The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed the following bills: Bill C-54, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1975; Bill C-55, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1976.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):

I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:

Ottawa, March 25,1975

Sir:

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Wishart F. Spence, O.B.E., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his

March 25, 1975

Criminal Code

capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 25th day of March, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your obedient servant,

Andre Garneau Brigadier General Administrative Secretary to the Governor General

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills, private bills and notices of motions. Shall orders Nos. 167, 3, 4, 10, 17, 21 and 24 be allowed to stand and retain their precedence on the order paper?

Mr. Herbert:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is extremely difficult for members of this House to have any knowledge of what is being discussed in the hour that is allocated for private members' business. The procedure set out is that the order is supposed to be followed. We are continually being asked for unanimous consent to pass over bills. Your Honour has already listed Nos. 3, 4, 10, 17, 21 and 24 which have been on the order paper since October 15, 1974. I do not believe it is in the interest of hon. members to continue this procedure. I think at an early date we must ask the members to proceed in the order in which the order of business appears on the order paper.

Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer) moved

that Bill C-230, to amend the Criminal Code (obscene broadcasting), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to bring broadcasters, referring specifically to CBC television, within the Criminal Code provisions respecting offences that tend to corrupt morals. This simply means that the general public would be provided with an avenue through which such person or persons could be charged with a criminal offence. There is no intent here to define what is obscene, immoral or indecent-that is the responsibility of the code of law.

At present there is no vehicle available to the Canadian taxpayer to effectively control CBC programs for which they are forced to pay an increasing amount each year. They can only express their opinions to members of parliament or to the CBC but, due to the protection that Crown corporations enjoy through lack of government interference, and under the cloak of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, their complaints prove to be an exercise in futility. If the CRTC would follow a set of guidelines established by the majority of Canadians, and if the CBC

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner).]

could be held responsible for its actions, this type of legislation would not be necessary.

You will note, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is aimed at the CBC, the expenses of which could be construed as a levy of $15 on every man, woman and child in Canada, or an expenditure of over $350 million this year. When people pay for a product, they have the right to a product they can appreciate and enjoy. Unfortunately, in the minds of taxpayers, during the past five to seven years there has been rapid and continuing depreciation in the value of the CBC. In this age of technology, knowledge should be increasing and improving-there are greater opportunities to learn. Why then should we have vulgar and corrupt programs inflicted upon viewers by this publicly-funded outlet? I cannot accept the two-bit statement of those who ask if there is not a switch on a TV set or, if CBC productions are so objectionable, why is it requested to extend into new areas. Anyone who makes this type of remark is missing the point entirely, as is the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) who merely says he will relay the complaints of MPs to the CBC.

If criticism had any effect at all on the CBC, we would not be required to bring up such matters in this House. Why should anyone in this country have to turn off his TV because of a despicable CBC program for which he is paying? As long as the CBC is a Crown corporation, operated by public funds, it has a responsibility, as does the government, to provide satisfactory programs for residents in every area of our country. If the CBC will not furnish acceptable services out of the millions of dollars it spends, why not sell it to permit a private firm to provide enjoyable entertainment? At least then taxpayers' dollars would not be involved.

Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for me to take time to give more details to this House, because members of parliament are well aware of the dissatisfaction of constituents, and in some cases of their anger, about CBC shows. Time does not permit me to list the numerous objectionable productions emanating from that corporation, but I do want to focus attention on one in particular-The Ten Lost Years-which was apparently an attempt to depict the hard years of the thirties. While those were difficult years, they were not lost years for those who struggled through them. "Lost" could better be applied to those whose thinking is so badly warped they could not portray what did happen during the depression due to inability to comprehend; instead, they foisted their interpretation of life today on those earlier years.

