Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to start my remarks by saying, first of all, that I am delighted to have the opportunity of taking part in this debate. I am of those who, publicly as well as behind the scenes, have worked for months, even years, to bring in this change which, to my mind, is essential. I mean, to take the debates of the House of Commons to all Canadians, through the most modern of media, namely television.

I must confess that for quite some time I used all the resources at my command and the influence I may have in Ottawa in an effort to convince government circles of holding a debate, as the earliest possible date, on the resolution before us today, which I shall endeavour to defend as best I can.

First I should like to stress the most important point, that whether we admit or not television is today the best of all means of communication. We have come a long way since Gutenberg discovered printing. The printed medium, which is still being used in all industrialized countries, is indeed quite different from television, in that it is a lineal medium. We learn what goes on by reading in a newspaper or a document a sequence of words, while television, through pictures, brings us information that is strictly global and which informs the spectator first hand. Television is the perfect medium, I repeat. Since the middle '60s, we have realized that the earthly globe is in fact an electrical network that links all human beings in such a way that they are no more and no less than tied to each other without being aware of it.

Perhaps the one who expressed this best is Professor McLu-han from Toronto who spoke the famous words that have now become a cliche: The medium is the message. In addition to being an extremely modern and a very powerful medium, television could solve today one of the most serious problems we are facing in the area of information. This problem which I would like to discuss for a few minutes is the growing lack of objectivity among newsmen, especially among writers.

As Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State of Canada, I have relatively often the opportunity to meet people who produce programs for private or even public television and

Broadcasting House Proceedings radio stations. Again last weekend, I had a discussion with the moderator of a very important and very popular public affairs program on the French network of the CBC who stated flatly that objectivity was a thing of the past. People in the field of information want to be able to say what they think, whether others agree with them or not, and I may be repeating the words of the previous speaker who, for his part, did not agree with them. Perhaps he is right. Perhaps people who work in the media should try to be more objective and to report events as they happen. But reality is different. Today's reporter wants to give his own opinion. And unless we censure and control what is happening in the information fields, I think that it would be very difficult for parliamentarians to change the situation. The only way to do so would be to give the spectators, the voters, direct access to the event, thus avoiding the screening now done by those responsible for information.

Direct access to the event is the central point of the present debate. The question we must ask of ourselves is as follows: Are we afraid that what happens in this chamber and which concerns everyone in Canada will be known directly by the public and that the public may judge the validity of the proposals debated in this House? This is the question. In my opinion, it is also the first good thing that would come out of broadcasting the proceedings of the House.

If it were possible, we, the government, the Liberal party, would like all Canadians to be able to get into this House at the same time to witness what we are saying, to hear what concerns them and to determine by themselves whether such a speaker is right or whether what another one is saying makes more sense.

This is not physically possible, but with the help of wires and cables, television will bring our speeches to the homes of all citizens who will want to tune in to the station carrying our message.

Mr. Guilbault:

I think that one aspect-

Mr. Guilbault:

I am ready to reply to the questions of the hon. member if he will allow me to conclude my observations. I think the one point we should not forget concerning the proposed program is that the material filmed or produced here would be available to the electronic media, that is television and radio.

So, far from undercutting the television stations, far from by-passing them, this proposal would allow them to obtain excerpts they could use which would only increase tenfold the potential work by the present media. I think we should immediately start the broadcasting on an experimental basis. I have it from Bell Canada that they could provide us on very short notice and at a minimum cost with a system that would allow us to reach the people who subscribe to the four cablevi-sion companies in the Ottawa-Hull area. So those people

January 25, 1977

Broadcasting House Proceedings could-and there are 175,000 families-on very short notice on an experimental basis see at home what is going on in this House, and we all know that the Ottawa-Hull area is probably the area in Canada where voters are the most aware of federal politics since they hear about it everyday through their traditional media.

