1933-04-21

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sanbury) presented the second report of the select standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government and moved that the estimates referred to in the said report be referred to the committee of supply.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 79, to amend the Canada Grain Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. STEVENS:: This bill deals with one or two matters in connection with the general administration of the act which it is desired to correct. One amendment arises out of a decision of the courts in regard to the insufficiency as to title to the grain of the 'bills of lading on the great lakes where the trip is broken and the grain unloaded into a transfer elevator. The other amendment deals with the practice in the port of Montreal and other ports of using grain for the loading of ships which may not be quite correctly documented under the present system. It is to correct these two matters that the bill is being introduced.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ADVANCES TO PROVINCES

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table correspondence with the provincial authorities and to give a copy to the right hon. leader of the opposition.



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved the second reading of Bill No. 78, to amend the Pension Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it has been decided to refer this bill to a small special committee. This will meet the requests which were made in the house yesterday.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.

Supply-M arine
Mr. MacLAREN:: I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) that the said bill be referred to a special committee to be hereafter named, with power to report from time to time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought the whips might be able to agree on the personnel of the committee between now and Monday, and then on Monday the committee could be named.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: What number is it proposed to have?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is proposed to have a committee of twelve. That number has been found to work out satisfactorily having regard to the membership of the various parties in the house.



DEPARTMENT OP MARINE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Gobeil in the chair.
Marine-
Salaries, $301,932; contingencies, $57,500.
Mr. NEILL:: Mr. Chairman, I suppose this is the only item in the minister's estimates under which we will have the opportunity of discussing matters of a general character. With that in mind I should like to discuss the matter of the appointment of port surveyors. Owing to the changing of the Canada Shipping Act in its application to load lines, it became necessary to facilitate the operations of shipping, to appoint surveyors. Particularly was that so in those ports where lumber was the chief export. I suggest the port of Port Alberni has not been treated fairly.
Two men

and I understand they are capable men-have been appointed in Vancouver, and one in Victoria. The man in Victoria is authorized to carry out the supervision of ships loading lumber not only at Victoria but at points such as Nanaimo and Ladysmith. However the work in connection with the port of Alberni is being done by the man from Vancouver. I wish to emphasize that I have no complaint to make against the ability of that man. But the situation is such that shippers of lumber from the port of Port Alberni are operating under a very heavy handicap. In one sense that port is somewhat remote from Vancouver. That is to say a full day's time is required to get there, and another day to get back. The work is of such a character that a local man should be on hand to do it. It is not merely a matter of looking at a ship and saying, "All right, you can take the boat out." Constant
or at ltast intermittent supervision is required while the boat is being loaded, and that attention cannot be given by a man whose residence is a day's journey away.
The port of Port Alberni is deserving of careful consideration, because it is the third largest shipping port in the province of British Columbia. Hon. members may be surprised to learn that we out-rate Victoria, the capital city. We ship more lumber from the port of Port Alberni than is shipped from Victoria. Yet, when there is a man stationed at Vancouver we have not one at Port Alberni, with the result that there are several forms of injustice. The fee for inspecting a boat is ten dollars. I do not know who is supposed to pay it, but in the last analysis no doubt it is the shipper of the lumber. If the man has to come from a distance the shipper has to pay expenses both going and coming and living expenses. That, to begin with is an unfair charge, because it handicaps the shippers at Port Alberni who are in competition with other shippers.
Yet that is not the most important feature. This is a technical matter with which I am not thoroughly familiar; to decide where a load line shall be is an extremely complicated problem, under the new regulations. A man thoroughly versed in loading lumber, a marine man and one who has to have quite a good education, must do the work. The particular spot where the load line is to be placed is not so much his concern; that is ascertained by a preliminary surveyor. The chief duty of the port surveyor is to ascertain the amount of lumber that shall be put on the deck load. To those who do not understand marine matters I should explain that the surveyor could come along and say, " Well, take a thousand feet off that deck load." It would be easily done. However that is not the way it works out. A man may have a million and a half feet of lumber to ship. He knows where it is going. Some of it may be of a specific kind, or of a type most adapted to be shipped on the deck. Perhaps because it is too long, or for some other reason it cannot be put below deck. Under those circumstances the shipper would have half a million feet to place on the deck. After he has completed loading and placed the half million feet on the deck the surveyor, who has not been in attendance when the work was in progress, may come along and say, " You will have to take two hundred thousand feet off." In that way the order is broken. It means that not only will he have to take off two hundred thousand feet, but he will have to take the whole deck load off, take out a certain portion of the lumber
Supply-Marine

below deck and replace it with some* of the deck load which had to be taken off under the direction of the surveyor. The shipper must have the top load go on the ship somewhere, so he has to take the whole half million deck load off, then take some out of the hold and replace it.
That is only one illustration. I am trying to indicate the necessity of the surveyor being in the immediate vicinity, so that he may be called or consulted during the progress of the loading. He may come down and say, " That ship is sinking too fast by the head; I do not think I will allow any more in the forward hold"-or on the deck load, as the case may be. Under those circumstances the shipper guides himself accordingly, and makes appropriate arrangements. But when the surveyor is a day's journey away, he cannot give that supervision. He would not be paid if he came between times. These facts illustrate the necessity of always having a local man on hand. Of course he would not have to stand and watch the ship being loaded. The S10 would not be sufficient for him to do that, but he can glance at it from time to time.
Although I have discussed the most important feature, there is another one worthy of consideration. Very often 'the ships are running strictly on schedule time. If in loading they are detained more than a certain number of hours there are heavy demurrage charges. They do not know exactly when the boat will be completely loaded; possibly they cannot tell within forty-eight hours. If a surveyor is sent from Vancouver to be on hand at the time the shipper anticipates the boat will be loaded, and upon his arrival it is not loaded, there are all binds of trouble. If on the other hand when they send for him they find he has gone north of Powell River or some other comparatively remote port then the boat is tied up and someone has to bear heavy demurrage, perhaps $500 a day. For all these reasons and others which I could indicate I would impress upon the minister the necessity of appointing a local man, even if he is only an acting port inspector. Sudh men can be got at the port of Alberni, thoroughly competent to do the work. It is going to create a quite unnecessary handicap on this industry, which as we all know is struggling desperately at the present time. There are two or three mills that have been shut down most of the winter and they are just beginning work on a very meagre basis now, and should not be subject to any avoidable 'handicap. If I were asking the government to spend money it would be different,

but I am not; I am simply asking them to appoint a competent man in Port Albemi to do this work, as they have done in Vancouver. The Vancouver man is too far away, and the expense and time to bring him is too great. I do ask the minister to look very thoroughly into this phase of the situation. Perhaps he can give me some information now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Alan Webster Neill: No, it is not carried.


Mr. DURANLEAU:: Mr. Chairman, I am
glad my hon. friend has brought this question before the committee. It is the first intimation I have had of any complaint about the surveyors we have on the Pacific coast for the enforcement of the load line convention. But the desire of the government is that our exporters and shippers shall have all possible facilities. I will be pleased to inquire, and if we can do what my hon. friend suggests, appoint a surveyor especially for the port of Albemi, we will do dt. I shall be happy to inquire.


Alan Webster Neill: I thank the minister. I might say that the government have a little interest in Port Alberni. They put a timber assembly wharf there that cost $125,000, and it has paid its way "from the grass roots," so to speak, the only wharf in Canada that has been known to do that. It is a credit to the foresight of the late ministry, so the government has some interest in seeing that it is made a success. I do not want the minister to take it that I have any complaint about the men appointed, they are quite competent men, the only thing is that it needs a local man.
While I am on my feet and before my hon. friends opposite cry "carried" again, I would ask the minister if he has any intention of building another lighthouse tender. These matters are just as important to the Pacific coast as the grain situation is to the prairies; we sat here very patiently while the Grain Act was being discussed, and we ask the same courtesy of hon. members now. I think I brought the question of a lighthouse tender to the attention of the minister last fall. The only boat doing the work now is the Newington; she is old and never was a very suitable boat. They had a very good boat some years ago but it had to be thrown aside. Some day that Newington is going to break down, it is far gone in a senile condition now, and when it does break down there is going to be a desperate situation in connection with the lighthouse service. Notwithstanding the need for economy, which I quite admit, I think it is poor policy not to foresee the more or less

Supply-Marine
immediate need for another boat. You cannot pick up suitable lighthouse tenders in a day or two, they have to be built. I hope the minister will give some assurance that even if he is not able to get one immediately he at least has it in his mind to arrange to build such a boat.


Alfred Duranleau: As to the necessity of replacing that boat by a new one, I am quite in accord with my hon. friend. The reports of my officials are to the same effect. But this year we have to cut down expenditure, so unfortunately the project will have to be postponed until next year.


Alan Webster Neill: Just one word more. I am
glad to find myself so much in accord with the minister's views. I want to ask a question which is not of a critical character. I see in a local paper that a patrol cutter apparently called the Adversus is going to leave Halifax on May 5th to take up patrol work on the Pacific coast. Could the minister advise us as to the character of this boat and the work it will be engaged in, or what kind of boat it will replace? Is it intended to replace the Thiepval, or what is it intended to do?


Alfred Duranleau: I am sorry I cannot
give a definite answer to my hon. friend, as this boat belongs to the preventive service of the customs department.


Mr. CARDIN:: I observe the estimate does not provide for the salary of a chief engineer. Is it the intention of the department to do away with the services of the chief engineer?


Alfred Duranleau: According to an order in council adopted some months ago, all
positions vacant at a certain date were abolished, automatically. But we have in the contingencies estimates sufficient money to provide for it when the appointment is made.