I would like to read, now, a letter which was addressed to the CBC, a copy of which I received:

Sunday evening productions under the guise of 'Canadiana' (not to be confused with either drama or entertainment) are consistently so bad that I, for one, am asking the Minister of Communications and Transport, and also my local member of parliament to get you off the air. 'Ten Lost Years', your effort of last evening, indicated clearly the group of alleged performers lack both direction and talent; even the minor character parts were terrible.

Mr. Speaker, the most unfortunate aspect of that entire program, other than its vulgarity, was neglect in not portraying the down-to-earth philosophy of our countrymen who brought Canada through those troubled times. The depression of the 'thirties was world-wide; it was not unique to us in Canada, and we have to accept that fact,

March 25, 1975

but added to the woes of western Canadians was the drought which hit the prairies. The only drought revealed in the "Ten Lost Years" was the dearth of facts, and the drought in the minds of its producers.

The producers used the setting of the hard times of the 'thirties to place emphasis on the standards of a sick segment of our society. I want to quote from a letter which reads:

Today a percentage of our society has a tendency to render the minimum of service for the greatest possible gain. Thoughts of making a contribution are completely lacking, and to say this unfortunate philosophy extends throughout the world of today, or that it is worse in other countries, is really a poor excuse for having it obtained in Canada.

Canadians who lived through the drought and the depression of the thirties did not ask for, expect or receive government handouts which are ordinary procedure today. They faced the difficulties of those years with fortitude and determination; defeat was not part of their make-up.

"Ten Lost Years" did not depict the shipping of carloads of vegetables donated by residents outside the drought area to the needy; it did not depict farmers removing their remaining physical resources in covered wagons several hundred miles to a new land, without complaint, to start again; it did not depict the endless hours of toil, all to no avail because tractors were sitting idle in sheds or fields without fuel to operate. Horsepower had to be relied upon to till the soil. The program did not show the farmers who managed to feed their stock using horses to build roads to work out their taxes; it did not show women, urban and rural, taking picnic baskets to community picnics without cost to anyone to enjoy ball games and other sports at a time when such tremendous value was placed on fellowship. The show did not depict Saturday nights when those fortunate enough to possess radios waited with anticipation to welcome neighbours to hear musical programs of fun, of class and moral fibre; it did not portray crops being blown out by the roots and fences completely buried by topsoil, powder-dry for lack of moisture. No mention was made of the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board came into its own in those years, or that the Bank of Canada was founded for the benefit of Canadians. No, the creators of this falsification did not do so because, even with their expertise at degrading, which was their obvious goal, they could not penetrate either corporation.

Mr. Speaker, the CBC sacrificed a wonderful opportunity to provide entertainment of educational worth and vivid recollection and, either due to lack of initiative or disregard for reality, chose to place emphasis through calculated deception on immorality and obscenity in a complete distortion of the truth. Canadians who know, through experience or otherwise, what actually did happen in the 'thirties are not willing to have their tax dollars spent on programs neither suitable for viewing nor factual. This bill, if passed, could be the basis of control over productions which exceed approved limitations. I trust my proposal will receive the support of all good parliamentarians.

Criminal Code

Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):

Madam

Speaker, I am quite moved by the warm welcome I am receiving. I am pleased to say a few words on Bill C-230 introduced by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) who has just stated why he introduced this bill.

Its purpose is to amend the Criminal Code to make it perhaps even more illegal than it is already to broadcast obscene representations and matters. I would like first of all to congratulate the hon. member for his courage in introducing such an imaginative bill in this House. I appreciate that he certainly represents the views of the voters in his riding. Having recently sat on the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, I know for a act that several members are concerned about having received mail from their voters about dramatic programs that were shown on the national network, and particularly the English network of the CBC.

I know the hon. member certainly received mail from his constituents, and as their view corresponds no doubt to his, he moved in the direction he did today, and I can only commend him for that. However, I am not sure myself I share the same views. The hon. member's purpose is commendable in that it states in this House what seems to be a regional concern. On the other hand, the bill he introduced, if passed, would have a national bearing, and that bothers me somewhat. I also represent people from downtown Montreal, people who never miss an opportunity to let me know, as their member of Parliament and chairman of the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts of the House of Commons, when they are not satisfied with programs they see on the national network and the private networks.

