinquent in our duty if we failed to enjoin the committee which is to be established to take into account this consideration.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

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 Hochelaga (Mr. Lavoie)-Manpower; the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway)-External Affairs; the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn)-Government Administration.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Hon. members will have noticed that Bill No. C-210, in the name of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) has been appearing on the order paper since the opening of this session. It reached first place at an earlier date and was stood at the request of the government. There has been some agreement to proceed with the bill today, but before doing so the Chair must enter a caveat with respect to the procedural acceptability of the measure, since it provides for the establishment of classification boards after negotiation between the federal government and the provincial government for the control of obscene literature. In the opinion of the Chair, this would constitute a charge on public funds,
January 25, 1977

something which can only be done through a minister putting forward a royal recommendation.
Hon. members are very much aware, I am sure, of Standing Order 62(1) and citations such as citation 243 of Beauchesne's which preclude hon. members from proceeding with money bills or bills with money recommendations unless there is a royal recommendation. This is a very strict restriction which is imposed upon private members who do not have the opportunity of reaching their representative of the Crown and seeking such recommendation. However, because of the understanding that we proceed today with this bill at the request of both sides of the House, having made this caveat I feel the debate should proceed on the merits of the bill, provided that before the question is put the Chair would invite hon. members to express their views so a decision on the procedural acceptability of the bill can be given.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I shall not take very much of the time of the House at this point. May I simply thank Your Honour for your expression of concern as to the procedural point you have raised. I think it is advisable to proceed with the discussion during the hour that we have available to us at this time. Your Honour would, of course, have to reach a decision on the point you have raised before any vote could be taken.
May I just express to Your Honour and to the House, perhaps a little belatedly, my appreciation for the co-operation and consideration shown by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) during the period before Christmas in helping us arrange the work of the House in regard to private members' hour. We did impose upon him at very short notice, and I should like to thank him for his co-operation at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All this being said, we will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-210.


CRIMINAL CODE
Dean Waldon Whiteway: that Bill C-210, to amend the Criminal Code (obscene literature), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before getting into the principle of the bill I might say that my attitude to this matter is indicative of the co-operation that the official opposition always extends to the government so as to allow the government to proceed with its absolute right to govern and to bring forward legislation to the betterment and welfare of all Canadians.
We witness many problems of great magnitude in Canada today. We have economic problems, unemployment, housing problems, problems related to the handicapped, which we
Obscene Literature
debated in this very chamber yesterday afternoon, and serious environmental problems such as the Garrison diversion project which affects Manitoba. But standing head and shoulders above all these is the problem of moral decay. Moral decay is an issue which transcends petty party differences. It goes to the very moral fibre of the nation and to the very heart of its people.
I realize that I face a dilemma here. It is a dilemma that has been debated in legislatures and parliaments for decades. The dilemma has to do with the separation of church and state; that is, separation of moral law and political reality. Some of the great questions which have been raised in this regard are as follows. Does the Christian church have the right to demand that state law be consistent with biblical law? Does the state have the right to enact law that allows or disallows actions that violate moral law? Does the state have the right to restrict the freedom of citizens-and by that I mean the right to impose censorship? Should the state allow absolute freedom when the freedom of one man becomes the bondage of another?
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that whatever else the duty of government might be, it at least has responsibility for placing in position laws which restrain those who would extend evil and corruption. It should put into place laws which encourage the doing of good and the application of love and justice. I maintain that any law which allows unrestricted distribution of anything which postulates obscenity is wrong, degrading and destructive of the very moral will of the nation. Those who support uncontrolled permissiveness in the name of individual freedom and liberty are, at best, nothing more than blatant moral anarchists.
From time to time statements have been made inside and outside legislative chambers that you cannot legislate morality. Sir, I suggest that you can. Martin Luther King once said that laws cannot change the hearts of men, but that laws can change the acions of the heartless.
I think it would be helpful if we took a look at the bill, and specifically at what the intent of the bill is. Essentially, this bill would set up classification boards in all provinces.
With regard to the point of order that has been raised, I think the intent of the bill makes it obvious that those who sit on such boards would be volunteers, non-salaried and hence not a burden on the treasury. Thus, no royal recommendation would be required. It would not involve the expenditure of any federal funds. As a matter of fact, in most provinces classification boards already exist, primarily to classify movies. These classifications are known by different terms in each province, but generally they range from general viewing, which is viewing for all, to restricted viewing, which would limit the audience to those of legal age, which is 18 years or over.
The boards to be set up by my bill would simply classify written literature, primarily magazines, and so on. These magazines or literature classified as restricted would not be permitted to be sold in outlets frequented by children, I have in mind the corner grocery store, such as Mac's Milk, the kind of store which kids run to in order to buy candy, or those visited

January 25, 1977
2370_____________________________________
Obscene Literature by school children during the noon hour. It is in these kinds of places that I believe restricted material ought not to be sold.
It is a sad commentary on our times that anyone who speaks out against pornography runs the risk of being branded by those who defend freedom of expression. My ideas in this House have been branded as paramount to dictatorial censorship. Sir, I will not yield to such arguments. Basically, it appears to me that pornography, whether appearing in literature or on radio, television, in films or on the stage, can be handled in one of three ways. We can ignore the whole matter; we can attempt to legislate the objectionable matter out of existence; or we can try to achieve our goals through persuasion.
I have chosen to follow a democratic rather than a totalitarian response to any of these issues which affect us as a society. In a free society, legal restraints must be justified by an awareness of the harmful consequences that flow from the activities to be restrained. We have assumed that because pornography, or even reference to pornography, tends to shock, therefore the best kind of action is inaction. But citizenship in a society establishes a social contact with our fellow citizens. That contact is a very tender thing, capable of being affected by a great many different influences. It is built on trust and good will, a desire to work for the common good and to yield up rights for the sake of the rest.
We also hear the argument that the state has no business legislating morality, and I have already made reference to that. But, in fact, the state is doing it all the time, and simply because many people do not recognize or do not want to recognize the moral questions involved does not remove them: they are there. Take, for instance, the doctors and nurses who are constantly being pressured to participate in abortions against their conscience. Matters of morality are in fact here. They face us every day in this chamber. We make decisions in respect of them. In fact, in the western hemisphere, at least in Canada under the parliamentary system which is based on the Judea-Christian concept, moral decisions are faced daily.
There are reasons to believe that we should be concerned that the legal restraints have not been stringent enough. Widespread access to pornography constitutes a frontal attack against the family. Pornography of all kinds, whether it is in the form of magazines or other forms, seriously undermines the family. Pornography which becomes easily accessible to children is extremely damaging because of its power to stimulate impressionable minds. Numerous sociologists and their studies have warned us about awakening too early the sexual drives of children. I am not a sociologist. However, I know their conclusions, though often times I cannot understand how they arrive at them. I think it would be agreed among most Canadians, certainly among most parents, that they do not want their children exposed to the kind of obscenity found in almost every corner store.
I could name some by name, such as Penthouse, Playboy and Play girl. You will understand that I cannot remember the

others. I am speaking not from experience but only from memory. There are many. The contact in early childhood with this kind of magazine, this kind of postulation that the abnormal is normal and the immoral is moral, makes a deep impression upon the minds of children.
There are several aspects of pornography that directly attack the family, whether aimed at adults or children. Pornography is devastating in its effect on the family, and pornography represents one of the most exploited industries in North America. We ought to be concerned about pornography because it is so unselective. Consider the unselectivity of an influence that stares at your children every time they walk past drugstores, magazine stands or the kind of stores I mentioned earlier. Gambling, for instance, is restricted to adults. Alcohol is not sold to anyone under the age of 18 years. But magazines and books can be picked up by any child. The more readily accessible they are, the more likely their influence is going to be carried over to children's very impressionable minds.
We need, above all else in this contry, to recover a sense of right and wrong rooted in an awareness of God. We are fooling ourselves if we think we can resolve moral issues without an appeal to a Supreme Being. The underlying assumption within our law codes is the belief in the God of the Judea-Christian religion. This has given us the basis for moving in directions which we believe ultimately achieve some approximation of justice and righteousness within society.
I would like to argue in the strongest possible terms that ultimately our salvation, specifically in relation to pornography, will hinge on a deep sense of God and our accountability to him personally. Furthermore, we need to be persuaded that a bad moral environment for our children will eventually create the conditions for the destruction of the country and the society we cherish with such devotion. People are influenced by what they think others believe, and especially by what they believe is the common standard of the community, which I have called in time past the common standard of decency. Very few people come to their own basic beliefs entirely from their own reasoning, and most of us depend on stable public opinion to support our own moral opinions.
If obscenity can circulate freely within a community and no protests are made, people will come to the conclusion that public standards are changed or that there are no public standards at all. Furthermore, our personal moral values must be careful nurtured. Ethical sensitivity is a tender thing. It is the intuitive feeling of right and wrong, the finer feeling of conscience, of mercy and of sympathy. Such emotions in children are indispensable in support for moral judgment, and these finer feelings can be eroded and stunted by a steady stream of impressions which assault them.
Children confronted with pornography and obscenity can become desensitized. Their moral sense will have been eroded, and when they feel that no voice is raised against that which is pornographic and obscene, they come collectively to feel that moral standards have ceased to exist. A bad moral environment will promote evil in the same way that a good moral environment is generally thought to promote good. It works

both ways. Our goal must be to help society to move toward a good moral environment.
In addition to what the bill recommends specifically, we should urge that governments at all levels closely examine the relationship of pornographic trade to crime; that is, the extent to which crime syndicates are involved in the sex trade and the extent to which crime is influenced by pornography. We should make an attempt to study the issue of pornography in the following terms: the intention of the writers; the use made of their work; the means used to advertise and sell their works; the context created for their work and the actual effects of their works upon consumers; from time to time have a review committee ascertain the moral content and determine whether it does, indeed, offend the morals and ethical sensitivity of a substantial portion of the community, and those which do can be withdrawn voluntarily by the distributor or face the possibility of prosecution in the courts.
To recapture the essence of the bill, I want again to emphasize that it does not attempt to redefine obscenity; it does not attempt to extend the definition of obscenity; it does not intend or attempt to legislate against or to prevent access to any written material except that which is already denied by the Criminal Code to all consenting adults. Those who want to buy it can do so.
Let me register this one personal caveat. Had I my choice, every Canadian would choose not to buy pornography, trash and that which makes normal the abnormal, and moral the immoral. I realize it is not my legislative right to legislate my morality on someone else. Neither is it their right to have access to any material, obscene or otherwise, that has or could have an adverse effect on children in particular.
This bill would, in fact, prevent the sale of restricted material once it was deemed to be restricted by classification boards. It would restrict that material and prevent it from being sold in outlets that are frequented by children. I believe that every member of this House could agree with and support this legislation. We are not in any way setting up censorship or moral standards. We are simply saying that until children become of age, let us not have them bombarded at every store with pornographic literature.
I hope that whoever answers from the government side will not stand in his place and say what the government cannot do or what it will not do. Parents from all parts of this country, from the east, the west, the north and the south, from every province and from every community, are waiting for action. This issue transcends party differences. The government and we members of parliament must act now. We have not the moral right to do otherwise.