Mr. MacLEAN:: I notice on page 82 of the estimates there are quite a number of items in connection with the radio service. I find there is a director of radio service at 85,220; superintendent of radio service, $3,960; senior radio electrical engineer, $3,840; and chief radio inspector, $3,060; and senior radio inspectors, two, at $2,580; a total of over $21,000 for these officials in the radio branch. I thought it was understood that when the commission took over the service they would administer it. I would like to ask the minister if those positions I have referred to are independent of the commission, if those men will be retained in the service doing the same work as they w'ere doing before, and if the commission will carry on a different branch of the service?


Alfred Duranleau: Radio under the Department of Marine is quite separate from the radio commission. The radio commission attend to broadcasting; they may have their own engineers for broadcasting. The Marine department attends to communication and "trouble" services all over the country, and radio direction finding. So we have to retain our own engineers and staff.


Mr. BROWN:: Now that radio has been mentioned perhaps this is a favourable opportunity to refer to a matter that was brought up in the house some few days ago-


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: If the hon. gentleman will excuse me, there is a little further on an item about radio.


Albert Joseph Brown: Well, I am willing to postpone the matter.


Mr. MARCIL:: Has any progress been made regarding the appointment of a deputy minister of marine? How can the department get on without a deputy?


Alfred Duranleau: I am sorry my hon. friend did not direct his question to the Prime Minister. He has the power to appoint the deputy minister.


Albert Joseph Brown: Are we discussing the whole of item 24 of which details are given on page 82?


George Halsey Perley: Yes.


Albert Joseph Brown: Then surely any particular
item in this list may be discussed at this time.


George Halsey Perley: Certainly; my
hon. friend has that privilege, but there is a particular item a little later on with regard to radio.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: With further reference
*to the appointment of a deputy minister of marine, some time ago I directed a question in that regard to the minister, who referred me to the Prime Minister. I asked the same question of the Prime Minister, but I could not get a definite answer. Now the question has been asked again by the hon. member for Gaepe, and I should think the Minister of Marine and the Prime Minister have had time to consider the situation and decide what is to be done. Surely they are not going to leave that position vacant for another year. I think it is in the interests of the department, of the people in this country generally and also of the government that such a high post should be filled as quickly as possible. I am sure that in the department there are competent officials who might be promoted; other
Supply-M arine

persons have been mentioned with reference t-o this position as well, and I think it is necessary for the proper conduct of the affairs of the country that this appointment should be made. I have no doubt it would be a great help to the minister if he could be relieved of all the work of administration in connection with his own department, and he could do that by obtaining the services of a well qualified, well equipped man. Sometimes my hon. friend has to go away; for instance, last year he made a successful trip to Spain. Perhaps next year he may go to another country to represent Canada, perhaps Russia, and the department will be rudderless, operating without proper direction. I think we should have from the minister a statement as to the approximate date when this position will be filled.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think it is
fair for my hon. friends to ask the minister when such an appointment will be made, when it is well known that under the law the appointment is made by the Prime Minister. I do not understand why the matter is brought up when the Prime Minister is not in his seat.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The other day the Prime Minister told me the matter was under consideration. Surely in the interval, and especially in view of the fact that we are getting towards the end of the session, some progress has been made in the matter. I know both my hon. friend and the Prime Minister are busy, but I would ask the hon. gentleman now whether an application or recommendation has been received with regard to certain persons in connection with this position. The .minister cannot make the country believe that the Prime Minister does the whole thing alone. We know he does most of the work of the government, but surely my hon. friend will not let anything be put over him; surely he will not lot the Prime Minister dictate to him how his own department shall be run. I do not think the hon. gentleman would let the Prime Minister appoint, without consultation, without advice and without authority, a man whom the minister himself might not trust and whom he might not care to have administering his department. It is very good to have the Prime Minister running the country and all the departments of the government, as we surmise he does, but I have known my hon. friend in a professional and business way, and from the way he has carried on his department and from the appointments he has made I am reasonably sure that he would not

allow the Prime Minister to force him to accept some person whom he might not like. I think the country should know when this position, which is one of the most important in the country, is to be filled. It has been vacant for almost a year now, but when we ask the minister when the appointment will be made we are told that the Prime Minister has the last say.


Alfred Duranleau: That is the law.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: But the Prime Minister is not in his seat. My hon. friend wants the country to believe that he is going to submit like a good little boy to the dictates of the Prime Minister. I do not believe it and the country will not believe it. We want to know when this position will be filled.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I have put a direct question to the minister; I asked if he has received any applications for that position or if certain persons have been recommended to him. I should like an answer.


Alfred Duranleau: Everyone knows that all applications must be directed to the Prime Minister, who appoints the heads of departments. I am surprised to hear my hon. friend say that he does not think the minister will let the Prime Minister go over his head in the making of this appointment. That is not the question at all; the law says that the heads of departments shall be appointed by the Prime Minister, and I believe in abiding by the law. I cannot tell my hon. friend when the appointment will be made; that question should be directed to the Prime Minister.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Then I will direct another question to the minister. Is it not a fact that applications for this position go to the minister, and has he received any application from any person?


Alfred Duranleau: No, the applications go to the Prime Minister, who makes the appointment.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Then let me ask the minister if he has heard of any application being made for that position.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not attach much importance to gossip.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Has the minister himself received any application for that position?


Mr. MAGDOUGALL:: The minister has already answered that question.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: My hon. friend is not the minister. I should like an answer to my question, which I think is a fair one.

Supply-Marine


Mr. BOUCHARD:: I think the question of this appointment has been a great disappointment to the country.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: We were led to believe that the government intended to reduce all the estimates, but I notice an increase of $4,500 here. If the Department of Marine is carrying on all the services it carried on previously; if it has been found necessary to increase the estimates by $4,500 surely it follows that a deputy minister is needed. If there is no need for a deputy minister now surely there was no need for one in former years; t'he money paid previously must have been thrown away. I think it is up to the minister to give us a clear understanding of this matter. First he should tell us why the vote is increased by $4,500, and then he should say whether it is necessary to have a deputy minister and, if so, when that appointment will be made.


Alfred Duranleau: I think my hon. friend is mistaken; we have a total decrease of $9,054 in civil government. In the first item there is a decrease of $13,554, and there is an increase of $4,500 in the contingency item. As I said a moment ago, the position of chief engineer is not provided for in the first item, but it will be looked after under the next item. That might explain the increase of $4,500 in the second item, which is more than offset by a decrease of $13,554 in the first item.


Charles Marcil: Along with other members of the cabinet the minister represents the Montreal district. Has he taken cognizance of the resolutions passed yesterday by the chamber of commerce and the board of trade of Montreal, representing the business men of that city, to the effect that the government has made no attempt whatever to reduce the expenditures of this country? Is he prepared to apply the recommendations of those bodies to his own department?


Alfred Duranleau: I have not yet taken communication of any resolution adopted by the chamber of commerce or the board of trade of Montreal, but I may inform my hon. friend that since we have been in office we have abolished over four thousand positions and reduced expenditures accordingly.


An hon. MEMBER:: And increased unemployment.


Alfred Duranleau: I am sure that those who criticize the government are not aware of these facts.


Charles Marcil: The chief organ supporting the government in Montreal, the Montreal
Gazette, one of the best newspapers in the dominion, published yesterday and the day before editorials which I commend to the minister; he should take them into consideration. As regards these four thousand employees the hon. gentleman now mentions, I do not know what their political complexion is but I do know that in my own constituency every man who has been dismissed is a Liberal. Yesterday the Postmaster General dismissed Edward E.'Sweetman of Port Daniel Centre, a man who had been for a considerable number of years in the service, and a request to have him retained was made by the Lord Bishop of Quebec. The minister no doubt overlooks that. Of these four thousand how many were Liberals and how many Conservatives? Can the minister tell me that?


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend refers to the Montreal Gazette and mentions an article in that newspaper with reference to the necessity for reduction in expenditures. May I in turn refer him to another newspaper, the Journal, and ask him to read yesterday morning's editorial, which furnishes a complete answer to the article in the Gazette.


Charles Marcil: The citizens of Montreal declare that they are prepared to carry their share of the burden; the business men of that city are ready to pay their taxes. But they want this government to give some evidence of economy. They point out that there are three or four departments which could easily be abolished. Here, for example, we have two departments which might be under the minister, the Department of Marine and the Department of Fisheries, and on top of that we have a duplication so far as radio is concerned; the minister is running one part of the radio organization while the radio commission sees to the other part of it. The minister will have a staff of his own and the radio commission their own staff.
By the way, in the matter of radio broadcasting, has the minister received complaints within the last week with regard to duplication of services? Has it been represented to him that one service is running into another, that some of the most important services from the United States, the Columbia station, for instance, are being neutralized by the multiplication of services in this country? Is he prepared to look into this matter? I know the minister is sincere, and he is a young man in public life, so that he wants to make good. Surely therefore he must realize the importance of the representation made by the business men of Montreal. These men want
Supply-Marine

to see some tangible evidence of economy on the part of the government. If I had time I could go over a list of departments that could easily be done away with or merged into other departments. That is what the Gazette is pointing out, and it is what these business men of Montreal wish to see brought about. They do not want the government to cut down by ten cents the pay of the labouring classes, charwomen and the like; they want the government to practise real economy. Take the Department of Railways for instance. That used to be one of the most important departments; to-day, if you ask the minister for information, all he says is, "I cannot give any information; I shall have to ask Montreal." So that Montreal is running the railways. Well, what is the use of that department? Why not take canals and put them under the Marine department? That is where the department could perform a useful service. Again, take the Health department, another one to which attention has been drawn. That deals only with animals, because the health of human beings is looked after by the provinces. Here we have a department that could easily be done away with; the services now performed by the Department of Health, so far as animals are concerned, could be done by the Department of the Interior or some other branch of government, perhaps the Department of Agriculture. And so on. I really think the minister should give some attention to the request made by the business men of Montreal, who after all carry a large share of the burden of this country, and who rightly insist that the government should show some practical evidence of their willingness to cut down the expenses of this country as far as possible. God knows we are governed enough; we have nine provincial governments, hundreds of municipal governments and county councils, and altogether we are governed to death. We have reached the crossroads, and if the offer from the United States does not result in a change in our commercial relations I do not know what will happen.


