Lewis Mackenzie BRAND

BRAND, Lewis Mackenzie, B.A., M.D.

Personal Data

Party
Progressive Conservative
Constituency
Saskatoon (Saskatchewan)
Birth Date
November 21, 1925
Deceased Date
February 15, 1994
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Brand
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=8b42de8f-57c0-4baa-8400-867d5cb7f485&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
physician, surgeon

Parliamentary Career

November 8, 1965 - April 23, 1968
PC
  Saskatoon (Saskatchewan)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 6 of 54)


November 13, 1967

1. Have any approaches been made to the historic sites and monuments board for the purchase of the Almonte home of Dr. Robert Tait McKenzie?

2. In view of the many representations, is it the intent of this government to designate the Mill of Kintail as a national historic site?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MILL OF KINTAIL AS HISTORIC SITE
Full View Permalink

November 8, 1967

1. How many regional and senior liaison officers are employed by the citizenship branch of the Department of the Secretary of State?

2. Where are they located?

3. What are their total salaries?

4. To whom do they report their activities?

5. Are such reports available?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   $17,550. LIAISON OFFICERS, CITIZENSHIP BRANCH, STATE SECRETARY'S DEPARTMENT
Full View Permalink

November 6, 1967

Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskaloon):

During last summer a constituent of mine, an English teacher and also a captain in the army reserve, received information that there were in army terminology call out positions available for teachers at the Canadian Forces language school at St. Jean, Quebec. Since he is a teacher and was interested in learning French as well as teaching English in such circumstances, he made inquiries and eventually a formal application for such a position. When he was informed by telephone that such a position was indeed available, he applied as instructed to technical command headquarters in Winnipeg, which forwarded his request to the Canadian Forces headquarters for ratification. The command officer in command of the Canadian Forces language school at St. Jean forwarded a wire requesting his service, in military parlance "soonest". He waited, but as often happens in military matters, time passed by until he actually became somewhat worried. He had not signed a contract for the next year, hoping of course that he would receive this position. He received assurances from the technical command headquarters in Winnipeg, specifically from Major Komph, that the delay was only temporary and ratification would be forthcoming. As a consequence of this assurance he did not sign a teaching contract, and then found he could not return to the master's program at university since the quota had been filled by this time.

November 6, 19S7

3960 COMMONS DEBATES

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion

Perhaps he was unwise in taking for granted the assurance of the technical command headquarters, and perhaps he should have gone ahead and taken employment. However, he felt that because of the assurances he had received and his great desire to teach in the Canadian Forces language school, he should wait. He now finds himself in a difficult position, since he is unable to take a position for which his qualifications fit him at this tune. He remembered the words of the white paper on defence, in which it was stated that greater use would be made of militia and reserve personnel in reserve forces positions.

A more recent statement of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) on behalf of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) on the matter of C.O.T.C. and other units was to the effect that they would be disbanded and more use would be made of reserve units in order to improve their efficiency and make them fit better into the pattern of regular forces. On many occasions we have heard that the Canadian Forces are short of trained and qualified officers. This young captain is trained and qualified.

Finally after all hope had passed for him to obtain a job to fit his qualifications he received a refusal from the technical command headquarters, with an apology for not having written sooner, since apparently someone had forgotten to do so. The reasons for refusal were, first of all that there had been a cut-back in armed services personnel and consequently his application would have to be deferred indefinitely, and that unfortunately all positions had been filled at the Canadian Forces language school at St. Jean, Quebec. They were prepared to offer him a technical position rather than a professional one for a period of one year at much lower pay and on a temporary basis, without any guarantee or contract. What a rebuff to a young educational officer anxious to serve his country.

[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)

I did a little digging in this matter. I can understand the cut-back in the armed services personnel but I had a little more difficulty understanding why the department would cut back on trained officer personnel, of which they were short. I wondered whether there were any positions available in the Canadian Forces language school, and purely by chance I obtained a copy of the roster of the school at St. Jean which contains in it

the positions presently filled and, surprisingly enough, the vacancies that exist.

I am looking through this document, which I understand is not in the top secret class but rather in the restricted category. I find that we have at least five vacancies in the types of positions which could be filled by this young educational officer. I am rather concerned about this and would very much appreciate an answer from the minister. I appreciate his courtesy in being here this evening at such a late hour. Perhaps he is not aware that these vacancies exist, and I will be happy to make this document available to him if it is not already in his possession.