Mr. J. Larry Condon (Middlesex-London-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us a bill which would add a new offence to the Criminal Code. It would make it an offence to expose material to minors which had previously been classified as restricted. Material would be classified as restricted by
Obscene Literature
federal classification boards set up in each province. There is not one hon. member who would not applaud the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) for the intent of this bill. If such a law were passed and later proved effective, we could all put aside at least some of our fears for the future morality of our children.
Let me ignore for the moment any strictly legal objection, because I for one am glad to have an opportunity to discuss the real question which I think is raised by this bill. I am sure most of us would agree that there is a great deal of literature available in magazine outlets, for example, which is not the kind of thing to which children should be exposed. I might say that some of this literature is the kind of thing to which even adults should not be exposed. In my view some of it is obscene, and I think there are hon. members on both sides of the House who feel the same way. However, it becomes more and more difficult every day to prove what is criminally obscene and what is not. Section 159 of the Criminal Code provides:
any publication a dominant characteristic of which is the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex and any one or more of the following subjects, namely, crime, horror, cruelty and violence, shall be deemed to be obscene.
That seems pretty clear to me, and I would be very much surprised if my view of obscenity differs much from the view taken by the hon. member who proposed this bill. Yet, as I said before, criminal obscenity is difficult to prove. Why is that? I submit that Canadians as a whole do not agree about what is obscene and what is not. The Canadian community disagrees on the matter of obscenity, and this lack of strong consensus has great importance to the criminal law. I am concerned about obscenity, and I am equally concerned about the effect of so-called restricted literature on the morality of our youth. Therefore, I am concerned that our criminal law is not held in respect by the community as a whole, and particularly by that segment of our community which has little or no regard for the moral development of our children. It was in this spirit, I think, that the law reform commission said the following:
We recommend that the Code should only prohibit acts generally considered seriously wrong enough to warrant the intervention of the criminal law.
The commission went on to say:
Acts no longer so considered, acts whose wrongfulness is controversial... need special consideration.
Will someone object that the commission is recommending that the criminal law should have nothing to say about what most of us regard as moral offences? I do not think so. Quite the contrary. The commission seems to me to be saying, "It is not enough to have a criminal law full of high-sounding, empty words. We need a criminal law that works".
It seems to me that we must always be concerned about the effectiveness of the law, especially the criminal law. Do we want a Criminal Code which can be applied effectively, or do we want a criminal law which gives us some further false assurance that our children will not be subjected to restricted literature, even though the very provision of obscenity itself, a provision the meaning of which is clear to most of us, is contested by many and is very difficult to enforce?

January 25, 1977
Obscene Literature
There is hardly any limit to the definitions we could write into the Criminal Code. Only recently a lady in my constituency wrote to me to complain about what she called "some of the suggestive articles in Homemaker magazine." Homemaker's magazine, as I think it is more properly called, is delivered free and unsolicited to many suburban households. My correspondent took exception to an article in the October, 1976, issue of this magazine which extolled the virtues of adultery. I hope my constituent will forgive me for calling her "my correspondent". In any event, there was a great deal for the housewife to learn from reading the article in question.
According to a critical review in the Catholic Register written by Larry Henderson, the article declares that "affairs make you feel very feminine". I admit that it never before occurred to me in exactly that light, and I suppose there would be more than a few disgruntled but otherwise faithful housewives who might be swayed by the conclusion that "adultery benefits the husband." It seems that a little fling is just the thing, after the kids have gone to school, to inspire a good wife to prepare a good meal.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Joseph Lawrence (Larry) Condon: There can be no doubt, according to the article, that the husband "benefits in the long run". We are told-or, rather, the housewife is told-that there is nothing morally wrong in having an affair just so long as the good wife and mistress does not seek her fun with some malicious intent to destroy another marriage. What could be more malicious than to call one's lover at home, says the article, knowing that his wife will answer, and then burst into tears? Bad taste, to make such a scene. Morally wrong, without a doubt, goes the message. But if we believe what we read in Homemaker's magazine there can be nothing wrong with adultery itself. How, then, can we avoid the obvious conclusions which Mr. Henderson draws with tongue in cheek: the wife's lover must be the husband's best friend, and what every marriage needs is a little infidelity? According to my constituent, nevertheless, this sort of seductive trash is really pornography.
There can be no doubt that literature of this type is calculated to have an unsettling effect on the stability of countless shaky homes. Is there anyone here who would deny that anything which is designed to upset or undermine the basic family unit is deplorable? Not only, I suspect, would housewives be better off without such advice, but there is a strong argument to be made in favour of prohibiting the distribution of this kind of vicious nonsense. And we must remember that not only is this magazine available but it is delivered free of charge, and without subscription. Surely then the potential for harm is even greater and more widespread than with literature of any kind which is merely available. But what should we call this sort of thing in order to get rid of it? Can we call it pornography and wipe it away by writing it into the Criminal Code as a moral offence to distribute literature which has an undesirable effect upon the stability of the family unit?

I confess that, with all my sympathy for the feelings of my constituent, I would not have called it pornography. Yet as we all know from hard experience, the constituent is always right; and in cases of doubt like this one I turn to my trusty dictionary. Right there in my dictionary I find that the work pornography comes from a Greek word, porne, meaning harlot. And what is more, pornography can be defined as the description of the manners of a harlot.
Are we not talking about harlots when we speak of adultery? Is pornography, then, after all, such a far-fetched term for literature which encourages infidelity in a Christian society? Should we then not also add pornography to the Criminal Code?
Surely, Mr. Speaker, anyone who thinks that the addition of yet another refinement of obscenity would spare the helpless housewife from exposure to this "Housewrecker's Magazine"-as I would prefer to call it-surely anyone who thinks so is mistaken and naive.
What then, Mr. Speaker, do we have before us? We have a bill which is designed to add to the moral offences presently in the Criminal Code. We have a bill which is going to expand upon the definition of obscenity, a definition with which many well-meaning, but misguided, Canadians already take exception. It will not work, Mr. Speaker. It will not do what it is proposed to do. That is why we look for alternative means of accomplishing the same purposes.
Criminal law is not the only means by which we can attempt to remove the worst elements of moral decay. There are other weapons we can use. Among these other weapons I might mention the customs tariff which prohibits the importation of literature that is indecent or immoral. And I am sure that others will raise the very important legal objections to this bill.
How can we create classification boards, for instance, while the Supreme Court of Canada is ruling upon the jurisdiction of the provinces in a matter of morality? How can we accept a bill which does not at least provide for proper representation from all parties to alleged offences? These, Mr. Speaker, are objections deserving the most serious consideration. They are by no means frivolous. But it is my opinion that they are not the only objections which should carry weight in this debate.
We have before us, as I said at the outset, a bill which would increase the scope of the Criminal Code. But we need to be concerned, Mr. Speaker, with increasing the strength of that code. If the effect of this bill would be to weaken our criminal law-and I believe it would-we should reject it because we are convinced that it would not be effective.
We should not be unduly concerned that someone will misconstrue our purpose. We do not condone the kind of thing which this bill is intended to prohibit. We condemn it. But we must be determined to find a solution which promises to work and which promises to win the respect of the Canadian community as a whole.
January 25, 1977

Section 159(2) of the Criminal Code reads:
Every one commits an offence who knowingly, without lawful justification or excuse, sells, exposes to public view or has in his possession for such a purpose, any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph record or other thing whatsoever.
Forgive me for wondering if the hon. member for Selkirk has been to a newsstand lately. Can he pretend that this provision against what we might call hard core pornography is successfully enforced? I doubt that he would say that. And if he would, I certainly would not.
Now we are being asked to subdivide obscene matter into what amounts to hard core and soft core pornography, and to add a few words to the Criminal Code which would also make it an offence to peddle the soft core variety in any outlet frequented by persons who are, or appear to be, under the age of 18 years. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there are not many magazine outlets in this country which are not frequented by persons of such a tender age. And if our present definition of and provision against obscenity are poorly enforced, how can we hope for better results from writing into the Criminal Code more words to the same effect?
There must be better ways of removing this filth from the reach of our children. I am inclined to support the initiatives of the Most Reverend Philip Pocock, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Toronto, who has urged decent citizens to speak out and to register their concern where it will be most effective. In a paid advertisement in the Toronto Star of December 3, Archbishop Pocock called upon concerned people "to refrain from patronizing" what he called "these publications, theatres, and places of business which encourage the pornographic."
He asked every decent citizen to walk up to his neighbourhood confectionery, theatre, or newsstand and to tell the proprietor what he thinks about the merchandise on display. And he suggested we boycott the magazine outlet or theatre which refuses to comply with our own moral standards-the standards of most patrons. He said:
I ask their support in affirming what is positive and wholesome in the media and (in) publicly opposing what is not. I urge them to pray for decency in the community and the country.
Ernest Howse, in the Toronto Star of December 11, commented on Archbishop Pocock's action as follows:
He has suggested a practical method of making public opinion effective. It is that concerned people individually make their feelings known to the purveyors of pornography, and refrain from patronizing their establishments. Bookstores might have to make the choice of no pornography or only pornography. To handle the stuff might cost more than its worth.
The individual proprietor, Mr. Speaker, cannot be allowed to go on thinking that his concern for the moral development of children in his own neighbourhood can be less than for his own family. He cannot be allowed any longer to consider himself an upstanding and upright member of his community if he is responsible for supplying his community and his neighbours' children with obscene literature.
There is nothing more to be feared than the righteous wrath of an outraged populace. Let those who are intent upon the perversion of our children beware of the collective judgment of the society in which they market their wares. And let every
Obscene Literature
decent citizen be aware of his own power and his own duty to make his feelings known at the point of sale.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this bill only because I am convinced that it will not do what it is intended to do. It will not effectively prevent the distribution of obscene materials of a restricted nature, as they are termed in this bill.
Even the present law cannot work properly because public opinion is divided on the meaning of obscenity and, indeed, on the need to keep anything from the eyes and ears of our children. If anyone doubts this, let him turn to the Globe and Mail of January 5, this year, which, to the everlasting disgrace of that newspaper, wrote:
We fear the licence to produce pornographic material far less than we fear the licence to control it.
Hollower words were never written.
But there are too many-far too many Canadians who have been seduced by the "Playboy" philosophy of "use them and lose them"-far too many to allow us to think that a few more words in the Criminal Code can substitute for the individual and collective action of the decent majority. I will finish by saying it is our obligation to remind the people peddling this filth that they are part of our society and have an obligation to their own children as well as to ours.