Alfred Duranleau: I can assure the committee that we are taking every possible means to curtail expenses. As a matter of fact a great number of items voted last year in my department, though they were reduced votes, have not been fully expended. We have tried to curb expenditures to the limit, and we are as much in sympathy with the taxpayers of the country as the former government was, indeed perhaps more. As regards the duplication of services in connection with

radio, I do not think my hon. friend clearly understands the situation.


Charles Marcil: I read the Journal last
night. That newspaper is highly regarded by the minister and it complains that one of the best services from the United States, the Columbia station, is completely neutralized by duplication on this side.


Alfred Duranleau: The hon. gentleman
is referring to wave length, but that has nothing to do with my department. Our system is the same as the system in England, where the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Post Office Department divide the services involved in radio broadcasting. There, the Post Office Department attends to the collection of radio licences and interference troubles, and in Canada tlhe Marine department collects the licence fees and carries on the interference service, while the radio commission attends to broadcasting, interference between stations, wave lengths and so on. I do not think there is any duplication in service.


Charles Marcil: I understand that the radio commission was appointed as a non-political organization. That promise however has gone by the board with the others.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Faded away like the rest.


Charles Marcil: I understood that the commission would control radio in Canada but now we have a dual organization, the minister in charge of one and the commission in charge of the other. When we ask him for information in regard to radio he replies in the same way as the Minister of Railways, "You must ask the commission." When we ask a question we are told that it cannot be answered and we are referred to the commission. Who is to speak in this house for the radio commission? Is it going to be independent and above parliament?
I am an old-timer; I am an old fashioned politician and I can remember the time When a member of parliament was somebody. He was the connecting link between the people and the government of the day and was not handicapped by commissions. He had the trust of the people and if he was a government supporter, he had the trust of the ministers of the crown. If something went wrong there was someone who could be blamed- that was the old style responsible government. To-day we have so many commissions that the ordinary elector is bewildered. Some of the older generation say to me: When you went to parliament in the old days it meant some-

Supply-Marine-Radio
thing but now you do not seem to be able to do anything for us when we write to you. We have the railway commission, the radio commission, the soldiers' commission, the pension commission, the civil service commission and other forces of that kind. Yesterday I asked a question of the Minister of Railways in connection with a contract for railway ties which had been awarded but I could not obtain any information. As far as matters pertaining to radio are concerned, we seem to be in the same position. We are also in the same position in connection with the civil service. I voted for the civil service commission in 1908 when the Hon. Sydney Fisher introduced his bill. At that time we felt that it was necessary that a commission should be appointed to handle the inside service but we had no idea of making this commission applicable to the outside service. The Postmaster General demonstrated that last year when he took post offices having a revenue of under $400 per year away from the civil service commission.
I do not know where all these commissions are going to lead us. At the present time it seems that this house comes here merely to vote money and nothing else. On the one side, we have the party in power remaining silent; on the other we have a party which says what it likes or what it is allowed to say, and then everything goes by. When we go back to our electors they ask all kinds of questions but we find we are helpless as far as giving information is concerned. We find we are up against the civil service commission, the soldiers' commission or something else of that kind. I have been urging a case before the pension board for the last eight or nine years. This is a widow whose only son was killed in action; the municipality has to look after her but I have been unable to get one dollar for the poor woman. People are beginning to wonder just what is the use of having members of parliament when everything is being done by commissions made up of civil servants.
We all know how the different ministers are harrassed by office seekers. This has been the case ever since 1867 when this country was organized. A man who has served his party feels that he can come here and exact payment fer his services. They feel that when they work for a party and that party is in power, they should be rewarded. The country is spending thousands and even millions of dollars in keeping up these commissions. I understand two or three of these commissions are to be abolished by the amendment to the 53719-262
Pension Act introduced yesterday. This costly system of government is crushing the people of Canada. They are carrying a burden which we never had to carry in days gone by. I think the Montreal Gazette and the Montreal chamber of commerce are quite right in asking this government to make a determined effort to cut down the cost of government.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The hon. member for Bonaventure has referred to the article which appeared in the Montreal Gazette. There was also one which appeared in the Ottawa Journal, and I should like to ask the minister just which article is correct. No answer 1 That is your condemnation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ocean and river service-
Radio service, to provide for the construction and maintenance of radio ship to shore stations and the general administration of the provisions of the Radio Act and regulations throughout the dominion, $679,550.
Radio service, to provide for the general improvement of reception conditions to licensed broadcast listeners, $280,400.
Alfred Duranleau: A full discussion has taken place upon these two items.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: When these items were up before a somewhat lengthy debate took place in connection with a new licence which had been issued by the department apparently in the absence of the minister. At that time I referred to complaints which had been brought to my attention as to the use being made of this station. The propaganda from this station was not against any political party or any municipality or province, it referred more particularly to the institutions of this country. I have listened to this station a couple of times and I have read certain articles which have appeared in the press. I am sure the minister must have received complaints as to the use being made of this station in Montreal. Has he any further information to give to the committee? There has been considerable agitation among the population of the city of Montreal in connection with the programs broadcast from this station.


Alfred Duranleau: Since the last discussion in this committee, the radio commission received a complaint from a citizen of Montreal concerning the utterances broadcast from one of the stations in that city. I have received many letters and telegrams protesting against the complaint which had been made by this citizen. These people contended that nothing objectionable had been broadcast from this particular station. Since then I have not had the opportunty of listening to what has been

Supply-.M arine-Radio

said over the radio by the association to which my hon. friend refers, but previously I did listen in a couple of times to form my own judgment because of complaints that had been made, and I must say I did not find anything reprehensible in the statements which I heard on those occasions. I may add that since that protest I have not heard any complaints from anybody.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Would the minister have any objection to giving to the committee a copy of the communications he has received, so that we may know from what source they emanated? Were they confidential telegrams or communications?


Alfred Duranleau: I am not prepared
at the moment to say whether they were confidential or not because I have not the documents with me, but I 'have no objection to looking them over and seeing whether they are confidential or not.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: If they are not confidential will the minister bring them down?


Alfred Duranleau: If they were confidential, of course, I could not make them public without the consent of the signer.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: If they are not confidential a motion could be made in the house in 'the regular way for their production, so I do not see what objection the minister should have to bringing down the telegrams he has received.


Alfred Duranleau: I have no objection
if they are not confidential.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: With further reference
to this matter, has there been of late any enlargement of the zone of operation of this same station in Montreal? Has it been permitted to increase its power?


Alfred Duranleau: Not to my knowledge.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I remember reading an
article in the paper some time ago saying that this station had been given a longer wave length. I have not the paper by me at the moment, but I would ask if that is true.


Alfred Duranleau: The channel might
have been changed, but that does not increase the power of the station. What the station was asking for, I think, was an increase of power.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes.


Alfred Duranleau: They did not get that.
I think that the radio commission gave the station another wave length because there 
was too much interference with the one they had, but there has been no increase of power. It is a station of 100 watts only.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What was its wave
length when the station was first licensed, and what is it now?


Alfred Duranleau: The first wave length was granted only 'temporarily, on trial. It was 1210 and now it is 1120.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Has the wave length of any other station been reduced or have all the stations in the province of Quebec the same wave length that they had before?


Alfred Duranleau: I think there was a
change of channel for one station in Montreal and one station in Quebec.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Which station?


Alfred Duranleau: In Montreal the
Marconi station, and in Quebec CKCV, operated by Vandry Incorporated.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The last time we were
discussing this subject there was a debate on the payment of radio licence fees, and there was some discussion as to the commission that was being received by the supervisor in the district of Montreal in charge of collecting the fees. Has that whole question been settled, and have all the amounts of money collected by the present supervisor been turned ini to the department?


Alfred Duranleau: The number of licences sold in a house to house canvass from September 20 to February 22, which is the last statement I have, was 11,385.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Have all these licences
been paid for, and a settlement made with the department, or has that number of licences simply been issued?


Alfred Duranleau: The collectors have
to buy their books and pay in advance before going on the house-to-house canvass.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: If I understand the
situation aright, the officials of the department buy the licences and then sell them, and turn the fees they receive over to the department less a certain commission.


Alfred Duranleau: The department in
Montreal keeps the licences, and the supervisor in charge of the issuance of licences in Montreal buys the books of licences from our branch there. Last year he had to pay cash for those books, S16 for a book of ten licences. Thirty cents was paid to the canvasser and ten cents to the supervisor on each licence.

Supply-M arine-R adio


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Twenty per cent commission.


Mr. EULER:: That is 20 per cent.


Alfred Duranleau: For the whole commission, yes.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Has the department
received a settlement of all the fees that have been collected in other parts of the province of Quebec?


Alfred Duranleau: It is all on a cash
basis, payable in advance, everywhere in Canada.