I would appreciate something being done in this respect, in view of the vacancies that exist and the anxiety of this young educational officer to serve his country in a manner for which I believe he is eminently suited.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE-USE OF RESERVE OFFICERS AS LANGUAGE INSTRUCTORS
Full View Permalink

November 6, 1967

Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):

Mr. Speaker, some days ago when Bill No. C-163 was first introduced I read its provisions carefully. I am sure most other hon. members of the house also did so. With some of its provisions I could not disagree; others, I am afraid, gave me pause for thought.

There has been much talk in this country about whether parliament should continue to allow the existence of the crown corporation known as the C.B.C. or whether we should turn all broadcasting over to private interests. Some suggest that private interests could do a better and more efficient job in the broadcasting field than the C.B.C. could.

To do so, of course, would be to turn against the views of the broadcasting committee which stated that a distinctive Canadian broadcasting system was "essential to our national identity, unity and vitality in our second century", and went on to say that broadcasting might well be regarded as the central nervous system of Canadian nationhood. Although the report does not spell it out, it clearly indicates a desire for the continuance of a national broadcasting system such as the C.B.C. If, therefore, we decide that the C.B.C. should continue-and the bill before us certainly makes this clear-then it is our duty in parliament to try to fashion a bill which will provide adequate direction for those in the broadcasting field together with adequate protection of the public who are, after all, our primary concern.

This is a serious and important task, one which we in the opposition have approached with a concern no less great than that professed by the minister. We do not, of course,

DEBATES 3933

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting necessarily agree with every provision contained in the bill. My hon. friends, the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), have eloquently expressed some of our doubts and fears with regard to it. But we have offered our criticism in an attempt to improve the measure, to make it a better instrument with which to serve the public in the vital field of broadcasting.

I can assure the minister it was with these aims in mind that proposals have been advanced to have this bill considered in the standing committee on broadcasting prior to second reading. We feel this is a worth-while aim and in this connection I believe it would be useful to refer to what was said by my hon. friend from Royal when he spoke on this bill, as reported at pages 3760 and 3761 of Hansard.

I believe this bill should go back to the parliamentary committee because in so many ways it differs from the report of the special committee. Here I should like to suggest, and I do so quite sincerely, that it be sent to committee before approval in principle. The committee has the competence and ability, I say with respect, to improve this bill and make it a more democratic evocation of what the policy of the government should be. I think it would be a landmark in the long and perilous journey toward parliamentary reform if the Secretary of State would agree that what I suggest is an imaginative and proper procedure. If we really mean the parliamentary committee system to be effective, the minister will jump to accept this suggestion. I assure her that it is not a delaying tactic; it is a reforming tactic. It is not a device to kill the bill; it is a genuine attempt to use the latent talent and experience of parliamentarians for the improvement of the bill at an early stage of its passage through the house.

This we in the opposition sincerely believe, and the disturbing events of the past few days have been a powerful force in underlining and reinforcing our suggestion.

I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):

That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"This bill be not read a second time until the subject matter of the bill has been referred to the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts for review and until the committee has reported to the house."

This amendment has been necessitated by the incredible spectacle of the past few days. On the one hand we see the minister making charges of "rotten management" in the C.B.C. and on the other we find the president of that corporation demanding that the minister substantiate the serious charges she has made against management. Strangely enough,

November 6, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting even as the minister is making her charges the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the leader of the government, is publicly praising the C.B.C. for the excellent job it has done. Further complicating the situation is the fact that the president of the C.B.C voluntarily resigned over a year ago but was urged to stay on by this same government.

Here we have a situation where a minister in charge of a crown corporation is being challenged, most unwisely, I believe, by a man who is responsible not just for the C.B.C. but to the minister herself and through her to the parliament of Canada. It is clear that the minister herself has been most unwise in the type of blanket charges she has made, particularly since she has not specified those charges for the information of those to whom she is responsible, not the management of the C.B.C. but the parliament of Canada and, through its members, the people of Canada.

I was astonished, as were many other hon. members, to hear her say in reply to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) the other day: "It could be no secret to anyone who knew anything about broadcasting that there was a problem of management." I agree with that. Then the minister went on: "But what I learned about in the past few weeks was very much worse than that." It is the last part which concerns us most. What are these unknown things which the minister has learned about in the past few weeks? Surely we in this parliament as well as the people of Canada have a right to know. On behalf of the people of Canada this parliament provides more than $160 million annually for the C.B.C. and I believe our people have an inalienable right to know how their money is being spent.