However, in the case of programs referred to, namely "Ten Lost Years" or other programs recently mentioned at the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts such as "Baptizing" and other programs whose names I forgot, I did not receive any adverse comment from my constituents. I do not think there was much either in Ontario. It was at both ends of the country, more especially in rural areas of Canada, that those programs disturbed the people.

Now, I already see a weakness. The member is concerned by an apparently regional problem. I do not think that hon. members-after all, they do represent the entire country-will blindly pass such a bill.

For the information of some members who did not have the opportunity to attend the last sittings of the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, I repeat some views put forward by the CBC authorities on the lewdness or alleged lewdness of some programs. For instance, Mr. Picard said that it is difficult, in this day and age, if the corporation truly wants to discharge its mandate and depict our Canadian society as it is today, to picture only the bright side of things because, unfortunately, our society also has its dark side.

What is news? As always, more often than otherwise, violence if not obscenity. But some would have the corporation overlook, in its productions, that aspect of Canadi-

March 25, 1975

Criminal Code

an society; still, it is very real; that was one of the points Mr. Picard made.

He made another with regard to the artistic value of some plays broadcast, on request, by the corporation. Some of those plays have undeniable intrinsic value; still, it happens that in the course of the performance sex or violence are displayed.

In my opinion, if the play as a whole is not only an excuse for sex and violence, but tells a story which is logical, which makes sense, and which has an artistic value, I do not see why it should be rejected outright simply because there is a scene here and there of sex, for sex is an integral part of our lives. This does not mean that productions must be filled with sex, but I feel that we should not fall head over heels because we see a breast on the television screen, for these are quite normal things.

Do we want our state-run broadcasting system to waste its time depicting a Victorian style society which no longer exists, which falsely tries to show us a society which is made up of angels and which has nothing in common with reality? We do not expect that from our national broadcasting system, and we do not want it to become something like Moliere's Tartuffe,, if you know what I mean.

There is a question I wish to ask all hon. members. Should we censor the media? As a matter of principle, I feel that it is important to stop there. Films are no longer censored in the province of Quebec. Once they have been screened, they are either accepted or rejected in their entirety. Films no longer get clipped as they used to be. A decision is taken as to whether the film is acceptable or not. Those which are deemed acceptable certainly contain scenes which some people can normally be expected to find offensive. Otherwise, if you do not want to offend anyone, you will not show anything daring, and you will probably end up displeasing those who would like to see daring scenes. You cannot make everybody happy. And yet, a middle-of-the-road policy is certainly not impossible bearing in mind that viewers always can exercise a control over what reaches their households through electronic media. The listener who doesn't like a program has ample freedom to turn off his set, watch another program, read his paper or even do at home what he does not like to watch on TV.

I wonder if we should censor media and run the risk of hindering creativity. In all media there are devoted people whose work it is to show people what comes out of their creative minds, to show things with an artistic value. Frequently, the shows which are programmed are based for instance on books, on novels. For example, everybody heard about a film entitled The Carpet Baggers, of course a very bold one. Yet the film was based on a novel which was a best-seller. If everybody rushes to buy that book, how could a film producer be smitten with remorse and regret or ask himself a million questions before he starts shooting his film?

Media may be censored if the matter arises, but whoever does so should wonder what the results may be from a creative point of view. It can be done, but only after it has been thought over.

Do we want to run the risk of describing an artificial society, I shall refer to it presently, a holy society that does not exist? All kinds of directions can be given to our media. Parliament can even force them, if it so wishes, to show nice things only. We know that in other countries, national television corporations used to show the people nothing but nice things; but of course those nations came to require more freedom, and certainly the intention here is not to restrict the freedom of the media.