C (1740)
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) for bringing forward this bill. As a concerned parent I support it. It is most heartwarming to find that people in this country are thinking of the good of all our children, of the good of Canadian children as a whole. The bill is timely. I wish it had been brought forward in December, to coincide with the beginning of Archbishop Pocock's campaign. Unfortunately such was not the case. However, I am happy to tell the hon. member for Selkirk that the campaign which began in Toronto at the beginning of December is succeeding and its success is growing by the day. The participants do not include only Catholics and those of known religious affiliations. Noted atheists are also participating. The question is, what will happen in future?
Like my colleague on this side of the House, I think that one of the difficulties concerns our own tax and tariff laws. Allow me to quote part of a letter dated September 29, 1976, which originated from the office of the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin). Knowing and admiring the minister as I do, I know she did not write the letter itself. Obviously it was written by a bureaucrat. It reads in part:
We have endeavoured to follow the standards of the community at large and as a result, these standards of acceptance for publications entering Canada have become much more liberal over the past few years.
The author of the letter confused "liberal" with "libertine". I happen to be proudly liberal, but am decidedly not a libertine.
After receipt of this letter, and following the campaign to which my colleague on this side referred, on December 10 a

January 25, 1977
Obscene Literature
letter and a parcel were sent to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). I hope that by now this material has reached the minister's desk. The parcel contains samples of pornographic material collected throughout metro Toronto. I have not seen these samples but am told they would make your hair stand on end. When the minister sees the material he will know what the hon. member for Selkirk and concerned parents are talking about.
According to an article in yesterday's Globe and Mail, written by Dick Beddoes, if I am not mistaken, Toronto City Council has set up a task force to study pornography in Toronto. Growing concern is being expressed in Toronto about the tremendous proliferation of this filth and about its effects on children especially.
The hon. member for Selkirk worried in case people confused morality with law. I ask him not to worry. As Aristotle once said, legislators make the citizens good by forming habits in them. I suggest that some of the habits we are allowing our citizens to form are not making them good citizens. I suggest that we should concentrate very much more on what is being imported into the country.
Barbara Ward, whose views have influenced our people recently, and I am thinking particularly of what she said at the Habitat conference in Vancouver, has spoken of the basic needs of humanity which include shelter, food and so on. She has also spoken of our psychic needs. In several of her books she has spoken of the spiritual needs of humanity-which brings me back to our children. Certainly, we can give them food, shelter, vitamins to make sure they grow healthy and meet their physical needs. The question is, how concerned are we about their spiritual environment?
One hears much these days about freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the freedom of this and that-you name it. Let us not confuse freedom with licence.
Speaking as a concerned parent, I want my children to be free to enter the local supermarket without being subjected to the sensational splash of pornographic literature. Over-exposure to obscenity tends to lead to insensitivity. We become used to obscenity and accept it as normal.
Finally, I want to speak unashamedly as a female member of parliament. As a woman, I very much resent pornography.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ursula Appolloni: It exploits my sisters, whoever and wherever they are. As we have tried to say for centuries-perhaps people will now listen to our message-the time has come for women to take their place side by side with men, as human beings. We do not want to be considered because of our physical assets. Women want to be considered only as human beings. They want to be valued as human beings, not because they are more or less beautiful than anybody else.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Question. You are talking the bill out.


Ursula Appolloni: I am talking on behalf of womanhood. Let me add, as a woman and concerned parent, that I do not want

my male children, either, to be exploited. For a long time women only were exploited, but now males are being exploited as well. One hears of children aged eight and nine years old being exploited in New York, of their bodies being used to gratify some pervert.
Do we want our children to be subjected to this? It is happening to little boys as well as to little girls.


Paul Yewchuk: Don't talk the bill out.


Ursula Appolloni: I want my sons to grow up in freedom and human dignity. I want them to be valued not because they are different or bigger than anybody else, but because they are human beings. That is what I mean by human dignity.
Having said that, I congratulate again the hon. member for Selkirk on bringing forward the bill we are discussing.


Mr. Joe Flynn (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway), as does everybody else in this House.


Paul Yewchuk: Let's vote, then.


Patrick Joseph Flynn: We must make it evident that we are all against pornography and obscenity. I think there is no doubt about it. Referring to the dictionary for a definition, my colleague spoke, I think, about a harlot. I think women would suggest that in the present case the morals of a pimp are more to the point than the morals of a harlot. As Archbishop Pocock said, when we talk about the "Playboy" sexuality and philosophy we are talking about something which uses and discards our bodies in a way which does not lead to freedom but, rather, to enslavement. It trivializes and dehumanizes that which is meant to be precious and deeply personal.
Archbishop Pocock struck a really vital chord in setting out on what appeared to be his lone campaign against pornography and obscenity. However, he has done it in such a way that he has captured the imagination of not only the citizens of Toronto but of the whole nation who now want to begin a serious fight against obscenity. He has done it in such a way that we are now taking full cognizance of what is happening in the daily newspapers. We are looking at the ads for motion pictures and the fun pages of the newspapers, and realizing what is happening.
There is a problem that is associated with this Bill C-210. It proposes federal classification boards in each province to determine whether any matter submitted to them constitutes an obscene matter within Section 159-8 of the Criminal Code.
The Supreme Court of Canada is scheduled to hear a case emanating from the province of Nova Scotia. It deals with the matter of whether provincial classification boards ultra vires come within the legislative branch of criminal law which is exclusive to the Government of Canada. The traditional position taken by provincial governments has been that it is part of civil rights and therefore within the exclusive legislative capacity of provincial legislatures.
January 25, 1977

Since this matter is to be decided by the Supreme Court of Canada, it would be premature at this time to establish federal classification boards, albeit run by the provinces, before the court has determined whether the provincial boards are unconstitutional.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, first let me commend the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) for bringing this timely issue to our attention. I think all members will agree that obscene literature and its proliferation should be the subject of grave concern and, I might add, action.
The purpose of this bill, as set forth in the explanatory notes, is to set up classification boards to deal with the far too heavy traffic in obscene pornographic material. There are two basic premises of this bill. The first is that local regulatory bodies would set standards acceptable to their communities. It is the local input which must be considered as a serious and legitimate counterweight to those who argue that by restricting the availability of such material we also restrict civil liberties. Since we live in a democracy, Mr. Speaker, and we rule by the majority opinion, we must follow the rules the majority sets down whether they are to our personal liking or not. In this case, by setting up local boards we shall have a group that is representative of its local citizens in its opinions. The majority's civil rights will be protected.
Professor Ian Hunter of the University of Western Ontario addressed himself to this point in his article "Obscenity, Pornography and Law Reform." He recommends that any law reforms with respect to pornographic or obscene material must take into account "contemporary community standards." The hon. member's bill is certainly a step in that direction.
Professor Hunter also suggests that there must exist a means to protect people from being involuntarily exposed to obscene or pornographic material. This is the second premise of this bill. More specifically the hon. member calls for prohibition against displaying obscene material for acquisition by persons under 18 years of age.
I do not think that it is news to any member of this House that there is an increasing sentiment against pornographic magazine displays being placed in easy view of children. One only has to peruse the "Letters to the Editor columns" in most newspapers to find outraged parents. It seems that many of their children cannot go into local grocery stores without being assaulted by a barrage of obscene literature. The Ontario attorney general, Roy McMurtry, has many times expressed concern, and I quote:
-that glossy full-colour magazines of hard core pornography, once available only under the counter or in a few adult book outlets, are now being peddled openly in some neighbourhood variety stores in full view of children.
From April 1 to May 8, 1976, Metropolitan Toronto police laid more than 24 charges involving 50 magazines. These came as responses to numerous public complaints. Inspector Robert Stirling of the Metro Toronto police morality squad said in May that he was receiving increasing numbers of complaints
Broadcasting House Proceedings
from people who appeared to be incensed and aggressive about pornography on the magazine racks.
It has often been said that selling pornographic material is a victimless crime. I think that is nonsense. The proliferation of sado-masochistic and anti-human material is bound to have an effect on children and even adults shaping their attitudes toward members of the opposite sex. Certainly this cannot go unremedied.
Archbishop Philip Pocock expressed his concern over the issue by publishing an "open letter of concern" in Toronto papers on December 3, 1976. The Archbishop denounced pornography "as gravely wrong". He said parents should talk to store owners, that they can make it very clear that they do not want this material sold to children, and that if it is necessary to carry "adult" publications that they be placed out of sight of both young people and the vast majority of adults who do not wish to see them.
The United States has set up "adult book-shops" where persons under a specified age are not permitted to enter. These also ensure that the majority of disinterested adults do not wander into an obscene bookstore accidentally. By using this method we could avoid both censorship and also involuntary exposure. Certainly it is worth considering.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The time allotted to private members business has expired. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen:
That this House approves the radio and television broadcasting of its proceedings and of the proceedings of its committees on the basis of principles similar to those which govern the publication of the printed official reports of debates; and That a special committee, consisting of Mr. Speaker and seven other members to be named at a later date, be appointed to supervise the implementation of this resolution.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be back here before this large and attentive audience to deal with a very important subject. Before the
2376

January 25, 1977
Broadcasting House Proceedings witching hour of the dinner recess I had been dealing with some of the comments made by the hon. member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) and the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman). I thought I had, in a non-partisan way, answered the arguments they made. I also indicated that I personally favour a proposition which would permit this House to broadcast radio and television transmissions of its proceedings, but I expressed certain doubts and filed a verbal caveat.
I should like now to enlarge on that caveat and some of the things which lead me to believe we have to be very careful as we move into these uncharted waters filled with shallows and shoals and rocks. There are areas of difficulty which I shall leave to colleagues on both sides of the House because I feel that there is a general consensus among those who support this motion as to some of these dangers. Certain of them concern the mechanical problems, the technical problems. I give credit to the officials of the House and to the representatives of the networks who have examined these things and come up with a number of ideas. I trust the committee set up to consider these matters will examine with greatest care and the most scrupulous anxiety the nature and extent of these technical problems.
There is the question of who shall be in final control, the question of who shall bear ultimate responsibility. I do not think it can be us. We might well have to retain the power we now have, the power, not to censor, of course, but the power to urge that there should be a balance, that when the proceedings of this House are broadcast through the electronic media the reporting should be reasonably balanced. 1 do not expect it will be possible to reach perfection, just as there is not perfection today in the reports of the proceedings of the House. I do hope, however, that there will be understanding shown as to the distinction between factual news and editorializing or comment. The media and others are, of course, entitled to editorialize. They are entitled to comment. But if they are to do justice to their profession and the heavy responsibility they bear they should make it clear that there is a distinction, one which at times is not observed today.
The media do have a responsibility. They are a very important part of the parliamentary structure with an obligation to make known to the public what goes on here, and in the legislatures, and, of course, in the other place. In doing that they must bear in mind that theirs is not just a living, it is a responsibility which they must observe, and it is one that is not always observed. I do not suggest they are any better than we, or that they are any worse. We make our errors, mistakes and misjudgments, and so do members of the media who will have this responsibility.
I think it was a very witty European who said some time ago that members of the press have great power without responsibility which, over the centuries, has been the prerogative of the prostitute. That may not necessarily be applicable here, but I want to emphasize very strongly, and I do it without in any way being disparaging or unfair, that we will be looking to