Albert Joseph Brown: It will be recalled that a
short time ago the minister, in reply to a question of mine, made a statement to the house with reference to the banning of Judge Rutherford's lectures from the radio. I do not know that I should have spoken at this time or dealt with the matter further had it not been that I assumed some responsibility for circulating throughout the country the answer made by the minister. I did this because I had received a good many communications protesting against the banning of those lectures, and I was not in a position to make any effective reply from my own knowledge. So that there may be no misunderstanding on the part of anybody, may I say that I am not at all in sympathy with Judge Rutherford's exposition of the scriptures. However to forbid men interpreting the scriptures and teaching whatever doctrines they see fit, so long as it is done without transcending the bounds of decency and without needless offence, does not agree with my views regarding religious liberty. Whether Judge Rutherford did or did not transcend those bounds I will not undertake to say. It seems however that the chairman of the commission objected that the judge in question had referred to him as a liar, a thief, a Judas and a polecat and therefore fit only to associate with the clergy. I agree that these are not complimentary remarks coming from any person.
It would seem however that Judge Rutherford has no monopoly on that kind of language. After I brought the matter up in the house I was waited upon by one of Judge Rutherford's disciples who protested against the reply which had been made by the minister. He called my attention to the fact that as long ago as August 16, 1927, there appeared in the Saturday Night, of which Mr. Charles-worth was the editor, an article dealing with Judge Rutherford and his propaganda. The article would indicate that when Mr. Charles-worth was placed in the position he now occupies, namely that of chairman of the 53719-262 J
radio commission, he was not entirely unprejudiced. Therefore in fairness I believe I should read some extracts from the article to ^how that Judge Rutherford had not a monopoly of offensive language. I have not time to read the whole of it, so I shall read only some extracts. The first is as follows:
Recently Toronto had the doubtful honour of entertaining once more a heavy-jowled flannel-mouth known as "Judge" J. F. Rutherford, grand vizier of the "Russellites" or the International Bible Students' Association, together with some thousands of his followers. What the said Rutherford is a judge of we do not know

perhaps of cigars, perhaps of fat swine -perhaps he is called judge by way of persiflage, just as an elevator man is called "Cap."
Then, further on:
The war is over and peaee loving people are willing to let by-gones be by-gones, but they do object to wandering blatherskites and professional liars starting the war all over again on Canadian soil. That Rutherford is a lying demagogue is apparent from the text of his addresses, in which he exploits the old fallacy that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor.
Towards the end of the article this complaint is made :
On the night of July 21, reputable fathers of families anxious to listen in on the progress of the Dempsey-Sharkey prize fight were kept out by the high power oratory at the Toronto Coliseum.
Mr. Chairman, I do not purpose to judge as between these two. I repeat however that the action of the radio commission is not in harmony with my views in regard to the rights of a man to promulgate whatever doctrines he wishes, providing he does so without undue offence. As I said, it is only because I assumed responsibility for sending out to some of my constituents the statement made by the minister, thinking that perhaps he had made a satisfactory answer to the question, that I feel somewhat under obligation to present the other point of view. Having done that I shall only further emphasize that Mr. Charles-worth apparently was not altogether unprejudiced when in his official capacity he dealt with Judge Rutherford.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Have you anything to show that the article was written by Mr. Charlesworth; is it over his name?


Albert Joseph Brown: It appeared in the Saturday Night, a paper controlled by him.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: No; he just
happened to be editor at that time. Is there anything to show that Mr. Charlesworth wrote the article? Let us be just to him.
Supply-M mine- -Ii adio


Albert Joseph Brown: I have no further knowledge of the facts than I have stated.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Why spread it on the pages of Hansard as something written by Mr. Charlesworth?


Mr. GASGRAIN:: He is responsible for that which appears in his paper.


Albert Joseph Brown: Is the hon. member in a position to deny it?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: There is nothing to [DOT]deny. Have you any knowledge Mr. Charles-worth wrote that article? The hon. member says he has not, and yet he spreads it on the pages of Hansard, and decribes it as an article written by Mr. Charlesworth. '


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Did the hon. member read an editorial from the Saturday Night?


Albert Joseph Brown: I am told it was; that is all I know.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: If it was an editorial the editor-at that time Mr. Charlesworth- ought to be responsible.


Mr. ROBINSON:: In what year was it written?


Albert Joseph Brown: I understand it appeared in the issue of August 16, 1927.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: It will 'be interesting to Tead what the Minister of Marine of that day had to say about the broadcasting activities of the International Bible Students; he cut them off.


Albert Joseph Brown: This is not a matter between [DOT]one government and another. I have made my statement simply to satisfy people in my own constituency who have been exercised over the question as to whether or not the lectures should have been banned from the radio.


Mr. REID:: This matter is in the minds of a great many people in Canada to-day. At the outset let me say I have no brief for Judge Rutherford's organization, as I still adhere to that religious body known as the Presbyterians, .-and am content to hold to the eternal truths. No doubt many hon. members received communications regarding this matter. On behalf of the people who communicated with me I took the trouble to write Mr. Charlesworth. On March 27 last he replied to my letter stating, as the minister stated in the house, that Judge Rutherford had said he was a thief, a liar, a Judas and a polecat, and therefore fit to associate only with the clergy. Mr. Charlesworth further states:
{Mr. Macdougall.]
Ton will plainly see that a man who interlards such attacks with his interpretations of prophecy is an objectionable person to have on the air in Canada.
After that letter I began to answer all the communications that had been sent me, upon which occasions I quoted the remarks of Mr. Charlesworth. One of the people to whom I wrote took the trouble to communicate with Judge Rutherford, with the result that I received a letter from him only a few days ago. I believe it should be read to the house, because it deals with the allegations contained in Mr. Charlesworth's letter. The date of the letter is April 15 of this year:
Hon. T. Reid,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Sir,-
A letter just received by me quotes from a letter written by you on March 28th to Mr. A. Kennett of Vancouver, B.C., the following:
"Mr. Charlesworth makes the further statement that Judge Rutherford in his recent address called him a thief, a liar, a Judas and a polecat, and therefore, he stated, fit only to associate with the clergy."
Permit me to say, my dear sir, that never at any time in a public address have I even mentioned the name of Mr. Charlesworth and at no time have I ever indulged in such language as above quoted. Surely I should not be held responsible for what others may say. I have never yet applied such epithets to any public man.
I think in view of that reply from Judge Rutherford the minister should bring down the correspondence, especially the letters received by Mr. Charlesworth, if he did receive them, in connection with the statements made by Judge Rutherford. I think this matter should be cleaned up, because it is exercising the minds of many of our Canadian citizens, whether they agree with the judge's organization or not.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: It has been . suggested that this is a partisan matter. As one who criticized the late government with regard to a similar ruling, I think I am clear of any charge of that kind. Further than that, I have no sympathy with the teachings of Judge Rutherford and his school. At the same time I do thank that we are facing here a serious situation. It seems to me that in this country in the past we have largely taken the view that religion was a private matter and that each man was free not only to hold his own religious beliefs but to give utterance to those beliefs, so long as he did not interfere with other people. If his beliefs differ from those of others I suppose he should be free to criticize the beliefs of others. That has always been the practice under

Su pply-M urine-Radio
British law-that is so long as the criticism is not made in an offensive way. Someone near me suggests that parliamentary language should be used; I hope that it will be better than we have sometimes heard in this house!
As far as -the newspapers are concerned a great deal of latitude has been allowed in such matters. Some years ago the Orange Sentinel used to come to me free; I think there was a great deal of latitude permitted to the Orange Sentinel. On one or two occasions I have lived in a house to which Roman Catholic papers came, I think they were allowed a very considerable degree of freedom in criticizing people of other denominations. Sometimes these various religious bodies crossed the line of decorum in criticizing others, but this was generally permitted so long as they did not cause trouble in the community.
Now we have a new medium of communication, the radio, and it would seem that there should be very great care exercised here. I can understand that with this medium of communication, being much more powerful than that of the press, there may be possibly even greater dangers and hence greater care should be exercised. We have now not merely a certain control by the government of radio, but we have gone further, we have made radio a public utility and have placed in charge of it a commission that is almost independent of parliamentary control. At the beginning of this new arrangement it seems to me highly desirable that we should place matters on a sound basis, or undoubtedly there is disaster ahead. About the only argument that I noticed the minister made the other day as he presented the case for the commissioners was that since Judge Rutherford lives outside of Canada he could not very readily come under our libel laws. There may be something to be said for that, but surely we should have some conclusive evidence, much more conclusive than has been furnished, that distinctly libellous utterances have been made, before action of this kind should be taken. I think there ought to be something in the nature of a trial before a man should be cut off. It ought not to be simply on the general principle that he lives outside of the country and is opposed to certain individuals or institutions in this country, that is too dangerous a position to take. I think we ought to have this cleared up, as has been suggested by the hon. member for New Westminster, by having the correspondence placed before us. If we once set this country by the ears over religious controversy we cannot tell where the matter
may end. I found an interesting sequel to this the other day in the Montreal Daily Herald of April 14, under the heading:
Recorder Flays Bible Students
Declares group guilty of publishing illegal literature Radio Commission
The article reads:
Tracts prepared and distributed by the International Bible Students' Association, although sprinkled with quotations from the prophets for authority, were found illegal by Recorder Gr. H. Semple yesterday, and Edward Noreworthy, a Montreal member of the association, was held responsible for them by the court. Sentence will be passed on April 21.
According to Recorder Semple's decision, the tracts, which constituted an invective against the Canadian radio commission for its ruling against J. F. Rutherford, ex-judge from Brooklyn and president of the association of uncensored radio speeches, were subversive in nature.
And here is given a quotation from the recorder's judgment:
The circular itself is but a protest-thinly veiled and replete with quotation from the prophets-against authority as constituted by the Radio Broadcasting Act. That is its preconceived, determined, and sole purpose; and in that respect it is subversive of peace, order, and good government.
The article concludes:
In the circular there was asked the question: "Have the people of Canada reached such a state of low intellectuality that they need to have a "wise" radio commission to approve what they shall hear about the Bible?
Now it seems to me that that is a most extraordinary decision. I am not suggesting that the minister or the radio commission are to be held in any sense responsible for the decision of Recorder Semple-


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: What decision is
that?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have just read it.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: It is not a decision of the minister or of this government. Some irresponsible-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Recorder Semple
is not irresponsible.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Well it does not
matter, you cannot attribute that to the minister or this government.