It would be just as easy to extend this service to the Montreal and Toronto cable networks using what Bell Canada is using, its occasional network of television channels. This would allow to reach an additional one million homes. After that, the rest of Canadian homes could be reached via satellite or other appropriate means. I will come back to those technical considerations later. But seeing that someone on the other side wants to speak to me I could perhaps excite him a bit by saying a few words about the veiled opposition coming from the other side of the House to the resolution now before us. I say "veiled opposition" because we are told they want to introduce an amendment which far from going against the principle would seek to amend it somewhat. It is not difficult for a parliamentarian who has been in this House for a few years to distinguish dilatory tactics from normal amendments. But I think that what they are proposing is much more like something aimed at giving a nice second class burial to the resolution before the House.

But what in hell does Her Majesty's Official Opposition have to hide? Are they afraid that soon Canadians will be able to see what is going on in the House, everything that is said here on one side as well as the other? I do not know exactly, but I have my idea. Maybe they are afraid that the non-constructive attitude with which they are discharging their opposition responsibilities would become apparent and visible to all Canadians. They always say: The government is wrong in all respects, the government is responsible for all evils on earth. The policies proposed by this government are always irresponsible. Well, if the opposition wants to hide this fact I have no objection. And I have no objection if the government proposals-I usually find them correct, but I can be mistaken-I do not see why all Canadians should not see them as they are presented in the House and I am ready to submit to that examination.

Would the official opposition of Her Majesty like to hide the fact, for instance, that its leader is very seldom in the House, that he was not here yesterday at the opening of the debates, preferring to travel across the country and shake hands with people, an approach which is probably more beneficial politically but much less efficient for a party leader anxious to level constructive criticism at the government here in this House where the action is. Maybe that party wishes also to hide or delay as long as possible the knowledge on the part of Canadians that they have no program and no solution to the problems facing Canadians? It might be for those reasons that the opposition tries through dilatory tactics to delay the adoption of this resolution.

Well, let us turn to something more cheerful. I would like to suggest a way of broadcasting the programming of the House

debates and one such method to get our message across to the homes of Canadians would be to use the cablevision network.

I must be understood that Canada has the greatest number of cablevision networks in the world. No other country has as many independent cablevision networks nor as many cablevision outlets in private homes. A simple example would be the hearings of the Quebec Commission of Inquiry into Organized Crime which, as we all know, are broadcast by Quebec cable distributors to more than a million viewers, which is a considerable number. Although important the Quebec Commission of Inquiry into Organized Crime has certainly not the weight of the federal government. Nonetheless, it interests a million viewers who want to see what is going on. We can well imagine the reaction of Canadian viewers to debates on subject that interest them more closely and are discussed here in Parliament.

I would like to describe a bit more precisely the way the message of the Quebec crime probe is transmitted to the viewer. The commission hearings are prerecorded, that is they are filmed by a group of technicians working for the various cable distributors. The cassettes are then transmitted during the night to the various cablevision networks and the prerecorded message is broadcast the following day. At first hand, this would seem to be less advantageous than direct broadcasting but it turned out to be quite the contrary.

What happens is that that very same night the constituent sees something exciting during the news broadcast. He sees a short thirty second sequence on a certain point of the inquiry, he is thus interested in seeing the full proceeding, and seeing what the various protagonists have said, in length and in context. We might perhaps consider this method of broadcast for our debates? I offer this as a suggestion.

I would now like to go to some arguments in my favour which are worthy of mention because they back up this proposal rather strongly. The first is that little or no discomfort will be caused because new cameras can operate without increasing light levels in the House. The cameras themselves and the technicians will be unobtrusive and will not be placed on the floor of the House or allowed to move about. It would arouse interest in parliament and in the democratic process. Every member of this House knows that is badly needed.

This place is the weaker if it is not fully reported to our fellow citizens and reported in ways which they can plainly see, understand and feel involved in. It would focus attention on the way in which we conduct the nation's business. We would do it more efficiently and the broadcasting of our proceedings would show up our deficiencies and help us to overcome them. That is for those of us who are not afraid of being scrutinized.

We should use the most effective medium of communication that is available to the public today. That is, without doubt, television. Television will be good for parliament, not because it will allow us to keep our traditions completely but because it

January 25, 1977

will be a catalyst for change. Those of us who want change and progress in this institution, who want it to evolve toward a more businesslike and efficient procedure, will welcome television because it will assist us to that objective. It would help to show the public what are the hurdles and obstacles in the way of progress in parliament. It would help us to explain to our constituents the problems which confront us in our day-to-day work. It would demonstrate the weakness of MPs in trying to influence the government and the executive.