them, as will the public, to see that what comes out of this House through the electronic media is a fair and reasonable reflection of what goes on in parliament.
Under the conditions which prevail in so many of the democratic countries today, in Canada, and in the United States which has been through a very traumatic period, in the United Kingdom and many countries in Europe, the whole democratic parliamentary process is on trial and the press, as part of that process, is just as much on trial as we are. If the system, the method, and the functioning of different parts of the mechanism are to survive, all of us must bear that in mind. That is not to say that if we fail what we have here will suddenly pass out of existence, but its effectiveness and its usefulness to act as machinery to translate the wishes, the desires, the rights and the needs of the public by the rules under which we govern ourselves, will pass, and God knows what will take its place, but it will not be as good as this. We have a responsibility and so does the press. Therefore I hope when the time comes for implementing this the press will bear that in mind, and my view is that it will.
My caveat has another application. As I indicated during the course of the argument on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, you can search all you want through all the statutes and all the standing orders and you will find nothing in legislative form in the laws of this country which deals with the publication of our debates, or which deals with the problems that may arise because of the publication of those debates. This is a long, difficult history which goes back to the very famous case of Stockdale v. Hansard.
In the last century when the firm of Hansard was engaged to write and publish the reports and debates in the United Kingdom, a man named Stockdale felt he had been aggrieved and brought a proceeding against Hansard. He secured a judgment and attempted by a writ of execution to make good that judgment. The House of Commons in the United Kingdom of that day said no, he could not do this. It said the members had the right, the duty and obligation, going back to a specific section of the Bill of Rights of 1689, to speak in the House without fear of impeachment, challenge of prosecution, and also had the right to have such words reasonably well and accurately published.
The courts held to the contrary and a judgment was awarded against the Hansard firm. The court sent bailiffs and sheriffs to execute that judgment, and the parliament of that day, with some considerable courage, more than most parliaments would have today, seized the sheriffs and put them in jail, so there was no way by which that judgment could be implemented. As a result there was some discussion in that happy way the British have, and it was resolved in 1840 by the passage of what is known as the Parliamentary Papers Act which provides that there should be a reproduction and publication of the proceedings of the House, and as long as this is done under the authority of the House and under the instructions of Mr. Speaker, what appears in those documents, the Hansard of England and the Hansard of Canada, represents the official publication, and what is said in them cannot be the
January 25, 1977

subject of action. It is on the extension of that law to Canada that the same rights prevail here.
That is all very well, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the writing of Hansard, but this affects a number of people. If a newspaper publishes or republishes what is said in Hansard and garbles it in some way, there is a right of a member of the public who feels that he or she has been improperly dealt with to bring an action. There is then the defence available to the newspaper of saying that it was a fair comment about what was said in this House, and, it being fair and reasonable, that constitutes a good defence.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would ask members of this House to bear in mind that this was restricted to a comparatively small group of people. What happens in this age of the instant electronic media? Perhaps one of my colleagues might say that so and so is a thief, a liar and a scoundrel. Under the practice which exists today we can make comments such as that with no one to answer to but our own consciences and the belief that we may be speaking the truth. But if we go outside and speak out, subject to what I may say later, there may be a chance for an action then.
Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, the infinite damage and irreparable injury that may be done to some member of the public against whom an accusation is made, perhaps an improper and unjust accusation, in this House, free from the liability of prosecution, challenge or civil suit when instantly such an accusation reaches millions of people across Canada. We know in the profession in which we are engaged how long it takes the truth to catch up to the lie, if it is a lie. Under those circumstances what will be the remedies and where do we stand? What will be the position of members of this House who make statements of that kind?
The rights in the Parliamentary Papers Act of 1840 probably will not apply to what we say here, so what will be the rights of members of the public and what will be the rights of the media which is the conduit pipe through which is conducted these statements? What about the likelihood of republication? A statement made today would travel instantly across Canada and may reappear as a clipping in a Sunday week end paper. This is a very difficult and important problem.
Let me suggest, Mr. Speaker, that every country, particularly those which are under the parliamentary system, that has seen fit to introduce the use of the electronic media has found it essential to pass legislation, which is why the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) found it necessary to bring forward this particular issue.
I am convinced that the committee which will be set up under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker will probably have no alternative but to come back to this House and ask that there be legislation passed to deal with this problem. That will not be easy.
People have talked a lot about the constitution, but very few know that in Section 18 of the British North America Act there is a provision which provides:
Broadcasting House Proceedings
The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed and exercised by the . .. House of Commons . . . shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that any Act of the Parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities, and powers shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom-
There is a constitutional problem to consider here. I may be wrong, and some of my colleagues may know better than I, but I doubt whether there has been a constitutional case to decide the extent to which this parliament may legislate on privileges, immunities and powers which exceed those held by the parliament of the United Kingdom. That is a point which we will have to consider, so you can see, Mr. Speaker, that there was a pretty good reason for the members of this party to say: "Yes, many of us approve of the idea, but watch out and take care, there are problems". Certainly this is one of them.
I hope that the committee established under Mr. Speaker will permit access by members of this House. I am sure that it will. Mr. Speaker is a democratic person. He is the First Commoner. He has an obligation, and I think that he and his committee will be obligated to permit the members of this House to examine issues of this kind and to make representations. Although at the moment under the rules there is no provision for the committee to come back, I hope that they will.
Even so, there are problems beyond this. What is a proceeding of parliament? We have had cases on this. There was the case where Steve Roman sued the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the then minister of energy, who is now Senator Greene, for some millions of dollars arising out of a dispute regarding the sale of Denison Mines. Certain statement were made in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister and Senator Greene to the effect that the government would not tolerate an arrangement by which Denison Mines would sell to a foreign country. Subsequently the Prime Minister and Senator Greene went outside the House in the sense that they sent telegrams and made statements which carried into publication the things that they had said in the House. They were sued by Mr. Roman of Denison Mines, and the case went as far as the Court of Appeal of Ontario on several issues, one of the issues being whether what was said in the House could be extended outside the House and still constitute a proceeding in parliament.
Then we had a case not long ago where the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) made a statement about certain judges. A law case followed and went to the Supreme Court of Quebec. The judges in that province came to quite the opposite decision from the one arrived at by the Ontario judges, and so that issue remains to be decided. The Supreme Court of one province made one decision; the Supreme Court of another made another decision. I think that has to be settled before we proceed.
Then what about proceedings in committee? One hon. member talked today of the necessity of doing things to preserve confederation. I think there has been a lot of mawkish
80008-13>/2

January 25, 1977
Broadcasting House Proceedings
sentimentality about loving your neighbours and loving Quebec. That is not the issue. You treat the people of Quebec as you would treat people in other parts of this country. However, I think it would be very useful for the committees of this House to visit the various parts of this country and demonstrate the capacity of this parliament for dealing with major issues. These committees should be properly seized of jurisdiction on major issues.
Take the case of a committee sitting in the city of Montreal, just as the immigration committee sat in Windsor and elsewhere. That committee experienced obstruction; there were instances of people who challenged members of the committee. Imagine a committee sitting outside this parliament and an altercation arises between a member of the committee and a witness or a member of the public. Certain statements are made which normally would be slanderous under the laws of that particular province. If its proceedings are broadcast under the authority of the proposal we are making, then is it a proceeding in parliament and are those people protected? What are the rights of members of the public who might think that they are libelled or slandered? I suggest it would be highly improper for this House to leave this issue without members giving an injunction to the government and to the committee which will be studying this matter to give this issue a tremendous amount of examination.
I close with another caveat, Mr. Speaker. Today we heard some discussion in the House about a certain black list. This was dealt with yesterday when the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), in introducing this motion, said as reported at page 2297 of Hansard,
Clearly, broadcasting will influence these functions. It will inform Canadians about what the government is doing-
And then again:
Parliament represents the people: and one of its prime responsibilities is to inform the people.
That is, of course, correct and I agree with it, but it is not the case today. Parliament is not being informed, the media are not being informed and the public are not being informed. Despite the fact that by far the greatest number of members of the House are keen, intelligent, good people, in many respects because of the inhibitions placed upon us by the rules and the extent to which we have been seduced in our capacity to exercise responsibility-a seduction during which we relaxed and enjoyed-there is not in this House a capacity to exercise that jurisdiction which we should exercise. We are not able to challenge the government. We are not able to compel the government to produce in detailed form information about its expenditures.
The last two Auditors General have said publicly not only that expenditures have passed beyond the control of parliament but they have passed beyond the control of the government. Is this the kind of thing that the people of Canada will see when they watch television or listen on radio to the proceedings of this House or its committees-a lot of zombies who are incapable, despite their anxiety, of exercising the jurisdiction that they should?

I suggest that before the year or year and a half-whatever it is-passes when we have completed all our studies, this parliament should have a freedom of information bill. This House should reform its proceedings so that members of the House are active, creative, able to challenge the government, and with a greater degree of independence and objectivity on the part of members of the House, particularly on the part of members on the government side. I know what it is like to be on the government side. I sat over there when we had 205 members, and it is not easy.
If this House is to operate properly and if parliament is to do the job it is responsible for doing, independence and objectivity must be a very substantial part of our duties. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all of these things must be taken into account.
The mere fact that tonight, tomorrow, or some time we will quite glibly pass this motion does not mean that we can leave the matter there. We have a very definite responsibility to ensure that when we do come to broadcast the proceedings of this House the public of Canada will see a parliament that is functional, operative, active, and with powers and responsibilities equivalent to its duties. If that is not the case, then in my opinion all that will happen through the passage of this motion is that we will be accelerating by a substantial period of time the demise of the system of democracy under which we function.


Miss Coline Campbell (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in some difficulty in speaking on the resolution before the House this evening; however I would not like to take too much time in this debate.
I fully agree that Canadians should have the opportunity to see and hear what is being done on their behalf in the House of Commons. Bringing parliament to Canadians is a noble goal and should enhance public participation in the parliamentary process. I am, however, concerned as to what we are doing, and I would like to take this opportunity to register my concerns. The cost is only an estimated cost. I can see many other priorities for putting these large sums to better use, especially when one thinks of the number of people who will actually watch the sittings, and I stress the words "actually watch".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Coline M. Campbell: Certainly the reporters will be able to talk over the pictures so that the press will still be interpreting the proceedings. In short, there is no assurance in the motion before us that we will get a better coverage of the proceedings of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Coline M. Campbell: The television facilities in my area leave much to be desired at any time. We do not have full CBC coverage in some areas in my riding. In other areas there is no ATV coverage, and in most areas cable TV is still non-existent in Nova Scotia. At present the CBC does not have a regional desk for feedback to the maritimes on matters which might
January 25, 1977

