Bert Raymond LEBOE

LEBOE, Bert Raymond

Personal Data

Party
Social Credit
Constituency
Cariboo (British Columbia)
Birth Date
August 13, 1909
Deceased Date
December 11, 1980
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_Leboe
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=8acb8c08-6534-4ab7-8d10-cd230df9e9eb&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lumberman

Parliamentary Career

August 10, 1953 - April 12, 1957
SC
  Cariboo (British Columbia)
June 10, 1957 - February 1, 1958
SC
  Cariboo (British Columbia)
June 18, 1962 - February 6, 1963
SC
  Cariboo (British Columbia)
April 8, 1963 - September 8, 1965
SC
  Cariboo (British Columbia)
November 8, 1965 - April 23, 1968
SC
  Cariboo (British Columbia)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 3 of 111)


January 26, 1968

Mr. Leboe:

I do not think there is such a rule, Mr. Chairman. I think it has been a practice of the house but it is not a rule.

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

January 23, 1968

Mr. Leboe:

Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few things only about the broadcasting bill. First, I wish to add my voice to those who have previously spoken in criticism of some C.B.C. productions. I think we should look to some other body than the C.B.C. for productions that are suitable to be televised. Some independent body ought to make these productions and sell them. I am referring to feature films and not to those productions that are made to be released almost immediately, news interviews and so on. Provision ought to be made for some industry which would make films for sale to television operators.

Then, the C.B.C., C.T.V. and other broadcasting networks could buy or rent those productions; in that way, by having available productions which are produced at competitive prices, we should escape the criticisms which are directed at the C.B.C. in connection with its productions. Those criticisms are very serious indeed.

One of my main reasons for rising is that I v/ant to make another plea for the extension of broadcasting facilities in the northern areas of Canada. It is incredible that out of a budget of from $140 million to $170 million we should quibble about the $200,000 to $250,000 which would provide the complete establishment of television facilities throughout the entire northern parts of our provinces.

Hon. members of the house may be surprised at this, but the cost of translators for television broadcasts is very, very minor indeed. You can set up a minor broadcasting or relay station, with a translator, for as little as $3,500. That station can pick up signals from the air. Bear in mind that modern facilities for scrubbing certain signals exist. It has been said to me by engineers that a signal can be transmitted from Vancouver, through a translator, to the Prince George district of British Columbia and that the signal there will be stronger and clearer than the signal which is received by sets in the city of Vancouver from the local broadcasting station.

c (8:50 p.m.)

The reason is that there is a lot of local interference in the city; those who live right in the city do not get as good a signal as that transmitted 500 miles through the relay to the outskirts of Vancouver where there is little interference. This proves that the ability to use translators to bring a signal into the far reaches of the north is ours for the taking, and I emphasize once again that an expenditure of a quarter of a million dollars out of a budget running as high as $170 million seems like peanuts when one considers the result that could be achieved.

The prime purpose of the C.B.C. was to bring broadcasting, whether radio or television, to regions where it would be uneconomic for private enterprise to provide it. This is spelled out in the new bill. I must say I was pleased to receive a letter from the minister in which I was informed it was government policy to give priority to bringing signals to these outlying areas. I must say I am interested in having these signals made available free to all who live in such areas.

January 23, 1368

Why should people in Valemount in my constituency have to make payments every month in order to get television of sorts, in addition to providing funds for the transmitter? It does not make sense. Everyone else gets free television. Think of the millions being spent by the C.B.C. to wean Canadian business away from United States stations. Well, there are people in the north who still do not have transmissions of any kind available to them, though the provision of a signal would involve a paltry sum of between $3,500 and $7,000.

The C.B.C. comes cap in hand asking for a five-year budget as far as operating expenditures are concerned. I cannot find words strong enough to denounce a policy which allows the C.B.C. a five year budget. What in the world is this parliament for if it is not to scrutinize expenditures of this type and see whether or not we are getting value for the money spent? I recall the years gone by when no broadcasting committee was set up and when we were unable to examine the affairs of the C.B.C. in any effective way. I should like to see the broadcasting committee meet every year, with a report from the management before it for discussion as is the case with any other Crown corporation, and the C.B.C. getting money on the basis of its performance.

Nothing could be more appalling than that the government of Canada should even consider allowing a five year budget. There is not a businessman in Canada of any experience who would subscribe to such a thing. Certainly we need some action on the part of hon. members on all sides of this house to make certain that this five year plan is put on the shelf. In this connection, we are all aware that the government is very much concerned today about the rate of government spending. If this state of affairs continues we may have to cut back the $170 million allotted to the C.B.C. as part of a deliberate program. If there is a possibility of getting ourselves into a lot of trouble in the financial world today, why should we put a glorified circle around the C.B.C.?

I, myself, am interested, of course, in plans for an airport terminal at St. George. I agree that if the government is pressed and has to reduce its spending, we shall have to be patient and wait. But why in the world should we wait for the building of an airport terminal there merely to fatten the C.B.C. with multi-millions of dollars in excess of the amount required to bring needed facilities to Prince George and the surrounding area?

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting

[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)

In closing, I should like to say that as one who has been in business, who has had to meet a payroll and bear responsibility for production, this five year budget provision makes no sense whatever.

Topic:   SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED
Subtopic:   IMPLEMENTATION OF CANADIAN POLICY
Full View Permalink

December 19, 1967

Mr. Leboe:

I wanted to ask the minister to explain what an advocate is. There is a reference in the clause to "barrister, solicitor, lawyer or advocate." These words appear also in clause 8. It is interesting to note that after a petition is brought before the court, the court can nominate a person of experience and training in marriage counselling or, in special circumstances, some other suitable person. I am wondering what an advocate really is. Perhaps the minister would relate his explanation to clause 8. I realize we are dealing with clause 7 but perhaps he could relate his explanation to clause 8 and give some clear explanation of what an advocate is.

Topic:   DIVORCE
Subtopic:   MEASURE RESPECTING GROUNDS, JURISDICTION, JUDGES, ETC.
Full View Permalink

December 19, 1967

Mr. Leboe:

Would the minister consider a situation where in a province someone other than a barrister, solicitor, lawyer or advocate presents a petition to a court? It seems to me that there are other qualified people who

December 19, 1967

Divorce Law Reform

could present petitions and it the provincial authority gave them that right they should be able to do so. This is something that should be left to the provinces, is it not?

I can see a real heyday for lawyers so far as money is concerned when they get into a situation like this with one postponement after another. The result will be that they will continue to add a little more to their fees and really go to town. It seems to me that we are putting the presenting of petitions solely in the hands of the legal profession.

Topic:   DIVORCE
Subtopic:   MEASURE RESPECTING GROUNDS, JURISDICTION, JUDGES, ETC.
Full View Permalink

December 19, 1967

Mr. Leboe:

Mr. Chairman, should there not be some mention about an individual himself being able to plead his case? That is not mentioned in the bill. I am not a lawyer; I am merely seeking information.

Topic:   DIVORCE
Subtopic:   MEASURE RESPECTING GROUNDS, JURISDICTION, JUDGES, ETC.
Full View Permalink