Finally, the basic question arises; Are we to take the decisions for the people? The decision to watch or not to watch TV, to turn the radio on or not to do it is a personal decision, a matter of choice very easily exercised by the people. They can be deprived of that choice, but we should first ask listeners and the general public whether such is their wish. I do not believe that such a decision can be taken in the course of this kind of one-hour debate. I am not inferring the decision would be intrinsically bad, if a majority of Canadians were to tell us: Choose what we are going to see. Maybe that decision will be made in the future. But before acting, we should await the order to do so.

I would emphasize at this point that the Criminal Code, contrary to what the hon. member for Red Deer apparently feels, already includes a number of provisions on obscenity. Criminal charges may already be laid in cases of obscene showings on television. Through this bill, the member seeks more specific measures. This is of some concern to me, because creativity could be restricted in the process. Television and radio producers already live under some sort of threat. In addition to the Criminal Code, the Canadian Radio-Television Commission has coercive powers much more effective than amendments to the Criminal Code. The CRTC already established regulations on obscenity, and they can even suspend media licences. That is much more serious than putting an employee of the medium in prison for a month. This sword of Damocles is much more likely to make owners of media think twice than the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code.

Since provisions to that effect already exist in the code, I wonder if the bill is not more an answer to a purely

nnlitinal anH rnrrinml nrrtklnm nknuf itrUi/iU

UX1U xCgiuuJ/IVUIVUI, auv/ut VV 11U.11 OUiUC 111CU1UCI a

are understandably concerned. I am willing to be tolerant and to accept their point of view, but I would also like them to accept the point of view of those who are not concerned, who watch television openmindedly, and who are able, when they are not satisfied, to turn it off without asking the government to do it for them.

Today's debate, Madam Speaker, will certainly be useful. Obviously the CBC is already aware of this debate. Its president and senior officials will certainly read carefully what was said here and will be alerted, above all after the two sittings of the Committee on Braadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts which were devoted almost entirely to this problem. This means that today's debate is very useful, that it will allow the concern of a part of the public to pass through, as it was presented to the House of Commons by its representatives. In my opinion, in the present democratic system, this is a good thing. Those who are concerned about something have the right to express their views. They did here today and the parties interested will certainly benefit from it.

March 25, 1975 COMMONS DEBATES 4475

Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):

Madam Speaker, one almost hesitates to rise on a debate of this nature. One must at the outset offer some words of congratulations to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) for his courage in presenting this bill to the House, because one knows that if any question is raised about the standard of material shown on television, the person raising the question immediately comes in for the kind of attack that we have just heard from the hon. member opposite. Admittedly his attack was a far more gentle putdown than some of the recent ones directed at members who have chosen to question particularly the programming of the CBC.

We have just heard that this matter is a rural matter, as though there was some quality in rural life that developed a narrowness or myopia of vision, an inability to see things as they are. Having a rural background, I reject the suggestion that the rural life, by its very nature, mitigates against the intellectual examination of problems that face society at the present time.

Mr. Blais:

There may have been something lost in the translation, Madam Speaker. I listened very carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), and at no time did he make a distinction between rural and urban communities. He was speaking directly of regional things, and in view of the fact that the mover is from Red Deer, perhaps that is what was indicated. I am from a rural area and I do not feel that my area was being slighted.

Mr. Johnston:

Madam Speaker, I was listening to the translation and not directly at this distance to the hon. members' remarks but certainly the word "rural" was used, as well as the suggestion that the whole thing was a regional matter. I have received a fair amount of mail in the last three weeks on this issue from points all the way from Truro, Nova Scotia, to Vancouver Island, and a fair portion of it came from the province of Ontario and from the urban metropolis of Toronto. I would suggest that almost all the voices from across that space, from the larger centres as well as the smaller, were saying the same thing to me. I do not accept the idea that the problem is appreciated only by a few people in one particular area of the country.