interest the people there. We must make a hit with the national reporters in order to get back east on CBC. If the reporter is not aware of the problem, it falls dead.
This money could be better spent on improving TV service in such areas as mine. Certainly if the area I represent does not get coverage on the CBC, we will not get it with edited tapes. Televising the proceedings of the House would make sense if we were to slot it in a network each day at a set time.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why bring TV in when it will not benefit all of the people? In particular I have in mind a part of the country such as mine. Let me just explain to the House that in some parts of my constituency we get radio and TV from another province. These are only radio and TV stations affiliated to the CBC. We do not get any forecasts in that area or any of the other items which relate to the area. The CBC coverage from Halifax is minor and in most areas in my constituency nonexistent.
I am not opposed to the use of TV in the House. In fact it is one of the best methods of accurate reporting because the people can see for themselves what is happening. In my opinion, based on a study of the motion, a daily serial will not provide it, and someone will still be able to edit the taping and feed it to the networks. If it is a question of records, the records can still be kept by the existing system of Hansard and tapes. If it is a question of education, schools and universities are not at present knocking on doors to obtain copies of Hansard so as to understand the parliamentary process better, nor will they use videotape because they lack the necessary facility to use it, particularly in my area.
If we must have TV to provide additional information on committee and House sittings, why not leave this process to the existing broadcasting networks, as they are the ones who will make the decision under this motion as to whether or not they will use the tapes of the proceedings of a committee or a House sitting? Therefore they should cover the expense of implementing this service. This method would not only reach more people but would be less costly insofar as capital and operating costs are concerned, because networks are only interested in televising what is of interest to the people.
Any one wishing the written word, could obtain a copy of Hansard which could and should be more widely distributed to schools, libraries and individuals. Perhaps the allocation of Hansard copies to members of parliament should be increased to see if it would become a best seller.
I do not see how this resolution will educate the public. The daily workload of a member of parliament involves not only attendance in the House of Commons but committee work- which may not interest a reporter-and constituency matters. These latter two are only of interest to the constituents of the individual member of parliament.
In my opinion members will have to posture for the TV, yet may never be seen across Canada. This will waste more of the time of the House of Commons. Think of the members speaking on the same point in one debate. Our House rules leave a lot to be desired and are the cause of much wasted time. In my opinion televising the proceedings of the House will not
Broadcasting House Proceedings increase public information on how decisions are made. Decisions are often made outside the House and outside committees.
However, one area which might be improved by full TV coverage is the rules of the House. Certainly the people of Canada would not put up with this type of debate for very long.
I am not opposed to the substance of this resolution, Mr. Speaker. However, I am concerned about its timing and its cost, as well as the lack of interest of the general public. I am equally concerned about the fact that the House of Commons should remain the focal point of public concern at the federal level and that the ministry should be held accountable to the House on a daily basis.
I agree that modern mass communication and the increased role played by the government in the lives of ordinary people make it necessary for ministers and other prominent members of the House to be seen regularly on television. But I do not like the decline in interest and in the reporting of what has been said in the House. What we see or hear is what has been re-enacted in the corridors, or personally interpreted by a reporter.
I am not opposed to TV in the House or in committees but it should be seen unedited on a daily channel. All committees should be given an opportunity to be seen unedited. As all members know, committee work is very important, yet if committee proceedings were to be edited, most people would be deprived of the area of debate which interests them. Indeed,
I hold that communication between this House and its electors is the most important function of a private member of parliament and is essential to the functioning of ministers. I have communicated to my own constituents the events that take place here-a central point in the few years that I have spent here.
All that having been said, I would like to say that this House has much practical work before it at this time on bills whose passage will be as important to the people of Canada in the short term, such as the unemployment legislation, income tax amendments, and the long-awaited human rights legislation, as may be the ultimate installation of television facilities in the long-term.
Of course I would not want my concerns to affect adversely the considered view of the House on a matter in which partisan considerations have no place. I did, however, want to state for the record the concerns I have about this resolution as it relates to the people I represent, and the inadequacy of the existing TV facilities which they have to put up with. I do not feel that the public is fully aware of exactly what we are about to do here and I believe that most people in my constituency will not benefit from this resolution.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, to my mind, the speech we have just heard expresses the dilemma which faces many members of the House because of this motion which touches upon the right of members but which

Broadcasting House Proceedings
however should not give rise to a partisan debate. However, this afternoon the hon. member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guil-bault) made a particularly violent speech which was nothing more than peanut politics because he was proposing certain points of view to the official opposition as a party. Now, he has just heard a speech from one of his own colleagues who expressed as well as possible points of view which I entirely share.
I also have heard the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve), the hon. member for Ahuntsic, give us a fairly naive speech as the hon. member for Saint-Jacques did this afternoon; so 1 heard that we are going to witness a change in the communication of the Parliament of Canada; but we simply hear about the House of Commons; nothing is said about the Senate. The Senate is a part of the Parliament of Canada and I want the government members to be very careful, because, to my mind, two-thirds of them do not know "in entirety" what I have here in my hand ...


Mr. Roy (Laval):: Entirely ...


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What do you mean: Entirely or "entirety", because this is a report? Nobody takes care of the crows on the back fence! What they can say can be summed up in just a few words. Mr. Speaker, a committee of the House has presented a report a little more than four years ago; it was presided over by a member which had much more experience than some of those who are shouting at this very moment and who, quite frankly, I know very well, know nothing entirely-"in entirety" if they want-about the report which I have here. It is a report signed by the former member for Grenville-Carleton, now Justice Gordon Blair, setting out all problems related to this issue, and several of my colleagues have raised some, but I know very well that government members, even some members of my own party elected after the 1972 election and also some who have a lot of experience, have not read this report. And I must say that the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp) former leader in the House...


An hon. Member:: The Postmaster General.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: ... the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) and others who support this resolution without any reservation, with enthousiasm, have not read this report. It is not an old report, it has not been out very long, and ...


Marcel-Claude Roy: The word "entierete" is not in the Larousse dictionary!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All right. You are correcting me and the next time you speak English I shall correct you. Several of my colleagues here now are French speaking, that is why I express myself in French. If my French is imperfect, I apologize. Perhaps that is one thing they do not do when they speak English.

Having said that, I suggest that before this House resumes tomorrow afternoon, hon. members should read the pertinent parts of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization in 1972.

My colleague, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), raised the matter of libel and the privileges of members of this House, and I heard people up in the press gallery and others say "poo, poo to the privileges of members", but the funniest thing is that those simpletons-many of them are being simpletons in this matter-ignore the question of the extension of the laws of libel with regard to members, with regard to interpreters, and with regard also to those who publish. They ignore that, but in Britain, for instance, the decision as to whether they should televise their proceedings or not has been a very serious matter. They have decided not to do so. Years ago in Australia a special amendment had to be passed to the laws governing libel in order to protect broadcasting by radio.
Let me say right away that if we had protection similar to that which is outlined in this report, for those who wish to read it, I would have no hesitation in suggesting that radio stations take a feed from our loudspeaker system tomorrow, if it were adequate. There are, however, technical changes which would have to be made to this system in order to bring it up to broadcasting quality. There would be no problems, provided there is protection under the laws of libel for everyone concerned, not just for ourselves but also for the public. But no, these people say, "Full speed ahead, and damn the torpedoes." They are not even thinking about this, yet the committee, under one of those distinguished members, raised it.
I would like to refer hon. members to page 4, column 27, paragraphs 103, 104 and 105. I will read certain excerpts. In paragraph 103 it says:
On the evidence and advice available to your Committee it is not therefore clear what protection would be available under existing laws to members of Parliament, to broadcasters of parliamentary proceedings, to interpreters of such proceedings, to witnesses giving evidence before parliamentary committees, and to others involved in or affected by parliamentary broadcasting.
In paragraph 104 it says:
It seems, therefore, that there would be a need for Federal legislation to protect Members, broadcasters, interpreters and others.
I will read from paragraph 105 as follows:
As a number of legal uncertainties seem to exist the House might well consider the desirability of passing a special Act if an affirmative decision were taken with regard to the broadcasting of its proceedings. Prior to the drafting of such an Act it would appear desirable that the law officers of the Crown should study the complexities and implications of this question.
There is not one tittle of evidence that that has been done, yet the government has come forward with this motion, and hon. members opposite and on this side of the House have swallowed the bait, hook, line and sinker. They want to go ahead, in the face of this considered opinion of a committee of this House, unread by the majority of members, who do not seem to give a damn.
I continue reading:
On the basis of the evidence available to your Commiitee, however, it seems that the Act might reasonably include the following provisions:
January 25, 1977

(a)	The extension of the protection of absolute privilege to Members of Parliament and Senators when speeches delivered in the Chamber or in a committee are transmitted by means of radio and television.
(b)	The protection of the broadcasters of parliamentary proceedings by absolute privilege if they are employed by Parliament at times when they are discharging their duties under the authority of Parliament.
(c)	The protection of other broadcasters of parliamentary proceedings by qualified privilege, thus placing them on the same footing as the press.
(d)	The protection by absolute privilege of those involved in the simultaneous interpretation of parliamentary proceedings in either House or in a committee.
(e)	The extension of the protection of absolute privilege to witnesses giving evidence before a parliamentary committee when their evidence is broadcast.
(0 The protection by absolute privilege of all parliamentary employees who might in any way be involved in the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings when acting under the direct instructions of either House of Parliament or their committees.
Anyone with a sense of fairness who reads something like this would, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, say that we go ahead at our peril and not only peril to members but to our staffs in this House. If some members of the press gallery were awake to the problems involved-some of the pundits in that gang or in that group-I will be a little more polite-and were not so conscious of their public image or potential public image and the role they think they might play in some future series of programs which they imagine will be like "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" or "Quentin Durgens, M.P.", they would realize this.
It seemed to be implicit in the remarks of members who have spoken in this debate and others who have spoken to me privately that the proceedings of this House will appear on the networks across the country like one's wife's favourite soap opera-"Edge of Night" or the "Dilemma of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt)"!


Mrs. Holt:: What is my dilemma?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I do not know what the hon. member's dilemma might be; that is what we would have to find out.
I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that I found some confusion between the thinking of the Chair and that of the hon. member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) who spoke afterwards. Members on the government side and the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Goodale) talked about extraneous matters in the resolution being a temporary or experimental installation, but the hon. member for Saint-Jacques said that is the way it has to go to get it in. The Chair, unfortunately, considered that to be an element of difficulty in the amendment put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). It was strange to see that dichotomy in thinking. What is this going to include? If we are going to have radio on a continuous basis-which I think we can have and which the committee in 1972 was quite prepared to have-hon. members should read the comments of those members of the press gallery who were invited to comment at a number of sessions with regard to the quality of the broadcasting and reproductability of our sound system, and they would see there was no hesitation with regard to broadcasting by radio providing we took precautions with
Broadcasting House Proceedings
regard to the law of libel. Then comes the question about television.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. Fleming) spoke of the great number of countries in which proceedings are televised. Let him read the report. I can add some details, Mr. Speaker. In Australia they have radio only; they would not touch television with a barge pole. In England they have gone on radio on an experimental basis just recently. They would not touch television with a barge pole except for ceremonial occasions such as the opening of parliament, which we have as well. Just in case somebody was impressed by the United States, let me tell them that television is not permitted in the Senate and House of Representatives except on the occasion of visits by the President, the presentation of the budget, and the annual State of the Nation message. In the Senate committees, under rule 11 they can decide whether they wish to have it.
Members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization of which Mr. Blair, now Mr. Justice Blair, was chairman-and I do not think the report suffered any detraction because I was vice-chairman-visited Washington and sat in on their foreign relations committee. That was a three ring circus if I ever saw one and the American Senators were the First to admit it.
The late Senator Fulbright, who was chairman of the foreign relations committee, was opposed to the Vietnam war and wanted to score some points against the administration in 1971-72. He called committee hearings to talk over this thing with someone from the Department of State and we saw Senator Fulbright make a 10 or 15 minute statement which was very partisan. He was chairman of the committee but he was leading with his own point of view so that it was on record for the American public. Various Democratic and Republican Senators took certain points of view and then they discussed the whole question with their witness.
Off to one side were a number of TV cameras with lights. At times the Senators asked that the lights be turned off because it was so hot. Still photographs were also allowed. As hon. members know, in the United States committee rooms there is a sort of curved table where members of the committee sit. At some distance is the witness table where counsel and assistants to the witnesses sit. Around there, crawling on their backs or their bellies like an assortment of snakes, were the photographers. They were trying to get angle shots either of the witnesses or of one of the Senators. Of course all the time there was the clicking of lights. I suggest that a three-ring circus would have been tame compared with that performance.
To those who have in mind the television coverage in European parliaments I will say that all their committees are in camera, every single one of them, and I include France, Germany, Denmark, Holland, and Sweden.