Perhaps the minister spoke out of sheer frustration the other day. It is surely clear that all the blame for this unsavoury situation cannot be laid at her doorstep. It is the Prime Minister who has continually frustrated attempts to name a new head of the C.B.C. and who has continually expressed views directly opposed to those of the Secretary of State, making her position at times untenable. The Secretary of State may have been indiscreet but there are many people in Canada who believe that at least she was honest in what she said.

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

November 6, 1967

Mr. Brand:

I would commend that particular view to members of the press gallery.

How can we in this context hope to understand or improve the bill before us unless we have an opportunity to hear the full story as it should be placed before members of the standing committee on broadcasting? It is for this reason I have moved my amendment and I urge the house to give it consideration realizing that on this side we are totally sincere in our efforts to expand and improve the legislation before us. I repeat that by this manoeuvre we have no intention of trying to kill the bill. But we cannot do a proper job until we know what the facts are, and this will be one of the results of bringing the bill before the committee prior to second reading.

While hon. members are studying the amendment, perhaps I may make a few of the remarks I had intended to make prior to the occurrences of the last few days. When the Prime Minister finally answered my question regarding C.B.C. coverage in Saskatoon the reaction of the citizens of that city was entirely predictable. The Saskatoon Board of Trade, through its commissioner, Mr. Bert Saltoum, said it was inconceivable that the federal government should shelve the plans and expressed extreme disappointment about the decision.

* (5:10 p.m.)

As reported in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of November 2 he said:

In the light of all the facts, the board cannot understand the government decision. It notes that the longer the project is delayed the more it will cost when eventually built.

The report continued:

Mr. Salloum said a cut-back on government spending was carried on on this project until the freeze was lifted last year and the C.B.C. applied to the Board of Broadcast Governors for the Saskatoon station. "The B.B.G. approved the application and since then the matter has been awaiting cabinet approval."

"Saskatoon, it was said, would have a second television outlet by the fall of 1968?

The article went on to quote a statement made by the minister in charge of the C.B.C. in which she said:

I concur that a proposed C.B.C. television outlet for Saskatoon is of critical importance and I can assure you that utmost consideration is being given to it.

Commissioner Salloum added:

In the light of all the facts, we cannot understand the government decision.

The mayor of our city, Sidney Buckwold, also got into the act and, as reported in the

November 6, 1967

article, termed the postponement of the C.B.C. station "shameful." He said:

I fully appreciate the financial problems of the federal government, but I believe it is shameful that this project, promised by the C.B.C. to the citizens of Saskatoon for several years, should be postponed.

The report continued:

He said a second television station in the city is urgently needed and the general reaction of the public has indicated a preference for a full C.B.C. station.

There are many other comments by people from my city. There is no question but that the people of Saskatoon want alternative service. When we consider that they pay the same amount of taxes as any other region of Canada for support of the C.B.C., we believe they should be entitled to alternative coverage, the same as is now being received by many other cities of comparable size in Canada.

We believe it is mandatory that the government should reconsider its decision and at least as a temporary measure provide alternative service by a C.B.C. transmitter without studio facilities or allow private broadcasting to fill the void that will be left by this decision of the government. The decision to cancel the station is another example of how the leader of the government has frustrated the wishes of the minister in charge. It flies in the face of the recommendation in the white paper on broadcasting, and in the report of the committee on broadcasting which on page 9 reads as follows:

We recommend ... wherever practical, in areas now receiving only one Canadian service, if the service is through a private outlet, the alternative should be provided by C.B.C. If C.B.C. is now the sole service, the second service should be private.

Then there appears this significant sentence:

Where there are serious obstacles to such parallel development, however, these should not prohibit the extension of alternate service by other means, at least on a temporary basis.

This is the recommendation of the committee that we would like to see invoked.