More than 20 countries already broadcast their proceedings. Cameras have already been allowed to broadcast selected government events. There is no reason why we should not allow them in here for good. The UN and the Council of Europe have long been accustomed to cameras recording their proceedings.

I wish to say a few words about a fear that some have, namely, that grandstanding will begin and our proceedings will be changed. In my opinion, the buffoon would be exposed as a buffoon. Experience in Germany has shown that the stars are not the flowery orators, comic performers or the buffoons. They are those members of the Bundestag who know what they are talking about. However badly they may deliver their speeches, and however inadequate they may be as orators, if they know what they are talking about and if what they talk about finds an echo in the experience of their audience, they become the stars of that program. There would be more opportunity for members who are now never invited to appear on television-people who know their subject very well but who have to demonstrate their knowledge in committee rather than on the floor of the House. It is no excuse for keeping cameras out to say that viewers would misunderstand what is happening-empty benches, for example. Viewers would quickly discover and understand what happens in parliament.

Broadcasters are responsible people and have shown themselves to be so. Broadcasters would do a better job than the press does now. Being an electronic medium, it is more prone to show the truth because it shows things as they happen. If we think that television will distort parliament, we should ban the press from parliament. Who in this House is ready to do that? Television has a much better record of impartiality than does the press, for the reasons I have mentioned. You cannot play too much with the media.

How will we know whether televising parliament is good, or bad, if we do not carry out an experiment? We should move now while cable channels are available. With the exception of Toronto, in most cities across the land they were empty a couple of years ago. They are now crowded in Toronto and will soon be crowded in Montreal and Vancouver. If we want to move in this direction, we should move now. Otherwise it will be too late.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member who spoke before me, I would like to call upon Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to review their position, to support the motion in order to better serve democracy and Canadians as a whole. If they were right in their repeated suggestions in this House that

Broadcasting House Proceedings the Liberal government have such a poor performance, that our policies are so bad, why in heavens are they afraid that Canadians see what goes on in this House? The whole nation could observe the government develop their policies. If the Progressive Conservatives are right in their analysis, they would have a tremendous political interest in allowing television.

Mr. Guilbault:

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) for having consulted with the Secretary of State (Mr. Marchand) and myself to make us aware of his intentions. I wish to state that his avowed purpose to help those on ministerial permits is worth-while. After having consulted with officials in the department, I might state that we believe the hon. member's purpose is already covered by some sections of the new act. I will read them for the record. I have been trying to convince the hon. member, but he is somewhat reluctant about some legalistic talk. If one looks at the new Citizenship Act, he will find in section 2(2)(b) the following:

A person who is lawfully present and entitled to permanently reside in Canada shall be deemed to have been lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence;

This is found in the interpretation section of the act and covers what the hon. member intends. Section 5(4) of the act which deals with special cases reads as follows:

In order to alleviate cases of special and unusual hardship or to reward services of an exceptional value to Canada, and notwithstanding any other provision of this act, the governor in council may, in his discretion, direct the minister to grant citizenship to any person and, where such a direction is made, the minister shall forthwith grant citizenship to the person named in the direction.

I recognize that this is not a blanket coverage such as the hon. member is proposing, but nevertheless it can become

useful. I submit that the first excerpt of the law that I read would cover the purpose of the hon. member. However, we are willing to send the bill to committee in order to have more time for departmental lawyers and others to appear before the committee. We will then be in a better position to know the exact effect of the hon. member's bill.

There is something I wish to clarify. It does not really matter whether the hon. member's bill is passed before February 15. The new Citizenship Act is already in existence. It is only that it has not been proclaimed. It can be amended. If it were amended today, when it is proclaimed, the whole act as amended would be proclaimed. There is no problem there. I just state that for the record. That being said, we on this side will agree to send it to committee.

The title to Bill C-237 reads, "An act to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act". As the hon. member has said, we would need the unanimous consent of the House to amend the title of his bill so as to read, "An act to amend the Citizenship Act", in other words, to amend the new bill. Do I have unanimous consent to do this, or would the hon. member do it-I do not mind. But it is essential, otherwise we would be amending the old act.