An hon. Member:: Surely not Sweden.

January 25, 1977
Broadcasting House Proceedings


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They are all held in camera. Actually the public is not even admitted to their committee meetings.


Simma Holt: Are they not free in Sweden?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. lady from Van-couver-Kingsway surely will not say that Sweden is not as free a country as this country. If the hon. lady goes to Sweden she will see how their television system works. The cameras focus on the member speaking. Every member has to speak from a rostrum, and the television is used mostly for internal communication. On the television screen one sees a picture of the member's head and shoulders.


Simma Holt: That's enough, isn't it?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That would suit the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and all those who read their speeches in this House. We would not see them bending over their texts and looking down.


Simma Holt: I do not do that. I am working on my constituents' mail, see?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The members speaking are up on a rostrum. I have seen them, in Germany and Holland.


An hon. Member:: But they allow television.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, they allow television. I will tell you what the minister of information in Holland, and the Speaker told me. Yes, television is used, but it is under the control of the minister of information. They said, "We do not televise everything, only important debates, such as constitutional issues affecting the succession to the throne." It is possible that as a result of the Lockheed scandal and subsequent investigations involving certain loyal personages, certain other debates either have been or will be televised. However, outside of that, there is little television coverage.
Let us not be under the delusion that ours is a closed world. It is not. Somebody said that the public has the right to know. Well, there is an absolutely untramelled, unfettered press which does its best, sometimes more, sometimes less, to report the proceedings of this House and of our committees. There are difficulties; there are not enough reporters to cover all our committees, not when you have the nonsense of 17 committees starting out of the gate at some time, on Tuesdays or Thursdays. Do hon. members think that all our committee proceedings will be covered by television? The idea is nonsense.
I will finish my point by pleading with hon. members opposite not to close their minds on this subject. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway will have much to explain to her constituents, depending on how she votes.


Simma Holt: I explain lots of things to my constituents. They understand.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There will be lots of explaining to do, Mr. Speaker.


Simma Holt: That's all right. My constituents are intelligent.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The report before me should be compulsory reading for every member of the House. The President of the Privy Council should read it three times and the former president of the privy council, why, he should read it four times.


A. Daniel McKenzie: He isn't sharp enough.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Hon. members should read another report, as well. We were told that the installation of broadcasting facilities will cost some $3.5 million, more than likely $4.5 million, by way of capital expenditure.


A. Daniel McKenzie: And we are now in a time of restraint.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes. I want to let hon. members opposite know about certain important decisions which have been taken and some of the recommendations which have been made about the building in which we now sit. They have failed to listen to their members who participated on the Management and Members' Services Committee. I am not telling tales out of school, as it were, when I say that after the 1978 election another 18 members will be joining this Chamber, and do members know where they are going to sit? They are to sit against the walls at the far end, and near the walls at the end of the Chamber close to my seat, and there will not be any way to cover them with television. Perhaps those in the corner at the far end can be covered by a camera from this end.
Parliament made the conscious decision to expand its membership during the next election. Then, after the next round of redistribution, it is expected that the membership of this House will rise to 300 members, in which case our present seats will need to be moved forward and another row of seats installed at the back. Possibly it may be necessary to remove the curtains, do away with the gangways at the back and utilize the space for desks. Shall we hang them from the ceilings or do as they do in the British House, have some seats in some of the galleries? Hon. members must face this prospect.


An hon. Member:: Burn the building down and build a new one.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: An hon. member suggests we should burn down this building and build a new one. It might be necessary.
Mr. Speaker, I remind hon. members of a scandal which took place some years ago involving the Bonaventure. That carrier was sent for a refit, at a very great price; but no sooner had she been refitted than she was scrapped.
I tell you that within the next five years this building is slated for a major refit. The plumbing, wiring, and many other facilities which make this building viable have to be renewed. The East Block is being renewed now and will serve as a swing building for the Senate. The Metropolitan Life building has

been acquired and will serve as a swing building, for offices of members. The Parliament Buildings on the House of Commons side as well as on the Senate will have to be refitted within the next ten years. And what will happen to all the capital equipment which will have been installed? We have an idea of the cost of the equipment which is to be installed; so I say that we are in for another Bonaventure affair. The money will go down the blessed drain, or at least a good portion of it.
Let me now say a word about the role of the committee over which Mr. Speaker is to preside and which is to supervise the implementation of the motion. The argument I made this afternoon which, with the greatest respect, nobody has countered so far, is that the committee, in its supervisory role, shall not and must not act as a sidewalk superintendent. It will need to come back to this House with recommendations regarding the law of libel and with other recommendations concerning technical problems of implementation arising because of the expansion of the membership of this Chamber. It will also have to come back with recommendations involving, as I said previously, the refit of this building. That is why the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton was so important.
All these problems in committee might have to come back to this House. Remember, Mr. Speaker, the facilities in this House affect hon. members. This does not affect the expertise of the administration of government. This affects hon. members here and in the Senate. Who is going to consult members of the Senate?
This committee on the basis of this resolution as it now stands will be able to do whatever it wants. Being a special committee under Mr. Speaker, what will be the position of hon. members who wish to make representation to that committee or appear on that committee and speak? The amendment proposed the House procedure committee which has always been open to every member of this House. Members can appear and speak. They can even be put on the committee. However, with a special committee under Mr. Speaker charged with this one task, you might as well butt your head against a brick wall. Hon. members may not have any input unless there is some extraordinary position taken by the chairman of the committee.
That might change. I am not going to close the door on that. However, I can well see where the whole proceedings with regard to the televising and broadcasting from this House, insofar as members are concerned, if this motion passes may be a closed book.
As far as televising is concerned, one can always do special events. One can twist the arm of the CBC and CTV to bring their mobile units here. If the new president of the United States were to reciprocate the visit of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), we could have a reproduction of an address to the joint Houses of this parliament. However, we do not need a resolution like this for that purpose.
Broadcasting House Proceedings
By the end of two years, and it will require two years, we will have an expenditure which will top $5 million. It is estimated by the President of the Privy Council that the operating expenses will only be $900,000 a year. What rosy glasses has he been looking through? Let him look through the transcripts of evidence before the committee in 1972. He will see that his projections are away out. It was going to cost nearly that then.
Remember, Mr. Speaker, this envisages a staff for the House. It does not mean that the networks will come in. There will need to be an additional staff of nine, ten, or maybe a dozen people. There will have to be a collection of technicians. There will be producers. This staff will work stated hours as they do in the broadcasting business. Just watch.
In 1972 we were told that a producer's minimum scale of pay was $25,000 a year. The parliamentary secretary shakes his head. That view was from the broadcast industry. They said that was what was required to pay these people. The hon. member can shake his head, but let him read and be instructed. I would say that the salaries now and in the future will be considerably higher. Not only do we need a producer, but an assistant producer, and then another assistant producer- backups all the way.
I am laying down in what I think are realistic terms what it will cost, and what will be the implications of this program. The House is going to make up its mind. However, no one outside my colleagues, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, has dared talk about the costs and other implications.
I raised another point this afternoon. Who on earth is going to carry this stuff that comes out of here and for how much? Do you know what happens in the province of Alberta today? With a great deal of fanfare, television was introduced into that House in 1971. There are only six members of the opposition. They are in the corner. There is a great gap on the side behind them. There on a platform sits one camera from which the media take clips. However, the camera faces only the cabinet. All it shows of members of the opposition is their backs and receding hairlines. There is no way that a statement by the Leader of the opposition can be put on camera.
Members from Nova Scotia know about the noble experiment conducted there. Neither the legislators nor the public want any part of it. In Saskatchewan there is radio. In Queen's Park television came in this year. Does anyone ever see private members on there? For how many minutes a day are there clips in either the national or the local news? There is nothing, but nothing, on cable.
The hon. member for Saint-Jacques said this material could be distributed on cable. Who is going to pay for it? Are we going to be part of a production of some brewery, automobile dealer, furniture salesman, K-Tel records, or what have you?
The hon. member for Saint-Jacques suggested this could be done on an experimental basis in the Ottawa-Hull area. What? For $5 million on an experimental basis it will be seen
2384

January 25, 1977
Broadcasting House Proceedings by the population of Ottawa and Hull, possibly Montreal a little later, and then a bit further? What about the constituents of my colleague from Prince Edward Island? The people there have an equal stake. What about Fraser Valley or Sault Ste. Marie?
A few moments ago the hon. member of South Western Nova (Miss Campbell) said, and I will paraphrase, that the benefits to her people would be less than zilch. If we go into this program, the benefits should extend to the people of Canada as a whole. That cannot be done on the basis of television without some examination of all costs, not only of production but of distribution.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will terminate. I think the hon. lady from Vancouver-Kings-way should read some of the polls and surveys that have been taken in her city with regard to televising the proceedings in this House. I should like to know just what her reaction might be. Without being personal, I imagine that the hon. lady feels that as a former newspaperwoman-and maybe she still is one-she is a communicator. I should like to have her considered views with regard to how much effect there could be to the people who are going to pay the shot to see, possibly, two or three minutes a day, at most, ten minutes a day in all networks, on all stations, of clips, again subject to editors, of the media, the same as presently applies-and some days we win and some days we don't, but I think that by and large there is reasonably fair reporting.
It will not change. The scrum will not change one iota. Because of the concentrated nature of the question period, only a few people can really participate. Answers are incomplete. Sometimes they are incomplete because the minister is not fully aware of the situation at the moment. I know very well, from past experience, that between the end of the question period and getting down to the scrum, executive assistants come forward and brief the minister anew. We get a sudden change in answers then. This is an old game and it won't change one iota.
In those legislatures where they presently do have television cameras, has anyone consulted provincial cabinet ministers as to the effect? Has anyone consulted leading members of the opposition with regard to the scrum? The scrum is there. I only wish we had better facilities for it, that we had decent interviewing rooms. I would vote right now, if we had an item in the estimates, that we spend a million dollars for the complete reconfection and refitting of the interviewing rooms, not only for ministers but for other members. That is a slave quarter down there. Working conditions are way less than
(Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).]
satisfactory. But, no, we shall spend between $3 million and $5 million installing fancy cameras around this place, but the working conditions for those in the press gallery who have to go down there will remain unchanged. In fact some time ago I had to protest to the Management Services Committee that the fire regulations there were not being observed.
Talk about mixed up priorities! If there is to be television here, let us first have a full examination of the technical aspects recommended by the committee four years ago. There are some real problems which have to be investigated. The committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker-we are not going to see this come about in a short while.
I have canvassed this question and I hope I have laid before the House what I believe this is going to cost, and what is likely to be its effectiveness-and how little it is going to accomplish in the end. If the House, in its considered wisdom, wants to go ahead with it, fine. Hon. members will explain themselves to the public on that score.
I agree with those who say we should pay more attention to bringing about some rule changes. The hon. whip on the government side along with other members, including myself and some of my colleagues, laboured mightily last year to bring in some sensible changes. But there has been a deadly silence on the government side. We cannot even get the motion to enable us to go back to work. I recall that when the President of the Privy Council was previously in that office we had some good rule changes to propose. I was chairman of the committee for one whole session, and there was not one reference. This House was denied an opportunity to work on its rules, and at the present time we are still being denied an opportunity to have this committee do its work. And that is deliberate.
I think the sense of priority is wrong. But if the House intends to vote in favour of this resolution, all right. It will have to put its money where its mouth has been.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the chance to join in this debate, if only briefly, for two specific reasons, first, because I am an unabashed and enthusiastic supporter of the resolution and, second, because as a former working member of the press in the electronic media in Saskatchewan I believe that the introduction of radio and television in terms of active, live coverage of this Chamber will yield positive results for parliament, for the effective functioning of our representative system of democracy, and ultimately for the people of Canada in terms of open, accessible, and accountable government.