James Shaver Woodsworth: When I was interrupted I was in the midst of saying that I did not hold the minister or the commission responsible for the decision of Recorder Semple, but I do say that the fact that such a decision can be given seems to me to emphasize the necessity for much more care-
Supply-M mine-Radio

ful consideration of a matter of this kind. If we grant powers to a commission, and if when anyone chooses to protest against the decision of the commissioner his action is declared to be illegal, it seems to me that we have reached an intolerable situation. I cannot understand how there is any legal basis for this decision; however there it is, it shows what might happen if we allow this kind of thing to go on unchecked.
Curiously enough, in the Herald on the same page in another column over from this there is another item with regard to radio:
C. C. F. Flayed in Radio Talk by Gerald Almond
N. D. G. Candidate Calls Federation Necessary Evil of Centuries
The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation is the necessary evil of centuries, and it is "flayed" the very word used at the head of the other paragraph. Apparently it is illegal for Judge Rutherford to use invective against certain people or certain beliefs, but apparently it is quite proper for Gerald Almond, whoever he may be, to flay the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. I suggest that we are going to have a great deal of trouble with the national radio commission if there is to be discrimination of that character. I can quite conceive that it may be necessary for the radio commission to establish some definite rules that certain personalities may not be permitted over the air. I would hope that the time has not come when they would insist that the policies of other churches, other political parties or other groups might not be criticized, since that would be an infringement on the right of free speech. I submit that there must not be discrimination of this character, and I think at least the minister should tell us to-day what principles are applied by the commission in deciding what is proper to be broadcast and what is not proper. That is what I should like to have from the minister.


Alfred Duranleau: I have not very much to say in reply to the remarks of my hon. friend. I have nothing to say with regard to the judgment rendered by Recorder Semple of Montreal; I do not think it is up to the minister or the government to criticize or pass judgment on a decision rendered by a recorder in Montreal or any other city in the country. If the matter should be brought up in a proper way and studied by the government perhaps we might have something to say, but at this moment I have nothing to add. With regard to the other question, the radio commission was organized under a statute unanimously passed by this house last

session, and they were given certain powers and a certain control over the radio stations in Canada. We have made the best possible appointments to that commission in order that the statute may be carried out properly. I am not prepared to say on what principles they base their decisions with regard to programs being broadcast from certain stations, but I have no doubt these commissioners will do their duty to the full and will maintain a proper control over radio stations. I suppose they must decide whether or not to prohibit utterances which may be made against good government, against the institutions of the country or against public feelings throughout Canada, but I am not prepared to say what their principles are. At the present time they are the sole judges, with full control over the radio stations.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have not asked
the minister to defend or criticize the decision of Recorder Semple, but I do say that when we have a man awaiting sentence for having published a tract which has been held to be illegal simply because it criticizes the radio commission we have a serious situation. Here we have a roundabout way of making a law. A man is to be sentenced for having criticized a ruling made by the commissioners. Surely this parliament has the supreme law making power in the country, we have some right to say what the law shall be. It is absurd if we cannot get from the minister to-day what are the criteria used by the commission. Surely there must be some fundamental principles adopted by the commission which would be general in their character. I can quite understand that the commissioners must be given a good deal of latitude and discretion in handling this business, but I think we should know the general principles under which they operate, especially when a ruling may lead to a situation such as the one to which I have referred.


Thomas Reid: I wonder if the minister is
prepared to give the committee the details of where Judge Rutherford made this statement and to whom and when it was made, because, as I say, this matter has been exercising the minds of many people all over the country. This man says that he never made the statement at any time.


Alfred Duranleau: What statement?


Thomas Reid: The statement accredited to
him by Mr. Charleswonth, who said that in his recent fulminations Judge Rutherford called him a thief, a liar, a Judas and a polecat. Judge Rutherford says he made no such utterances. In view of the fact that this

Supply-M arine-Radio
question is arousing considerable discussion all over the country I think we should be told when Judge Rutherford made that statement, where he made -it and to whom he made it.


Alfred Duranleau: The statement I gave the other day emanated from the radio commission, as I stated quite plainly. I thought those words were taken from the letter which was circulated all oveT Canada, though I am not sure. I do not remember whether or not those exact words were contained in that letter.


Thomas Reid: The letter from whom?


Alfred Duranleau: Presumably from
Judge Rutherford. The letter and signature were printed and a copy was left at every door, according to my information; I know I received a copy at my office here and also ait my house in Montreal.


William Daum Euler: Turning away from the subject which 'has interested the committee for some time, Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to a matter which I brought up in the house last year and again during the present session. I refer to the situation with regard to the radio station known as CKOK at Windsor. When I referred to this matter previously I said that I had received information to the effect that this station was owned and controlled by United States capital, that the programs came almost entirely from the United States, and that the advertising took up more than the percentage of time allotted by the rules of the commission. At that time the minister made the statement that he was not quite satisfied with the way that station was conducted. Since then I have heard that this station has been combined with the station operated at London, I think by the London Free Press, and I have heard also that 'the Windsor station has been granted an. increase in power. I rise to-day merely to ask the minister whether he can give any further details with regard to these points.


Alfred Duranleau: Before the beginning
of the fiscal year I received a recommendation from the radio commission authorizing the amalgamation of the London station with the Windsor station, with an increase in power to 5,000 watts.


William Daum Euler: To both stations?


Alfred Duranleau: I think the London
station will disappear, and the Windsor station will have 5,000 watts power. They intend to conduct a very powerful station, and I know the radio commission is looking after the programs.


William Daum Euler: What have they ascertained?


Alfred Duranleau: My information is
that 'they propose to maintain studios both in London and in Windsor, and I am told that this will be a great improvement.


William Daum Euler: With all due respect to the minister I am afraid he has not given the committee a great deal of information; the only thing he has told us is that these two stations have been amalgamated. It does occur to me that if this station is to serve western Ontario, to select Windsor, which is the extreme western boundary, is not so wise as to have London. I am not an expert in radio matters but I am wondering why they should establish a station or continue a station at the extreme edge of the country rather than in central Ontario, thus reaching what is usually known as the western peninsula of the province. I wish the minister would say something in that regard. He has given no information whatever as to whether the station is now completely under Canadian control, unless he regards the fact that it has been amalgamated with the London station as proof that it is now Canadian. Further, with regard to programs, I believe that what 'he assures the committee is that in future they will be largely Canadian, but I am afraid there has not been much progress in that regard, nor has anything been done in the matter of the percentage of advertising, which under the rules of the commission is limited to five per cent of the time of any program. With regard to the increase of power, he states that Windsor station is to have 5,000 watts. I understood that they had 5,000 watts before, and if that is so there is no increase there. It is interesting to note that the London station is to be abolished, but I would point out that the other station is not nearly so well located as the ordinary layman would think for the proper distribution of radio programs.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: As regards the Essex Broadcasting Company, fifty-one per cent of the stock is owned by Canadians, and there are options and agreements in escrow by which they can exercise very shortly the right to own and control two-thirds of it. The Essex broadcasting station is one of the most up to date stations in the world. There is nothing on the North American continent that can beat it. It was built at a cost of S150.000 and the annual expenditure is something like $115,300. The studio in Detroit is used in conjunction with it but the main station is in Windsor and there are a greater number of employees there than on the other side, where advertising from American sources is secured.
Supply

M mine-Radio

I have never been able to hear the London station in Windsor; it has only a small radius whereas the station in Windsor will almost reach the North Pole. When they were canvassing for advertising they could not get a great deal from Canadians, but after the time had been allotted to American advertising the Canadians were regretting that they had not taken advantage of the opportunity that had been offered them. When the new contracts are made out however the greater part of the advertising will be Canadian.
Referring to Judge Rutherford, I wish the hon. member for New Westminster had listened in last Sunday afternoon to what the so-called judge had to say. As a rule I do not listen to nuts over the radio, and I think this man has been getting too much free advertising, especially in this country. I have received numerous letters with regard to Judge Rutherford and I do not hesitate in any of my replies to say just what I think of him. It seems to me a disgrace and almost a crime that he should have got off the stuff he did last Sunday; it was most unfortunate that what he said should have been heard in any Christian home in this country. What he had to say about Christian ministers was almost a crime.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: And the Liberals defend him in this house to-day.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: Ever since I heard the hon. member for Richelieu express himself in regard to Judge Rutherford three or four years ago I have been interested in the man's career and I do not think he has improved one bit. I do not know how it was that his broadcast reached Walkerville last Sunday.


Mr. HEAPS:: What station was he broadcasting from?


Sidney Cecil Robinson: Neither Columbia nor CKOK. A good deal of complaint about CKOK came from one of the stations in Detroit. They happened to put over wrong information and when the mistake was discovered they regretted having brought the matter up.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Can the hon. member tell the committee why Windsor was selected instead of London for this station? Was it not because forty-nine per cent of the stock is owned in Detroit that the station was located in Windsor rather than in London?


Sidney Cecil Robinson: The reason is that the London station has to be rebuilt. It has only a small radius, I do not know how many watts. In Windsor, however, there is a station 
that will reach almost any point on the continent.