The problem is nationwide and undoubtedly worldwide. When we read publications from other lands we see that it is not isolated to Canada, in any way, shape or form. The putdowns come in a variety of ways. During a session of the committee I referred to a letter written by John Hirsch, head of t.v. drama, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Toronto. He sent the letter out to the major newspapers of this country. In this regard there was some particular discussion of programming, and Mr. Hirsch said in his letter:

It is a matter of determining the role of the CBC in the consideration and formation of public taste; that is, whether the corporation is to follow or to lead in such matters.

Obviously it is not up to CBC to go wildly off into avant-garde styles and far-out situations and language, but rather to remain just a few steps ahead of the whole viewing public in such matters.

Criminal Code

If one looks at the whole picture there seems to be a sort of downward slide rather than a process of elevating or raising the level of the standard of value. When there seems to be a downward slide one is suspicious of any writer that talks about being ahead of the general public in a direction in which one would not wish to see the country or its broadcasting moving. Certainly, if one watched the television production "You'll Be All Right, Jamie Boy" he will know that this was pretty far out both in circumstance and language, and deserving of a fair amount of criticism.

Mr. Hirsch then went on to describe recent years' programming and he described it as a diet of harmless, rather blah material from CBC drama of little significance, programs that were made to be turned off, and he said the vigour and challenge came from American programs. I am not questioning the accuracy of what he describes about CBC programming over recent years, but it seems to me that the answer to that problem is not to go from bad to worse but to make some effort to improve the situation. In talking about American programming Mr. Hirsch says that they have managed to handle such difficult subjects as abortion, homosexuality, gang-rape, wife swapping and other purported untouchables.

One thing that concerns me very much about all of this is the attempt to build an unshockable viewing audience. I would be very much concerned about a nation whose national network, or any network, handled some of the subjects in the list given to us by Mr. Hirsch and it produced no critical response to and through members of parliament. That would concern me, because I think that by that time we would be sunk in apathy a long way, and we would be at a point where we would not react any more to situations that should give us cause to react. I have been concerned about this for a long time.

When I am not in parliament, I teach school. A year ago, browsing along a bookshelf I picked up a book called "Go Ask Alice". I am surprised that it has not made the roster of CBC drama programs. It purports to be the diary of a 14 or 15 year old girl who is a drug addict. It is truly the bottom. The class I had at school used to write tiny book reviews for me and I always told them to write about anything they had read, it did not matter where they read it. I discovered over the course of a few weeks that several people in my class had read "Go Ask Alice" and spoke of it in most glowing terms.

When I asked one day in class how many people had read the book, about five girls put up their hands. I asked then how many of them thought it was a good book, and all five hands went up again. It concerned me that they should see that particular book as a good book. It was truly the bottom in terms of language, in terms of lack of a plot, and in terms of ripping off young people by purporting to be on the level of "The Diary of Anne Frank". The cover purported the books to be similar. So I asked my pupils why they thought it was a good book, and they said to me, "That is the way it is, that is where it's at."

Again I am concerned about the acceptance of an utter lack of standards, the absence of everything one might call traditional morality. I was very concerned about Mr. COMMONS DEBATES

Criminal Code

Hirsch's defence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in his letter when he said:

Now the Canadian viewer suddenly finds himself confronted on our drama programs with an image that is his own. He sees that he is like others.

I would hope that the Canadian viewer was not confronting himself on some of the recent programming on CBC. I would hope we were not at that level yet. I would hope there were still some happy families in this country, some fathers who were respected by their children and beloved by their wives, that there were within the country some normal family relationships because, if there are not, then we are in a bad way indeed.

Finally Mr. Hirsch said:

In other words, we have to give the viewers not only what they think they want, we have to give them the kind of high quality that the honest, creative artists we are trying to employ know they will want once they try it, and once they get to like it.