At present there are rumours going around in the city of Saskatoon about the premier of Saskatchewan having visited the Prime Minister just before this announcement was made. It is being said that he discussed and made some sort of arrangement to allow a private station in Saskatchewan, incidentally a station which has some feeling for the present government, to put a satellite in the

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Saskatoon area, thus helping the private station out of an uneconomic situation. It is up to the government to kill this type of rumour before it gains too much credence in the minds of the people in the city I represent.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I could be permitted to make a few general remarks about some other facets of the bill before us. The white paper issued in 1966 stated one of the objectives of the C.B.C. as follows:

The determination to develop and maintain a national system of radio and t.v. broadcasting in Canada as an essential part of the continuing resolve for Canadian identity and Canadian unity.

The report of the broadcasting committee in March, 1967, put it similarly but in different words which I quoted earlier, namely:

A distinctively Canadian broadcasting system is essential to our national identity, unity and vitality in our second century.

Speaking personally, I am happy to see that the bill before us agrees with these two proposals, but I say that I will support this concept only as long as the private sector of broadcasting is also fully available to every Canadian. I will support it so long as those areas not presently covered by the C.B.C. will receive C.B.C. service. I will support it so long as the provisions in this bill are meaningful so far as the full and varied use of Canadian talent-writers, producers, actors and so on-is concerned. I will support it so long as it is truly Canadian and so long as its prime objective is the fostering not only of a distinctive Canadianism but also the encouragement of those Canadians involved in the arts.

The C.B.C. should be an instrument not of propaganda but of education. I must confess that I share the deep concern of the hon. member for Yukon when he referred to that clause in the bill which gives the cabinet power to pre-empt any program and broadcast any other program that either the executive committee or the governor in council deems to be of special significance to Canadians generally. The minister has said, and I note that the distinguished advocate from York South has also said, that the government would never take advantage of this provision for propaganda purposes. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, then this clause should not be in the bill at all.

A truly distinctive Canadian broadcasting system should be an instrument not only of entertainment but of enlightenment. It should be a means of communication between various regions to promote better understanding between them. It should not become the agent of

November 6, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting any one group seeking to promote its views and its views alone. Rather, it should be the means to provide stimulating and thought-provoking discussion.

It should be a cohesive factor in Canadian life. Earlier I quoted the aim of a national system of radio and television, and in this regard may I say that unity should be the result of a good broadcasting policy on the part of a viable C.B.C. and should not be a means to an end. The C.B.C. should not be used as an instrument to forge unity. Rather, as it helps one region of Canada to understand the others better, as it helps one racial group to understand and appreciate others, it will have done its work well and will have helped immeasurably in forging a united Canada, proud of its different origins and confident despite its diversity.

Presuming that we accept the above premises, certain other consequences become apparent. I have mentioned some of them previously. First, to achieve such lofty aims C.B.C. radio and television must reach every citizen in our country and, as I pointed out before, this is not yet a reality. Consequently the C.B.C. must have sufficient funds in order to provide the kind of service required. It is meaningless to put these words on paper and then not provide the means to give the type of service we hope to see.

The C.B.C. must also have sufficient flexibility and stability in regard to the moneys appropriated to allow meaningful, long-range planning. But it must also be responsible to the people of Canada and the parliament of Canada who provide the money with which it operates. At the same time authority must be permitted to allow good corporate management with the proviso that artistic freedom be given prominence, because only in this way can the C.B.C. mature and its influence increase. As I said before, allowing the C.B.C. to be used as an instrument of propaganda for any pressure group is to be mentioned only to be condemned.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer once more to the amendment I have placed before the house. Once again I ask hon. members on both sides to consider how we in the official opposition view this amendment. Certain allegations have been made by the minister. Counter-charges have been hurled back by the C.B.C. This unseemly situation must not be allowed to continue.

[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)

As I have said before, it is the right of every taxpayer in this country to know

exactly how the money provided to the C.B.C. is being spent by it. If the minister feels that her responsibility is to the management of the C.B.C. only, then I must in all honesty say that I disagree most heartily with this concept. It is the members of this house and the people of Canada who should know what is rotten in the management of the C.B.C. As parliamentarians, before we discuss the bill and before we propose amendments as the minister has invited us to do, we must know what is going on.

In the last few weeks factors have come to light which we did not have an opportunity to discuss in the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts. In many ways this is a new kettle of fish. We must have an opportunity to hear what these charges are. The Canadian people must know what the charges are. When we have this information we would hope to be able to come up then with a bill that will provide for the Canadian nation the type of guidance and control that all of us would like to see in this vital area of broadcasting which affects every facet of Canadian life.

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