Mr. Alexander:: Oh!


Ralph Goodale: for members who are either in or near to the national capital to draw. But for those of us who come from areas far from the national capital and whose constituents seldom, if ever, have the opportunity to visit this city, the issue of an open parliament-not merely an illustrated one but a truly open one- takes on a special importance. Television is one way to provide that kind of open and accessible parliament to Canadians who live, for example, two thousand miles away in Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, and I think this is an important consideration.
Why should the proceedings of this House be broadcast and telecast? What would be gained? Most of the merits have already been summarized by the government House leader, by the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) and by her former parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming), as well as by others in the course of this debate.
Through this proposal we shall develop an electronic Hansard which will be a unique and innovative archival tool complementary to the printed record which is presently the only record available of the proceedings here. Further, it will be a useful educational tool for scholars and for regular use in schools and universities to assist in a realistic way in explaining what this institution is all about. I do not share the skepticism of my hon. friend from South Western Nova as to the usefulness of this instrument as an educational tool.
In this latter connection, it will-in itself-help to alleviate the concern which some members have expressed as a basis of their argument against the resolution. Some have complained, for example, that the public is not knowledgeable enough and insufficiently aware of parliamentary idiosyncracies to be able to make a rational judgment about what they would be viewing. If that is a valid criticism,-and I am not sure that it is, but if it is-as some across the way have suggested, then surely the only way to counteract that lack of information and understanding is through readily accessible educational tools such as an electronic Hansard.
In addition, I believe that an electronic Hansard which this particular resolution would provide us with would be a very useful informational tool for the media and others. We have just heard some discussion on this subject by my hon. friend from Edmonton West, and I should like to deal with the matter for a very brief moment.
At the present time, except for the customary broadcasting of ceremonial events such as the opening of parliament, the electronic media, namely, radio and television, are barred from active live coverage of the proceedings of the House of Commons. As a weak and often inaccurate substitute for direct access to the House, once an announcement, speech or debate has taken place here the radio and television reporters literally have to scramble to catch the main participants outside the Chamber so as to have them in some small way repeat or re-enact what happened inside so that the reporters can get it on tape or film. The result is sometimes a frantic and occasionally unruly crush of people, with lights, cameras, tape record-
Broadcasting House Proceedings
ers and other paraphernalia in the halls of the Parliament Buildings, and all too often there can inadvertently be serious omissions, distortions or misinterpretations of what has been said or done inside the Chamber. Surely some of these problems could be alleviated by providing live coverage of Commons activities in the First place.
There are a great many other advantages to this particular proposal which I should like to take some time to describe in detail in the House. Many of them have been mentioned in passing and briefly by others in the course of our discussion in the last two days. Some have raised concerns, for example, about the cost, or about possible disruption of established parliamentary procedures, or about this vague notion of trivial-ization which some are worried about. Some are worried about the technical problems that may arise. Some are concerned about the question of rights and immunities of members. To all of these points of concern I think there are valid and full answers. Many of them have been given in the course of this debate by those speaking in support of the resolution; many will be found in the committee reports that preceded our debate in this House.
I hope that the expression of the kinds of concerns that we have heard does not represent a fear of progress or essentially a mistrust of the ability of the public to understand the workings of parliament, or indeed a worry or mistrust about parliament itself. We may need technical tests. We may need further examination by the committee, which this resolution proposes, to see how the facilities will work. But surely we do not need further examinations, studies and tests of our own courage to appear before the Canadian people. I would hope that the merits of this resolution will commend themselves to all members this evening, and that before the clock reaches ten o'clock I hope we can in fact see this resolution adopted by the House and very quickly see parliament in a very real sense brought to the Canadian people via television.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak very briefly in this debate, or perhaps "debate" is too strong a word for what has been a very useful discussion in the past couple of days with respect to an important change to the procedures of this House and its committees. It has already been indicated by previous speakers that we are not, in a sense, dealing with new subject matter. The motion itself has been before this House for well over a year now. Prior to that there was a considerable period of time in which both a special committee of this House as well as individual members considered at length the implication of giving broadcasting access to the House and its committees.
As I was preparing to make a few remarks this evening I flipped back through some of the previous pages of Hansard and realized that it was almost ten years ago to the day, on February 10, 1967, that I made a strong and impassioned plea for the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and its committees. I do not know whether that makes me somewhat of a senior citizen with respect to advocating this particular subject matter, but I would just like to quote briefly-I know
80008 -14'/2

January 25, 1977
Broadcasting House Proceedings it is not good form to do so-what I said on February 10, 1967, as reported at page 12919 of Hansard, I said:
One of the things that has continued to concern me very much about this whole question is the fact that we have invoked in our political processes and parliamentary activity a kind of discrimination that I think would not be tolerated for one moment in any other sphere of human activity.
Then I went on to relate the double standard that existed in the House and its committees whereby those who serve the print media have had for many years now full access to the open forums of the House and its committees, yet when it came to radio and television another standard prevailed. In arguing ten years ago for a freer access, I said, and again I quote:
So I speak out for a new understanding of the nature and uses of mass media and ask that they not be used to expose for purposes of power or popularity any individual in this House or outside it, but to create a more genuine, a more thoughtful and a more purposeful dialogue between our activity in the House and the thoughts and desires of the nation.
I believe that that particular passage has stood the test of time perhaps better than other things that I have said in the intervening period, but certainly I have not faltered in my essential commitment to the idea that there is a basic principle at stake here. Indeed, for those who have some difficulty in accepting the principle-I know that all of us, even myself, are concerned at the serious implications here-there is a particular irony, I think, in reflecting upon the access of television and radio to the House and its committees because we are a most unusual country. We are of such massive geographic proportion in relationship to the people who inhabit this country, and the very fact is that in order for people to understand what is happening in the various parts of the country we do rely in a vital way upon the mass media.
We are not essentially drawn together in one or two centres of the kind that exist in many European and other countries. Although there are some major centres we are, in a way, a ribbon of population extending from coast to coast. There is a certain irony in that in the sense that many other nations have already introduced broadcasting access, and now we are finally taking the plunge.
In addition, it is obvious that in recent years one of the chief problems we have faced in this country is that of understanding and communication. Yet the very subject matter that is before us this evening is, in effect, whether or not we can improve the communications that take place not only between members of this House but between those of us who are here as representatives of our various electoral districts and the people who sent us here to represent them.
Therefore I believe there is a fundamental principle at stake. It is a fundamental principle in terms of the right of access on the part of all citizens in this country, no matter where they live, or what their particular state or condition may be.
I agree with those who have suggested that parliament will be affected by the introduction of a more comprehensive mass media. But I am not one of those who think that the impact of that will necessarily be bad. While there may be problems- indeed, I am sure there will be problems that we will have to work out in the coming months-I think that the possibilities
[Me. MacDonald (Egmont).]
and opportunities that are offered are quite significant and positive in terms of improving and updating our parliamentary system and making it more relevant.
But if it is true that the parliamentary process will be altered, it is also true, I think, that the media itself will be affected. I have been somewhat intrigued by the ambivalent attitude that the media have taken on this issue. Some of us here are critical from time to time of the responsibility or the accountability that exists in regard to the mass media. I think it is true to say that if there is to be a change of situation for members of parliament, there will also be a change of situation for those who are reporters, journalists and editorialists, realizing that there is another avenue of communication through the forums of parliamentary discussion in this House or its several committees.
That, Mr. Speaker, brings me to my central point, that parliament is, after all, something very special in our traditions and heritage. It is not the government, as has been clearly enunciated on previous occasions. It is a unique institution, as the word "parliament" suggests, where a special kind of talk takes place, a talk that does not involve the use of swords, as was the case with our ancestors, but a talk that attempts to test and validate the performance of government and its ideas, and their service to the nation itself. Therefore I think if we believe in that kind of elevated talk of what parliament is meant to provide, this should certainly find its place within the over-all mass media, not on an indirect basis, which has been the case and as has been mentioned by others, but on a direct basis. I am not saving we will immediately like everything we see as a result of television and radio access to this House and its committees, but I think the principle and the possibilities are well worth our support.
There are other things that, if I were to take more time, I might wish to say, but I think it would be more important, because, as has been indicated, this is a matter that has been before members not only for months but for years, that we in effect achieve some measure of consensus on this issue and then move on to many of the important issues facing us in this particular session of parliament.
I have been informed that from consultations and in discussions that have taken place between House leaders, as a result of an earlier motion that was put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), there is a general wish now, as indicated by Your Honour's earlier comments, to be open to a motion that I hope will find general acceptance with hon. members this evening. I would like to put it forward at this time, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn), as follows:
That the motion be amended by changing the period after the words "of this resolution" to a comma, and adding thereafter the following:
"and in particular
(1)	to examine the existing cost and technical studies of building, equipment, personnel and other requirements consequent upon the introduction of radio and television broadcasting of the House of Commons and its committees,
January 25, 1977