William Daum Euler: Will my hon. friend tell me when the change of ownership took place? Not long ago I had undeniable evidence that the majority of the stock was owned in the United States and CKOK at Windsor was described as a Columbia basic station. When did the majority of the stock come to Canada? Is the hon. member quite certain it is a real bona fide transfer of stock and that the station is not really an American station using a Canadian channel?


Sidney Cecil Robinson: I do not know the details, but I do know that it was the intention that the majority of the stock should be owned in Canada.


Thomas Reid: I can assure my hon. friend opposite that in the statements I made I was in no way supporting Judge Rutherford; I said so at the outset. As a matter of fact, in the letter I sent out to the people who had written to me on the subject I stated that if Judge Rutherford had made the statements attributed to him he should be shut off; I said I believed that no sensible man would make such statements. When I brought the matter up to-day the question at issue was this: Did he or did he not make those statements? It was said-Mr. Charlesworth told me-that Judge Rutherford had made these statements about him, but Judge Rutherford declared that never at any time had he made any such statements about any man. I have made my position quite clear, and yet the hon. gentleman gets up and says that we on this side are supporting the International Bible Students. I can tell him that when I listen in, if I do not like the program that is coming over I turn it off, and everyone else is at liberty to do the same. I have not yet received a clear statement from the minister in this matter and in courtesy to Judge Rutherford I am withholding my reply to him until I do. There are thousands of Canadians who are interested in what Judge Rutherford says, whether the rest of us believe in him or not.


Mr. SPENCE:: I do not know why so much time is taken up discussing Judge Rutherford. If he did not make the particular statements to which reference has been made to-day, I know at any rate that he made other statements in the exhibition grounds in Toronto, which is in my riding, statements that incensed the whole city. He condemned the institutions of Canada, the United States and

Supply-M arine-Radio
Great Britain, and he condemned every other church but his own. Toronto does not want to hear him again over the radio.


Albert Joseph Brown: We do not seem to
appreciate the fact that in this discussion a principle is involved. Down through the centuries there have been two ideas in conflict. One party has held that where anything occurs that looks like heresy, where any views are advanced that are contrary to the accepted opinions of the day, they should be put down by force. The other school holds that truth will ultimately prevail and that less harm is likely to be done by allowing the free expression of opinion than by any attempt to shut off opinions by force. I have no hesitation in saying that I belong to the school that believes in allowing a man to give free expression to his beliefs. I believe that ultimately truth will prevail and that if the views expressed are not in harmony with truth, they will run their course and ultimately disappear. I admit that the radio has introduced a more difficult problem than is entailed in the freedom of the pulpit or of the press and I confess it is hard to arrive at a final conclusion upon the matter. I think the radio commission would be well advised to hesitate before preventing people from preaching the doctrines in which they believe or interpreting the scripture in their own particular way. Less harm is likely to be caused by allowing freedom in this direction than by imposing restrictions. I realize the difficulties to be faced and that it takes a man of more than ordinary wisdom to arrive at a wise conclusion.


Mr. SANDERSON:: A week or two ago
when the minister had his estimates before the committee I asked a question-


James Houston Spence: Louder.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is the hon. member
for Parkdale getting deaf?


James Houston Spence: This is not a whispering
campaign, we want to hear everything.


Frederick George Sanderson: I wanted to know who was really in charge of radio broadcasting. At that time the minister told me that I had better read the act. I should like to ask the minister now: Is he over the chairman of the commission or is the chairman of the commission in control of him? We have a radio commission which has power to go ahead and spend money and the minister admits that he does not know anything about it. That commission apparently is not responsible to parliament. During the last few months I
have had more complaints about broadcasting and other matters pertaining to radio than I received in the last few years. I believe that that has been the experience of every hon. member. With all due respect to the minister,
I think he should tell this committee the true relations that exist between himself and the chairman of the commission. On Tuesday last I put a question to the minister. I asked if the chairman of the commission, under the authority of the commission or of the minister, had taken over the station of the London Free Press. The minister told me he would answer the question the following day and he did so with the one word, "no." He gave no explanation as to what had taken place.
I now find that this station has been merged with the one at Windsor. Was that done without the knowledge of the minister? Did he know that when he answered my question the other day or did he have to obtain that information from the chairman of the commission? We do not know' whether we are going or coming on this radio question; we are going around in circles.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We are on the air.


Frederick George Sanderson: The minister admits
quite candidly that he does not know and the chairman is not here to answer questions. Can the minister tell us just what are the qualifications of this chairman? I understand he gets a salary of $10,000 or $12,000 and I should like to know what service he renders in return. If the minister has the figures I should like to know the salaries of the other commissioners and the members of the staff.


Alfred Duranleau: Some time ago I answered the very question asked by my hon friend. I stated that the powers of the commission were defined by an act which had been passed unanimously by this house. I was surprised at the hon. member for Bona-venture complaining about the number of commissions. He should have made his objections when this bill was before the house. The house unanimously granted certain powers-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: On division.


Alfred Duranleau: Does my hon. friend want me to read the act? I do not think it is fair to ask the Minister of Marine to give a lecture upon the powers granted to the minister and to the commission by that statute; that would be up to the Minister of Justice.


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not want to prolong this discussion, but in order to be fair to himself and his department, I think the
Supply-M arine-Radio

minister should foe prepared to give full particulars about the radio commission. For the moment, I would be quite satisfied if I were told the salaries.
. Mr. DURANLEAU: My hon. friend wanted to know if the radio commission was over the minister or if the minister was over the radio commission. I told my hon. friend that the statute gives certain powers to the commission.


Frederick George Sanderson: What are those powers?


Alfred Duranleau: I can read the act.


Frederick George Sanderson: Read the act.


Alfred Duranleau: It is chapter 51 of the statutes of 1932. I do not think it is fair to ask me to read the full act.


An hon. MEMBER:: A fool act.


Alfred Duranleau: I think my hon. friend understood that it was the intention of that act to organize a commission independent of politics.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alfred Duranleau: The statute gives full powers to the commission.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What full powers?


Alfred Duranleau: The minister is empowered to grant licences but the location of stations, the power of stations, wave lengths and the allocation of wave lengths are matters within the independent powers of the commission. It is subject to the minister granting the licence. That was explained fully when the bill was before the house. I think in that sense it is quite satisfactory.
As to .the operations of the commission it is clear that under such a statute the minister is not in a position when he presents his budget to give full details of the commission's operations.


Frederick George Sanderson: Does the minister take any responsibility at all as a minister of the crown for the commission?


Alfred Duranleau: The radio commission comes under the ministry of marine, and my hon. friend knows what that means.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is your baby. You
are responsible for the creation of the commission and for its workings.


Frederick George Sanderson: If the minister says
that he takes responsibility for the conduct and work of the commission, surely when he comes into this house and asks parliament to vote the money required, he can tell us something about that commission's work. With all due deference to the minister, he
[Mr. Sanderson.l
comes into this house with estimates for vast sums of money running into millions of dollars for broadcasting, even with conditions as they are in this country at the present time, and he has not yet given an intelligent answer to any question asked him in regard to the expenditure of that money.


Alfred Duranleau: I would point out,
Mr. Chairman, that we are not discussing at the present time the item concerning the radio commission.


Mr. MALCOLM:: It is the same thing.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The minister agreed to
allow the whole thing to be discussed on these two items, Nos. 139 and 140.


Alfred Duranleau: There are three items. There is also No. 247. If it is desired to discuss the three items and pass them together, I 'have no objection.


Frederick George Sanderson: Coming back to the
question of giving information to this committee, I think the minister had started to read a list of the members of the commission and the salaries paid to the Staff. I shall be glad to sit down if he will continue with that statement. Has he that information there?


Alfred Duranleau: Sure, I have the act here.


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not want the act. I want information in regard to the commission, their work and their salaries. We are not concerned with the act, but with the actions of the commission and the money they .are spending.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend is
asking for the salaries of the commission?


Frederick George Sanderson: And the names of the officials.


Alfred Duranleau: The salaries are mentioned in the act, in chapter 51, 22-23 George Y. In section 3 it is provided that the chief commissioner shall be paid an annual salary of $10,000, and each of the other commissioners an annual salary of $8,000. That was accepted unanimously by the house.


Frederick George Sanderson: Who are the commissioners?


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend knows perfectly well that the chairman of the commission is Mr. Hector Charlesworth.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: May I ask for the
benefit of my 'hon. friend from South Perth what was the date of that act?

Supply-M arine-Radio


Alfred Duranleau: It was passed in 1932. The other commissioners are Colonel Steel and Mr. Maher, who is the vice-chairman.


Frederick George Sanderson: The chairman receives $10,000, and the other two commissioners $8,000 a year. Is there not also a publicity man in connection with the commission?


Charles Marcil: And a whole staff?


Frederick George Sanderson: There must be more officials and a great deal of money paid out in addition to the salaries for the commissioners.
I cannot see, Mr. Chairman, why the minister hesitates to give this information. Where are we going to get if he does not give it to the members of this house?


Alfred Duranleau: The minister has no hesitation whatever in giving any information in his possession as to the expenses of the commission, but one must realize that this commission has been in operation only since last January.


Frederick George Sanderson: That is too long.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: They were appointed at the end of last October.


Alfred Duranleau: I know that they have a certain staff, but they have not made any report as yet of their expenses. They have some stenographers, an English director of programs and an assistant French director, and also an official known as a relations agent, I think.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Director of public
relations, if I may help the minister.


Alfred Duranleau: Those are the employees they have at the present time.


William Daum Euler: What is the salary of the
director of public relations?


