Maclyn (Mac) Thomas MCCUTCHEON

MCCUTCHEON, Maclyn (Mac) Thomas

Personal Data

Progressive Conservative
Lambton--Kent (Ontario)
Birth Date
June 17, 1912
Deceased Date
May 19, 1978

Parliamentary Career

April 8, 1963 - September 8, 1965
  Lambton--Kent (Ontario)
November 8, 1965 - April 23, 1968
  Lambton--Kent (Ontario)
June 25, 1968 - September 1, 1972
  Lambton--Kent (Ontario)
  • Deputy House Leader of the Official Opposition (January 1, 1972 - September 1, 1973)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 65 of 69)

November 24, 1967

Mr. Mac T. McCuicheon (Lambton-Kenf):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Labour. Are the unions involved Canadian unions, or are they affiliates of American unions?

Full View Permalink

November 22, 1967

Mr. Mac T. McCulcheon (Lamblon-Kent):

Mr. Speaker, a year and a half ago I supported the amendment of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald). I suppose therefore I might be classed as an abolitionist. However, I must point out that I cannot support this bill in its present form. I cannot make a value judgment on human life. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) suggested in his remarks the other night that those who voted for retention were mental barbarians, I think he was cynically imputing unfair motives to many of us who feel we must vote against this bill in its present form. I say to the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell): Make it total abolition and I will support it.

Full View Permalink

November 7, 1967

Mr. Mac T. McCuicheon (Lamblon-Kenl):

Mr. Speaker, in your experience you have heard a multitude of reasons for members participating in debate in this house so I might as well give you mine. My reason is simple. We are discussing Bill C-163 in respect of the C.B.C., but I do not believe we are talking about what the public really wants to know. I hope to be able to explain this statement a little later.

I have listened carefully to the minister's detailed and helpful explanation. Let me congratulate her on her stamina and perseverance. She kept going through all 10,000 words of it. Since then I have listened and read attentively expressions from all corners of this house. I have listened to C.B.C. apologists as well as those who would open up the treasury for five years and those who would curtail expenditures. We have all heard some wonderful legal arguments and opinions that the C.B.C. will now be directed by cabinet. We have heard pious hopes that the ugly spectre of politics will be forever erased from any connection with the C.B.C. There have been other arguments and suggestions that control will now be more political than the

B. B.G. ever considered. The more I have heard the more confused the issue has become.

I have formed one opinion with which I am sure the majority of Canadian taxpayers will agree. This debate is missing the target and is skirting the most important consideration in respect of the whole ugly C.B.C. mess. Up to the present time I have discerned no real attempt to come to grips with this important consideration. In the past issues have been clouded by insinuations that any criticism of the C.B.C. is an attempt to direct broadcasting and that parliament must not interfere with the creative elements of the

C. B.C., with which I agree. There are those who say the C.B.C. is doing a magnificent job. I cannot agree with them. It has been suggested that we should give the C.B.C. enough money to operate for four or five years at a time with no strings attached, but I suggest that the wisdom of this proposal has been challenged by at least four or five programs carried by the C.B.C. network. The Canadian taxpayer would like parliament to make sure that the C.B.C. is financially responsible. I do not believe for one moment that the people are as overly concerned about programming as we have been led to believe. They still have control of the on and off button. What they want parliament to find out is the value we are receiving from this expenditure.

The hon. member who has just taken his seat spoke about the terrible programming on the C.B.C. With all respect I suggest to him that no one has to watch any program. They can shut it off. I have heard public indignation about the expenditure of in excess of $100 million per year on this giant. This is understandable when one considers the other segments of our society which are suffering for lack of money. For example, what might an extra $100 million have done in respect of housing in Canada this year?

Let me say again that this debate is missing the target by a country mile with few exceptions. Last night the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) got close to the point, but I fear he is not prepared to vote the way he talks.

[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)

You see, Mr. Speaker, we are taking off in all directions simultaneously even though the basic issue must be: How can we control and, yes, cut down on the woeful extravagances of this juggernaut? I submit, respectfully, that nothing in the bill and not much said in the

November 7, 1967

debate so far has shown the way to reduce

costs or to really improve programming- nothing.

As things stand now, the minister accepts no responsibility. The stock answer is always that she is not responsible, that she only reports for the C.B.C. Most of us have had experience with the complaint of a constituent about C.B.C. service-and what a laugh this is. What these constituents have received in the mail from a highly paid public relations expert is a snow job beyond compare, so that the poor constituent really does not know what his question was in the first place. I understand that all this is to be changed, but I get the inference from the debate that the final answer to most disputes will now rest with cabinet.

Most politicians, indeed all politicians, need a certain amount of publicity, so I suggest that a politician who dares to criticize the C.B.C. is certainly leaving himself or herself subject to blacklisting. It seems to me that the bigger the apologist for the C.B.C., the more coverage he may receive. It is, therefore, indeed a brave front bench member of parliament who has the temerity to say anything critical of this monopolistic creature. Some have tried in the past but they have been immediately charged with trying to control programming and other sinister behaviour. It has been said that no one should criticize this sacred cow. But now the minister has and she has been criticized for her actions. I do not agree too often with the minister on other things but in this regard I have to give her full marks.

Full View Permalink

September 28, 1967

Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lamblon-Kenl):

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

September 28, 1967 COMMONS

Minister of Agriculture. I should like to ask whether the government has any plans to subsidize the corn growers of southwestern Ontario who are suffering from a 25 cent to 30 cent per bushel decrease in price this year. This would be a subsidy similar to the one offered the western wheat growers.

Full View Permalink

September 25, 1967

Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lamblon-Keni):

Far be it from me to attempt to give advice pertaining to the rules of this house. However, it is my understanding that the matter to be decided now is the necessity or urgency of debate at the present time. Is there or is there not a matter of urgency in and for the national interest relating to housing? In order to decide on the urgency of the debate I suggest a valued judgment must take place regarding how accurate and reliable are the reports of the economic council. If we assume that the advice of the economic council should be heeded-I for one believe that it should-then we need not only refer to the last and most recent report but we must refer to the previous reports made by this body a year ago. At that time a warning was issued to the government of an impending catastrophe in the housing situation. I submit that having largely ignored these warnings for well over a year the government has allowed a crisis of major importance to develop.

[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)

In view of the unpardonable delay, I suggest that there is now urgency of debate in regard to this matter of extreme national concern.

Topic:   HOUSING
Full View Permalink