David Vaughan PUGH

PUGH, David Vaughan, B.Com.

Personal Data

Party
Progressive Conservative
Constituency
Okanagan Boundary (British Columbia)
Birth Date
November 27, 1907
Deceased Date
June 21, 2005
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Vaughan_Pugh
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=5e00ed8a-3ebd-48a2-9a20-ce869b0c9ca8&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
barrister and solicitor, insurance agent

Parliamentary Career

March 31, 1958 - April 19, 1962
PC
  Okanagan Boundary (British Columbia)
June 18, 1962 - February 6, 1963
PC
  Okanagan Boundary (British Columbia)
April 8, 1963 - September 8, 1965
PC
  Okanagan Boundary (British Columbia)
November 8, 1965 - April 23, 1968
PC
  Okanagan Boundary (British Columbia)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 5 of 176)


January 31, 1968

Mr. Pugh:

Mr. Chairman, at the time the point arose debate was taking place. The Deputy Chairman then arose and said that the point of order had disappeared, because at that stage he had the French translation in his hand, and therefore there was no point of order. It was then pointed out, and I believe properly so, that the point of order still existed, and after a few words the Deputy Chairman agreed to reserve decision on that point of order. I take it that that is the one upon which you are about the rule now. In reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I point out that a point of order was definitely raised. Adjudication was asked on it. No adjudication was given and the point of order was reserved.

Topic:   BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   IMPLEMENTATION OF CANADIAN POLICY
Full View Permalink

January 31, 1968

Mr. Pugh:

Perhaps the best thing to do would be to throw out the whole subclause. I am not at all sure that the minister herself would not like to see this happen.

Topic:   BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   IMPLEMENTATION OF CANADIAN POLICY
Full View Permalink

January 31, 1968

Mr. Pugh:

Having listened to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and discussed this matter with a number of people, I cannot help feeling that, by the inclusion of subclause (h), we are searching for possible conflicts, and then deciding that should conflicts arise a decision must be awarded in favour of the national broadcasting system.

It seems to me that subclause (h) might well be struck out altogether. By its inclusion we are suggesting that there are bound to be conflicts and that a determination must be made in favour of the C.B.C. Of course there will be conflicts; everyone knows that. But I cannot see that matters will be helped by anticipating them in a subclause of the bill. Should the government still feel there is a need for something to be written into the legislation, I suggest words on the following lines: "It shall be deemed that the best interest of the public is served when the objectives of the national broadcasting policy shall prevail." Obviously as the bill now stands the interests of the national broadcasting service must always prevail. If the bill were weighted in favour of the private interests then the private interests would win out. We should remember that a regulatory body is being set up to adjudicate on these questions. Having set forth the objectives of the national service in the bill, as we have done, the regulatory body is bound to take account of those objectives and would be unable to find in favour of the private services. Would it not be possible

6220 COMMONS

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting to get together and decide on a form of words which did not oifend anybody?

Topic:   BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   IMPLEMENTATION OF CANADIAN POLICY
Full View Permalink

January 26, 1968

Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and notice has already been given. Is it the intention of the government to scrap the plans to build the Queen Elizabeth II telescope on Mount Kobau in the Okanagan-Similkameen area of British Columbia?

Topic:   RESEARCH
Subtopic:   BRITISH COLUMBIA-CONSTRUCTION OF QUEEN ELIZABETH II TELESCOPE
Full View Permalink

January 26, 1968

Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):

supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could many of the ministerial speeches that are sent out be dropped from members' lists, unless also requested?

Topic:   TRANSPORT
Subtopic:   MURCHISON INQUIRY-DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS
Full View Permalink