Alfred Duranleau: His salary is $5,800 less ten per cent.


William Daum Euler: And his name?


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Buchanan.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is the name of the French secretary?


Alfred Duranleau: There is only one secretary.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is his name?


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Landry.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: And his salary?


Alfred Duranleau: I think it is between $3,400 and $3,800; I am not quite sure, but it is below $4,000.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is there not a Mr. Weir who acted in conjunction with CNRM in Montreal and who is now working for the commission, but not in broadcasting?


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Weir has been borrowed by the commission from CNRM, Montreal, as a program director.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is his salary paid by the commission or by the C.N.R.?


Alfred Duranleau: I suppose he is paid by the commission.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Does he receive an allowance from both the C.N.R. and the commission?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not know his connection with the C.N.R. at the present time. All I can say to my hon. friend is that the C.N.R. station is being purchased by the commission.


Frederick George Sanderson: It appears to me, Mr. Chairman, that the best way out of this difficulty we are in is for the minister to let these items stand until he gets some information and brings it before the committee.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I think that is fair.


James Malcolm: Mr. Chairman, I cannot possibly understand the minister's attitude. Just a few days ago we were considering the estimates of the Trade and Commerce department and an item came up for the administration of the Grain Act by the board of Grain commissioners. Members of this house have always had the privilege of discussing the expenditures of this commission. The money must be voted by parliament, and when the Minister of Trade and Commerce has had his estimates up for discussion he has had an officer of the board of grain commissioners sitting in front of him to give information. That has always been the practice. In every other instance when a commission is administering some utility for this dominion, the minister when his estimates are before parliament has an officer of the commission sitting in front of him because that is the only time hon. members on both sides of the house have the right to get the information they desire. In this instance I think it is doubly necessary. The radio commission has not by any means given even half satisfaction to the people of Canada. The complaints are very, very numerous. The case which was mentioned by my hon. friend from North Waterloo and by other members of the house is far from satisfactory to the people of that portion of Canada who think that the United States
Supply-M arine-Radio

have put it over our eye in the matter of the division of wave lengths. The Windsor station was started by a group of Americans, and it was started at Windsor, near Detroit, for one purpose, and that was to get in on a Canadian wave length, and by advertising sell American products through Michigan and Ohio and neighbouring states. That was the purpose. Fifty-one per cent of the stock in the station may be in the hands of Canadians; I shall not deny the statement of my hon. friend (Mr. Robinson) to that effect. I have a very strong suspicion however that the men who hold forty-nine per cent of the stock control the policy of the station. I agree fully with the hon. member for North Waterloo that if a station is needed for western Ontario, it would be more properly located at a central point such as London, Stratford or Guelph. If eventually the national commission is to buy out and operate broadcasting stations I do not think the minister should allow the station in the city of London to be closed, and a high powered station in Windsor to be erected. I believe London is the place where the good station should be placed.
I mention these points to the minister for one reason: The people in Canada are wondering what is going to happen to the million dollars that is being voted. My own feeling is that the minister himself, with the brilliant departmental officers in his department, could have handled the whole matter during the period of depression very much better than any other body which could be set up. At the present time wa have the anomaly of the commission trying to develop Canadian programs, and giving licences to stations right on the American border. The minister knows very well that he has control of licences; he has said so. The commission has to control the stations, but the minister has to issue the licences. Therefore the minister must explain tc his followers in the house and to hon. members in the opposition why certain stations are placed at certain points. I submit to the minister that in connection with a matter as important as this, namely the location of a powerful station at a point far removed from the centre of the province, he should have a lot better answer to the question of the hon. member for North Waterloo than he has made. In regard to the question asked by the hon. member for South Perth, the minister should be able to get all the details from the officer of his department who is sitting in front of his desk.


Charles Marcil: The statement was made that I had not objected to the appointment of the radio commission. If I did not

do so, it was because I still had faith in the declaration of the Prime Minister that the radio commission would be a non-political organization. But when I saw the chief organizer of the Tory party in the province of Quebec made a member of the commission, that settled the matter, so far as I was concerned.


James Malcolm: The board of grain commissioners have to secure a vote of money in this house. Their receipts and revenues are available to hon. members from the west who pay inspection fees. Eventually this radio commission will have substantial revenues. The minister should soon be able to tell us what stations are owned by the commission, the revenues from them, and what moneys are expended, so that the people of Canada may have some knowledge of what radio broadcasting is costing.
Personally I never have been in favour of the national broadcasting commission. I do not object to it however, and if it is well run it may be well worth while. But if we are to have a commission in control we expect to know what the revenues from the stations will be. We want to know something of the future plans. We do not want to vote millions of dollars for services, if those services are not to be an improvement or produce revenue. We have taken over the Canadian National Railways stations. How much of the million dollars is to be used for that purpose? Can the minister tell us that, or is the transaction to be merely a bookkeeping entry between two departments of government? I submit that the suggestion by the hon. member for South Perth is justified, namely that we should postpone consideration of this item until such time as the minister has more information.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I move we do that.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Mr. Chairman, I wish
to set out the viewpoint held by the people in northern Ontario. When the announcement was made in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister that radio broadcasting was to be under government supervision, so that greater service would be given to a greater number of people, his statement was well received in northern Ontario. In fact, in the first year we did not complain when radio licences were doubled in price, because we hoped then-and we still hope-that we would receive the service we deserve.
At the outset let me say that in our section of the country we believe the officials in the department have done good work. I make the statement sincerely, believing that they deserve praise. They sent men to my home town of Cochrane and to the town of Timmins

Supply-.M arine-Radio
who accomplished some of the work that our section of the country expected would be done. The fact remains however that after nearly two years of government supervision, radio programs in our section are in most cases from American stations; we receive practically no Canadian programs. Generally speaking we do not object to listening to the American stations; some of them are entertaining, and we are very glad to have them. We cannot lose sight of the fact however that we are part and parcel of Canada, and we are as much entitled to radio reception of Canadian programs as are the people in Ottawa, Toronto, Halifax or Montreal. I maintain that under present conditions unless we have a station built in our section of the country it will be impossible for us to receive radio programs from Canadian stations. We are not parochial in our views in this connection; it is not a matter of one locality having a station, and another not having it. Our object is to have a distributing station in northern Ontario which will benefit the whole of our population. All the territory west of North Bay and extending as far as Sioux Lookout and the Manitoba border W'ould be affected. It is possible to have a station on the height of land in the Porcupine district under which circumstances good reception would be assured to the people in the northern section of the province.
How far the government has gone in the matter I do not know. I do know, however, that the minister has received several petitions, and the commission has been informed as to conditions in northern Ontario. I will say further that the commission and the minister have sent very favourable letters to people in my constituency. Up to date, however, that is as far as they have gone. We are practical and logical, and realize that this problem cannot be solved in a day. The matter has 'to be thoroughly studied, and the Questions concerning the location of the station and the extension of services have to be given careful thought. There is a suggestion-from the Northern Tribune of Kapus-kasing-that a station be built on the James bay slope, taking in that section of the north country extending to the Hudson bay region to the north and the United States border to the south. I believe, however, that the location of the station should be left to the decision of the commission, after a thorough study of the situation. On the other hand, the people of Porcupine district state that the logical place for such a station is between Sudbury and Timmins. Then, that section of the country so well represented by the Minister of Mines maintain that it should
be on the height of land in the vicinity of Haileybury. However, these are mere matters of detail.
After careful consideration and analysis the commission will have to decide upon the point which would be most satisfactory to all sections of the population. They will have to visit northern Ontario in an official capacity; they will have to send their experts to find for themselves where the best results will be obtained. Those men will quickly realize that it is not a parochial question, and that the whole of the population in northern Ontario would be in agreement. We mean by that, that so long as 'the commission finds it possible to build a station which would be Strong enough and located at a point to give the best service to all the people, we will be satisfied.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that my plea is a very practical one. In our section of the country we only get the Canadian newspapers twenty-four hours after they are printed. Speaking of radio reception I will say that in the daytime we get practically only American programs; we rarely get a Canadian station. Sometimes we get Toronto but seldom do we get it fully. These facts alone should cause this house to realize that although we have a great number of radio owners in our section-it may be a revelation to this house that a very great number of settlers have radio sets, helping to make life a little brighter in the rural and colonization sections-the service they are getting is not satisfactory. I want to be practical; I am not going to criticize the commission, because I do not think they have yet had time to remedy the situation entirely. They have doubled the radio licence fee, which we gladly pay, but we think it is time that something tangible was done to show the people that the commission is alive to the situation existing in our section. I could quote at great length letters and petitions sent to the minister and the commission as to the anomalies that exist. This criticism is going to gather strength if during this summer some move is not made for the location of a good station that will give service to our section. I believe the minister is fully seized of the situation, and that the chairman and the commission also realize what we are up against. Public ownership of this great utility should be applied on a national scale, no section of the country should be neglected. Even if the department had to spend some money in our section that they have not to spend in the older sections I believe it is fully warranted, and cannot be done too soon. The sooner
Supply-M arine-Radio