I was extremely concerned about the analogy to feeding a small child a variety of vegetables that he does not want to eat but that he should eat. Very often, children are exposed to those vegetables gradually to get used to the taste and eventually find themselves liking it. The argument there is usually that the offending food is nutritious and of value. But I would be very suspicious of the same effort going into conditioning the Canadian public to some of the recent programming that they have had on the CBC. I would be concerned indeed if a public shown "You'll be all right, Jamie Boy" would not be shocked by it, and would not resent in particular the point raised by the hon. member for Red Deer that they were paying for it at the same time.

I do not wish to limit my remarks to the CBC because there is a great deal we should consider seriously about the whole spectrum of television broadcasting in this land. I am one who believes in the abolition of the death penalty, and yet as I watch television occasionally-one does not have to watch it very closely, all you have to be is in the next room listening to the sound effects-I recognize the compendium of crime, violence, torture and rape that is placed before the Canadian public night after night, usually starting early in the day and placed before small children and often babies. Given that it is not much wonder if we seem to be retreating into violence and retreating from our standards and abandoning moral values. That is one thing of which we should be very careful.

There are other programs that would almost qualify for the label of obscene. Here again one moves into matters of opinion, but when you see a "Miss Teenage Canada Pageant," for example, one sees a sort of exploitation of those people. That was not a CBC but a CTV program. I think one wonders about the value and the contribution that will be made to this country by that sort of program.

I am also concerned that those people who question such programs become the recipients of the kind of criticism that was directed at the members of the broadcasting committee in this morning's issue of the Globe and Mail by columnist Geoffrey Stevens. What one says is characterized as a "knee-jerk reaction," and the entire committee is labelled as grossly incompetent and having spent its time on programming rather than on any diligent seeking out

of the financing that goes behind the CBC. I do not see much point in digging too deeply into the CBC financing if the question in the minds of the public concerns the product that comes out at the end. That is one of the areas at which we can and should look.

I hope that voices in the House will continue to hold to their critical faculty and not be afraid to express it, because I still feel that across this land there is a great majority who want something better and expect something better from television.

One of the things which worries me about our Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is that I suspect the young writers of Canada, or the honest creative artists of this country, while they may be very honest and very creative, quickly learn what can be sold to the organization and begin to tailor their product accordingly. I think the same is somewhat true of films. One would hope that we could still find a market for a dramatic presentation of a family which triumphs rather than of a family which always fails.

The previous speaker mentioned the CRTC, and it seems to me that as the years have gone by, with the change of name and the change of function, that body has in a sense lost some of the authority and the concern it had when it was known as the Board of Governors of the CBC. In that older name there was the suggestion of some watching over, and some guiding along the lines which are hoped for in the bill presented this afternoon. I am afraid that that control and that concern are now rather lost.

I can appreciate the despair in the letters which come to me from people who feel they are voiceless. They know that something is wrong, and they sense this very deeply. Yet they cannot make any impact at all. They then turn to their member of parliament and hope that a voice will be raised somewhere. I trust that these voices will not be silenced by the kind of criticism which has been handed out to members of the broadcasting committee over these last few days because they have dared to raise questions of real concern to a great many people in this country.

I feel that there is room for the CRTC to be some kind of watchdog. I realize that there are avenues which could be followed at the present time by someone objecting to programming in terms of launching a suit, but I realize as well that for the average citizen, whether he lives in a great city or in a rural area, the problems of effectively launching a suit against the CBC, or against the CRTC, are very great indeed and are not likely to be undertaken.

I do trust that as a result of the debate we have been having in the last three weeks, and as a result of all the letters which have been written, we can have a good look at the kind of programming which is too prevalent and be prepared to do something, not just about what is usually called obscenity or bad language, but particularly about the violence, the bloodshed, the treatment of law enforcement officers-those factors which must play a role in the rising tide of crime facing this country.

Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce):

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the concern of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), and the concern of many hon. members in

March 25, 1975

this House and of people across the country about the programs which appear not only on our national network but on all networks, and in all facets of the communications industry. They are concerned, whether they are from rural areas or urban areas, about the use of obscenity, profanity and immoral activities by anyone, whether it be in broadcasting, newspapers, or books. No matter where it may be, I feel that close scrutiny of such questionable material must be carried out at all times by those responsible for the activities of all broadcasters, reporters, advertisers, and all those related to the dissemination of information and entertainment, not only on the public broadcasting service, which seems to be the prime thrust of the concern here this evening, but on the private sector of broadcasting as well.

I am concerned that much of the criticism has been directed, whether rightly or wrongly, against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and members of that broadcasting group. This bill states that everyone commits an offence who, being a broadcaster, or an officer of an employer of a broadcaster, allows to be broadcast an immoral, indecent or obscene performance, entertainment or representation. That takes in the complete segment of broadcasters, from those behind the microphones to the cameramen, script men, writers, producers and directors, no matter where they are in that broadcast segment. I think that perhaps in this respect we must consider where the broadcaster fits in, what he has done, and what regulations he is now concerned with regarding this matter.

Other hon. members will no doubt deal with the legal aspect of this bill, but in the next few minutes I would like to direct the attention of the House to the effect the bill will have on the broadcasters at the grass roots level of broadcasting. I believe that one of the first concerns would be a precise definition of what is obscene or immoral. As we have learned in the recent hearings of the broadcasting committee, of which I am a member-and I agree with much of what the previous speaker has said regarding reports of the broadcasting committee which have appeared in the newspapers recently-there is certainly a wide divergence of opinion even amongst the members, broadcasters and all the segments of our population as to what is immoral or indecent. What I may feel is immoral or indecent other members of this House may not feel is immoral or indecent, and I think that one of the first things we have to define is the common standard of immorality or indecency. It would be terribly difficult, if not impossible at this time, to arrive at that precise definition.

Last fall, for example, all of the networks presented scenes of the slaughter of calves performed publicly, scenes which immediately shocked a response from the general public and from this House as to the problems faced by the members of the agricultural community, and it was a response that was rightfully made at that time. Surely some segments or individuals in our society found those scenes to be distasteful. Some of them have told me that they found them to be very distasteful, but those are scenes which the farmer takes for granted because he sees them every day of the week in slaughter houses and in other situations. If this bill became law the private citizen could say that that was obscene and immoral, and bring a charge under the Criminal Code.

The Royal Assent

The bill before us now makes no comment with regard to the extreme violence that is seen not only in the public sector of broadcasting but in the private sector as well, and in many cases more so in the private sector. I believe the extreme violence depicted on television is of parallel importance to the matters raised by the hon. member for Red Deer with respect to immorality.

Another matter of great importance is the effect this bill would have on the level of broadcasting. The bill refers to "Every one... who, being a broadcaster-" That includes the disc jockey on morning radio, the cameraman, and even those members of the press gallery who are broadcasters. The provisions of this section of the Criminal Code would cover the situation where anything they said was considered obscene. Producers, directors, and even copywriters would be included.

This is a complex business which is regulated not only by the Canadian Radio and Television Corporation but by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. This association has a code of ethics which member stations follow, and it exercises control every step along the way. As well as being subject to the scrutiny of their profession members are, of course, subject to the provisions of the Criminal Code and the regulations of the CRTC.

At the present time the CRTC has authority to refuse to grant or renew licences in the broadcasting industry. It can also levy fines against a station or an individual broadcaster guilty of obscene, indecent or profane language or pictorial representation. The CRTC takes into consideration at the time of licence renewal any complaints that have been received from the general public about obscene programming. To my knowledge only a few fines have been levied in this respect and I believe they were against the private sector. I do not know of any renewal of licence having been refused by the CRTC on these grounds. I should draw to the attention of the House the self-regulatory-Mr. Speaker, I note the arrival of Black Rod.

Mr. Speaker:

It being after six o'clock, I do not leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.

At 6.08 p.m. the House took recess.