(2)	to examine the possible effect of broadcasting on the rights and immunities of members of the House and the rights and protections due to the public, and
(3)	to consider whether a period of trial broadcasting, or the broadcasting of special proceedings and debates of the House, would assist in the development of permanent facilities and procedures; and
That the committee be authorized to issue such reports on the above as will, in its opinion, facilitate the implementation of this resolution.
I would move this in the hope that it would accommodate the several positions and concerns that have been put forward in order that we can satisfactorily achieve what I think all members hope to achieve through the passing of this particular resolution, and that is that we make this parliament an even more responsible and accountable institution than it has been to date.
I think no member of this House would be prepared to say that all aspects of our present parliamentary system are perfect or could not in many instances be improved or made more relevant to the needs and concerns of the Canadian people generally. If, by taking the measure that is advocated in the resolution proposed by the government House leader, in addition to the words of the amendment I put forward a moment ago, we can achieve that end, then we will have served this parliament and our people extremely well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The House has heard the amendment to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). Is the House ready for the question on the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. MacDonald (Egmont)) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is now on the main motion as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion as amended?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I declare the motion carried on division.
Motion (Mr. MacEachen), as amended, agreed to on division.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could the government House leader enlighten us as to what the government business of the House might be for tomorrow?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I propose to call the metric conversion bill because of the necessity of having it in effect for the convenience of the grain trade by February 1. Following that I hope to take up the Income Tax Act.
Adjournment Debate


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to suggest that since we have done a fairly good day's work and at least two of the late show performers are here we might now call it ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Hon. members have heard the suggestion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, on December 15 last I asked a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) which appears at page 2032 of Hansard for that date as follows:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is really supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris regarding the Garrison diversion. My question is this: why, why, why, why would the government... of Canada agree to the extension of the IJC report on the Garrison diversion without asking for a guarantee of a moratorium on construction?
The minister told me that this required an answer much more extensive than he could supply during the question period, and undertook to give me a comprehensive answer in written form. I received that written answer on December 21.
To understand this you have to get it into perspective. The Garrison diversion project is a multi-million dollar project which could adversely affect the entire Red River system, including all of Lake Winnipeg. This is a project which is now a decade old, a project that this year in the United States alone will cost that government some $23.5 million. It is a project that in itself will reach three quarters of a billion dollars. It is a project which has been a source of debate, counter debate, facts and counter facts. It has been the subject of months of investigation by the IJC. This is the scope of the problem and, in essense, the scope of my question, yet I received back from the minister his comprehensive answer consisting of one and a half pages indicating why the government of Canada has not acted to protect the interests of Manitoba.
I recognize fully the absolute right of the government to govern, making decisions concerning international relations and international agreements such as the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. I believe that should be so and that the government should have the benefit of making those decisions

Adjournment Debate
but, Sir, it reflects nothing less than an act of criminality and neglect when the government fails to act.
If it is true that the government has the absolute right to govern, it also follows that members of the opposition have the absolute right of scrutiny, the absolute right to ask questions and to suggest alternatives.
With reference to the Garrison Diversion project I and many of my colleagues, including the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie), the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith), the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk), and other colleagues from the NDP, have made suggestions to the government regarding how it should approach the U.S. in this matter. We have not only resorted to suggestions and requests, but we have begged. I myself have stood in the Chamber and have begged and pleaded that the government do what it is supposed to do, that is, to act primarily to protect the interests of Manitobans.
We have not suggested nor have we pleaded for irresponsible action by the government. Even before I was a member of the House my colleagues from Manitoba were suggesting that the government ask the U.S. government for a moratorium on construction, for the matter to be referred to the International Joint Commission to let them arbitrate it and, once they brought in their recommendations, only then should the construction proceed. That is reasonable and normal. Only two and one half years ago we were asking for that, but the government was silent.
Then at the eleventh hour there was a crisis reaction from the government. After years of pleading, the government decided last October to write to the United States government on the eve of a change in administration, on the eve of a presidential election in the U.S. At that time this government asked the President of the United States if he would consider a moratorium on construction. It did so when the project was 40 per cent completed and when the devastating results were there for everyone to see.
Proving everything I say to be true, the IJC report, which was tabled no more than a month ago, bears out our worst fears with regard to the Garrison Diversion project. The report states that the implications on the waterflow are far greater than was anticipated. Now this afternoon in this Chamber I rose to my feet, and in the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I put my question to the Minister of State without Portfolio (Mr. Guay), from Manitoba. I asked him whether during the visit that the Prime Minister will make to Washington he will discuss the critical Garrison Diversion project with the U.S. authorities. The minister answered that he does not know and that he will look into the matter. He said the government has been vitally concerned with this matter for years. That is the problem with this government. Its members say they are concerned. They had the mandate to act, but they did nothing.
I say to you, Sir, that if this government and if the Minister of State without Portfolio do not request the Prime Minister of this country to raise the matter with President Carter as a matter of priority and urgency, the minister will have no other choice than to resign, and the government of Canada, which was elected with a mandate to act, will have reneged and forfeited its right to govern. If they cannot govern and they do not know how to step aside, we are ready and able to take over.


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I think it is important to point out that the minister without portfolio from Manitoba, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), has gone very deep into this issue and made many representations to his colleagues, particularly to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The government as well has been very concerned about protecting Canada and Manitoba particularly. I hope to be able to answer in a precise and appropriate way in the short time I have to go into this issue. This point was raised for the first time by the hon. member on December 15, and on that occasion the Secretary of State for External Affairs told him that it was impossible to answer such a question during the question period. The question raised by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) on December 15 was as follows:
Why did the government of Canada agree to the extension of the IJC report on the Garrison diversion without asking for a guarantee of a moratorium on construction?
In a letter dated October 12, 1976, the government of Canada asked the government of the United States to postpone all the work and decisions concerning the construction of the Lonetree reservoir until the report from the commission had been received and subsequent consultations between the two governments had been held. In my opinion, this constitutes a request for a moratorium on construction, such as the hon. member requested.
In a letter dated August 5, 1976, the International Joint Commission explained that the delay in the publication of its report was due to the fact that the Garrison Diversion Study Office had not yet completed the report that it was to submit to the commission. The office was unable to meet its August target date mainly because it had to provide an in-depth and knowledgeable evaluation of available data concerning water quality and also guarantee their reliability. These data from the basis for the forecast concerning the eventual effects of the project on the quality of the Souris and Red Rivers in Canada. The governments of Canada and the United States have obviously understood the need for the commission to have at its disposal accurate data concerning water quality to help in the preparation of its final report.
They have also recognized the validity of the other main explanation given by the commission, that is that the population of both countries must be given enough time to study the report of the Garrison Diversion Study Office before holding


public hearings on this subject. I should perhaps emphasize at this point that one of the main considerations that motivated the Canadian-American reference of the Garrison Diversion Project to the IJC was based on the fact that the International Joint Commission is an independent and impartial agency which has always submitted positive recommendations to both governments. Having said this, the commission was given important terms of reference according to which it was asked to make all the recommendations that it judged necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of section IV of the Boundary Waters Treaty. In the last analysis, the IJC therefore had to determine-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary, but his allotted time has expired.
f Translation]


MANPOWER-REQUEST FOR PRECISE DATE OF APPLICATION OF PROVISION OF BILL C-69
Jacques Lavoie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out this evening that on December 20, 1975, this Parliament passed legislation, namely Bill C-69 amending the Unemployment Insurance Act. The unemployment insurance allowances paid to 65 year-old individuals were immediately cut. Afterwards I asked a question to the minister concerning one of my constituents who during the period in which he had received allowances had suffered a heart attack. I imagine he had not chosen that time to have it. Of course I had telephone and personal contacts with the Unemployment Insurance Office, more especially with the one at 2020 University Street in Montreal, an office where I hope the minister could launch an investigation because it has given rise to many problems even if few of my constituents deal with that office.
I phoned that office to explain the facts. I was told: The legislation came into effect on July 4, 1976. Reference was made to section 25(b). I again brought up the matter in the House and was told the same thing. Having made some inquiries, a letter which I received from the minister confirmed that section 25(b) was indeed in effect since January and not July. But that was not enough. Section 29(5) was referred to and the whole issue was confused in such a way as to prevent the beneficiary of my constituency from receiving his allowances. I asked the minister's office to provide complete data concerning that beneficiary. When did he become unemployed? How many allowances did he receive? When I phoned the departmental office during the summer, that is on September 21, 1976,1 was told: He was entitled to 25 weeks' benefits. He was paid until March 1976 and he took sick after the initial period. I am told he should be paid. I would not want to create any confusion, because it was the secretary to the minister's assistant who anwered my questions but she said that he should have been paid until June 1976. What I find strange about all this is that in one paragraph of a letter dated December 7, 1976, which I have here in my hand, I am told that the person was declared ineligible for unemployment
Adjournment Debate
benefits from March 19, 1976 because, according to the act, he could not work. That reflects section 25(b) of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to blame the minister or the parliamentary secretary, but I want to say that to us, members of parliament, whether we voted for or against a bill, the thing that matters is that the majority wins in our system. That act was passed on December 20, 1975, and then we are told: Very well, but such and such a paragraph comes into effect on such and such a date. Let no one come and tell me that an act passed by parliament on December 20, 1975 contains sections to be applied only as of July 1976. As for the members of parliament, I want to say once and for all that we should be able to give new purpose to our role. What do we do in this House?
Throughout that administration we are told: For the old people, the cut is immediate; there is no administrative problem. But on the other hand, in other sectors, cuts are put off because it is more advantageous. Personally, I find that illogical, Mr. Speaker. That is why I have asked for this discussion tonight with the minister who is probably busy, I realize that. So, his parliamentary secretary is in the House, and I am grateful for that.
However, among the other letters dated January 20, 1977, there is one dated December 23, 1976. They even contain inconsistencies. I feel that it is sheer madness in the case of this stevedore who, at a certain time during his unemployment insurance eligibility period, became ill, and all of a sudden, they refer sometimes to one section of the act, at other times to another. The situation is about the same in about every other darn area. One day, parliament will have to make up its mind. If it does not, something may happen which will certainly not be interesting.
That is the fundamental issue not only for my constituent, but for the reassessment of the function of elected representatives in the House of Commons. If we adopt a legislative measure, let it be put into force from the moment we have adopted it. Otherwise, let us change the system. I do not know what to do. One day, we shall have to make up our minds. I conclude; I know other hon. members wish to speak after me. There is the parliamentary secretary who will reply to me, and I am anxious to hear what he has to say, especially in connection with Mr. Charles Dube's problem.


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member for Hochelaga just described is a special case. It is true that he received certain letters from the minister. But as regards the amendment contained in section 7, its purpose is to prevent beneficiaries who are no longer on the labour market from receiving sickness benefits. Therefore, Bill C-69 proposed to amend the act in order that sickness benefits be paid to those beneficiaries who could work if they were not sick, injured or quarantined.
That amendment was reflected in paragraph 25(b) of the Unemployment Insurance Act and came into force on January

January 25, 1977
Adjournment Debate
4, 1976. However, as regards the case mentioned in the letter of December 7, 1976, it was subsection 29(5) of the act, which came into force on July 4, 1976, that applied. Subsection 29(5), or clause 9(2), brought into the act an element of flexibility with regard to the payment of sickness benefits. First class beneficiaries can now receive up to 10 regular weekly benefits without restricting their right to sickness benefits. They may now receive a maximum of 10 regular weekly payments, plus 15 weekly sickness benefits within an over-all period of 39 rather than 29 weeks.
I would also like to specify that subsection 29(5) of the act came into force on July 4, 1976, because of the necessary computer programming involved, which was not needed in the case of paragraph 25(b).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.10 p.m.

Wednesday, January 26, 1977