The parents of this country will judge whether this is silly or not, Mr. Speaker. The article then continues:
No current rates for 1967 are available, but health records for 1965 and 1966 show a great rise in the v.d. rate among young people in metro, which is believed to be continuing.
There is apparently a great rise in venereal disease among our young people as a result of this kind of thing being held up before our young people as desirable.
The report of the Aird commission to parliament in 1929, from which our present national system grew, contains certain conclusions relevant and important to Canada today. It recognized several dangers. The first was that broadcasting should be carried out in the interest of Canadian listeners and in the national interest. There is no reference here to the interests of producers. Second, it recognized that where religious broadcasting is allowed there should be regulations prohibiting statements of a controversial nature. It also recognized that broadcasting of political matters should be carefully restricted under arrangements mutually agreed upon by all political parties.
I wish to close with a reference to the frequent attacks on religion which one hears regularly on the C.B.C. and on other programs. This has occurred so often that one can only assume it is a systematic and planned operation. It appears to be some kind of a planned project by a few who seem to work from behind the scenes. This whole aspect of public broadcasting now falls directly on our shoulders. In view of the flagrant misuse of the C.B.C. in the area of religion, I will also be proposing an amendment to protect us against such activities which set Canadians against Canadians, church against church and faith against those of no faith.
I am strongly of the opinion that Canada's national broadcasting system has come under
November 7. 1967
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting the influence of a few who are determined to undermine the morals, break down family units and, yes, even the political thinking of Canadians, not through the open forum or normal political activity but rather from inside the T.V. studio. I am also of the opinion that these preconceived opinions of a very small minority, vocal and repetitious as they are, constitute a threat to our liberty.
Others in this house have touched upon certain flagrant failings of our broadcasting system in promoting separatism, division, extreme left-wing politics and extreme leftwing foreign affairs positions. I would endorse all of these accusations against the same smaller group who attack family line. It is from this viewpoint that I speak.
After months and years of discussion by committees and royal commissions the legislation we have before us, while it improves the broadcasting picture immensely, is still without adequate teeth to bring this allimportant aspect of our present modern life under the proper supervision and control of parliament and the people whose tax dollars support it. This is why I have been moved to speak as a parent, to speak on behalf of the families of this nation who are determined and want to raise their children in that kind of life and to be that kind of responsible citizens this nation has had in the past and needs in the future.