it is made possible for radio owners to have access to Canadian programs, musical or otherwise, the better it will be for this nation. I repeat that in our section we have no great objection to hearing some of the wonderful programs that come from the south, but I believe that first of all we should have access to Canadian programs.
In order that the minister may fully understand the matter I am going to read an editorial from the Porcupine Advance which I believe puts the question very logically and in a very straightforward way. This article was published February 9 of this year. It is as follows:
Does the United States Rule the Waves?
Elsewhere in this issue wall be found a letter from an ardent radio fan. This letter voices the feelings of large numbers of radio owners in this section of Ontario. There are few areas where there are as many radio owners in proportion to population as in this north land, and it does not appear unreasonable to suggest that the large group of radio enthusiasts in this part of the country are entitled to more consideration than they seem to have received to date. After suffering for years with growing discouragement, radio fans in this district fed themselves with new hope when they read announcements to the effect that the new Canadian radio commission -was arranging a series of all-Canadian programs that would be a change, a relief and a joy to those who listen in up in this north land. After the surfeit of cheap jazz, sad southern humour, claptrap advertising and highly Americanized public addresses, programs of music promised to revive interest in the radio. Canada has artists of international fame. To have the Toronto symphony orchestra, the Vancouver symphony orchestra, the Grenadier Guards band, the Ritz Carlton orchestra, the Forty-eighth Highlanders band, the C. I. L. opera of the air, the Mendelssohn choir, the Hart House quartette, Edward Johnson, one of the world's greatest tenors, Dr. Frieker, deservedly famous as an organist-to mention a few only at random

this surely would cheer the heart of any lover of music owning a radio. Yet the first of the Canadian radio commission's special programs sunk all radio owners in deeper gloom than before,

because the program could not be heard at all in this part of the north.
That just corroborates the statement I made a moment ago, as far as our section of the country is concerned.
As the letter elsewhere in this issue explains, little else could be fairly expected. United States and Mexican stations are so powerful that Canadian stations have no chance at all. What seems to be needed first and foremost is at least one Canadian station with power enough to drown out, if necessary, the United States and Mexican stations that now monopolize the air. Some time ago it was suggested that plans -were under way for a number of "booster" stations throughout Canada to make it possible for programs to be well received from coast to coast. Something along this line appears to be
[Mr. Bradette.l
very desirable, indeed imperative, but the first consideration would yet seem to be the increase in power of Canadian stations so that they may have a real chance on the air.
There is a growing feeling among Canadian radio owners, and especially among the sufferers in the north, that not only do the people to the south believe that they won the war, but also that they rule the waves-the waves of the air. The winning of the war is a question that need not be debated at this time, but for the progress of the radio in Canada it seems surely necessary that Canada should rule her ow-n part of the air. There is little to be gained by discussion in the matter. Canada's rights are unassailable from a moral standpoint, but in a practical -way these rights are of no effect unless the dominion is in a position to enforce and uphold the rights that cannot be disputed but that are constantly disregarded. The only way to secure fair play is by the establishment of radio broadcast stations with power enough to take their place on the air against all comers. If Canada had one or two stations of 75,000 watt po-wer there would be little difficulty in the allotment of wave lengths as between this country and the one to the south. To the layman, and to the great majority of radio fans, it appears inevitable and inescapable that the first duty of the Canadian radio commission is to provide for one or more radio stations of such power that they will be able to take and hold their place on the air against all comers.
These are all the arguments that I want to put forward in this case. I have much confidence in the chairman of the radio commission, although I might state that at one time I did not entirely agree with him in regard to the trans-Canada highway, and through his newspaper I received a very cavalier answer, asking who I was, because I dared to question some of his statements on that question. Well, I am a Canadian, and a resident of northern Ontario and am proud of the fact. So with all respect to his wonderful qualifications- because I do not doubt them-I hope the present chairman of the radio commission will treat me as a Canadian and not as he treated me in his newspaper on that occasion. I might state that so far I have received satisfaction from the commission. I think Mr. Charlesworth knows northern Ontario, at any rate the mining sections; I believe he has visited that part of the province on several occasions. Therefore he should know our local conditions, and be able to deal with our problem. I believe he is animated by the true Canadian spirit, and will give the sparsely populated sections the same efficient service as the more populous ones. We in that northern area are doing a useful pioneer .work, binding the country together; where formerly there was a great unpopulated gap between east and west, in the last twenty years nearly 300,000 people have settled there. I hope the department and the radio commis-mission will find it possible to study on the

Supply-M arine-Radio
ground the situation that exists so as to get first hand information.
I know the chairman must have a certain amount of qualification for his office or he would not be there. He is an art critic, a man who knows music and what music means to people, knows what a good musical program will mean to people in isolated sections. I hope the minister and the chairman of the radio commission will use all their influence so that in the near future our section will receive the attention it deserves. I express this hope because I am going to quote now certain words of the present chairman of the radio commission in an interview he gave to one of the writers for MacLean's Magazine. He wound up his interview in the following way:
Censorship, however, is not one of Mr Charleswor.th's chief interests. He is interested primarily in the upbuilding of a national system of broadcasting, the development of Canada's musicians and vocalists, in the providing of high class entertainment for radio listeners. Above all, he covets for this country success in that new field, the "theatre of the air."
Those are fine words, with which all Canadians will thoroughly agree. In my section particularly they were a message of hope, and we expect this department and the radio commission at the earliest possible moment to do away with the anomaly which at present exists and under which it is absolutely impossible to give our fine pioneer population the radio reception it deserves.


Alfred Duranleau: Just a word in reply to my hon. friend. I know for a fact that the radio commission is trying to locate stations so as to give full and complete service to every part of the country, and I also know that northern Ontario has been considered as one of the parts of the country which should be attended to. The commission fully realizes that it is expending the money received from the listeners, and it intends to give the best service possible to every part of every province of the dominion. I am glad my hon. friend has brought to my attention and that of the commission these facts with regard to northern Ontario; I am sure the commission will try to give satisfaction to this part of the country. As I said a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, this sum of $1,000,000 comes from the listeners of Canada and not from the exchequer, and it is the duty of the commission to give the best possible service to every radio listener in this country.


Mr. YOUNG:: Where do these amounts of $679,000 and $280,000 come from?


Alfred Duranleau: They come from the exchequer.


Edward James Young: When this bill went through the house I understood that it was on the understanding that the commission would not spend any money except that which it collects in licence fees.


Alfred Duranleau: These two items do not concern the radio commission at all. It was understood that even the administration of the commission could be discussed under these items, but they do not concern the commission, so I suggest to the committee that these two items be passed. Then a full discussion can be carried on, with every possible detail as to administration of the commission being supplied, when the item of $1,000,000 for the commission is before the committee.


James Malcolm: Is the minister prepared to pass that item immediately?


Alfred Duranleau: I would suggest that the $1,000,000 item be suspended so that I may get full information with regard to the administration of the commission.


James Malcolm: I think the minister has all the information available in front of him, if he would only ask for it. The officers sitting before him could probably furnish more information than any others he might bring.


Alfred Duranleau: The officials I have here to-day have nothing to do with the administration of the radio commission.


Edward James Young: Let us keep on going until we get stuck.


Alfred Duranleau: I would suggest that these two items be passed, and I will furnish every possible detail when the SI,000,000 item is called.


Mr. COOTE:: Before these items pass I think we should have definite information as to the purpose for which this $280,000 is required. I do not think that information has been given as yet. When the radio estimates were up a week or two ago I asked a question along this line, but I did not succeed in getting an answer. I should like to know what service is given under this vote.


Alfred Duranleau: This appropriation of $280,400 is to provide for the maintenance of existing establishments for the general improvement of reception conditions to licensed broadcast listeners, including the elimination so far as practicable of preventable interference with reception throughout the dominion. It also provides for expenses in connection with the sale of radio receiving licences.


George Gibson Coote: Would the minister tell us how much is spent in improving reception conditions and eliminating interference? How many engineers have we doing that work, and how much are they paid?
Supply-M arine-Radio


Alfred Duranleau: The present organization comprises twenty-three permanent establishments and thirty-two part time establishments in different towns and cities throughout the dominion, with a personnel of 14S full time employees and 41 part time employees.


George Gibson Coote: What are the occupations of those full time employees?


Alfred Duranleau: They are not what we call engineers; they are electricians with some knowledge of radio.


George Gibson Coote: Where are they employed?


Alfred Duranleau: In different parts of the country. Every large city from coast to coast has an office, where we sell licences, and attached to the office there is an electrician and a clerk or stenographer.


George Gibson Coote: How many employees in Alberta are paid from this vote; what is the nature of their work and what service do they perform?


Alfred Duranleau: There are ten employees in Alberta.


George Gibson Coote: How are they listed, how many inspectors or engineers and how many stenographers?


Alfred Duranleau: We have an establishment at Calgary with two inspectors, one chauffeur, one stenographer and one car. We have an establishment at Edmonton with one inspector, one chauffeur, one stenographer and a car, and there is a new establishment at Lethbridge.


George Gibson Coote: There do not seem to be any electricians listed in the province of Alberta. Where are these electricians employed?


Alfred Duranleau: As a rule both the inspector and the chauffeur are electricians.


George Gibson Coote: How many inspectors are
there?


Alfred Duranleau: There are two inspectors and one chauffeur at Calgary and one inspector and one chauffeur at Edmonton. The other employees are stenographers.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Are these chauffeurs really experienced mechanics or are they only chauffeurs?


Alfred Duranleau: There are some employees who have a knowledge of mechanics even though they are only chauffeurs, and there are other employees who are inspectors and chauffeurs at the same time-they run their own cars.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In Edmonton, according to
the minister, there is one chauffeur and there is one mechanic.


Alfred Duranleau: Ope inspector.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I presume the inspector
knows something about cars. I do not think one man requires another to drive him around.


Alfred Duranleau: He is a chauffeurelectrician; he looks after the adjusting of troubles in connection with noises and so on.


George Gibson Coote: Are we right in assuming
that this $280,000 is all spent in the engineering branch of the radio services?


Alfred Duranleau: About $90,000 is spent in connection with the licences.


George Gibson Coote: But would this amount cover all that is spent so far as the radio service is concerned?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: The minister told us they
collected over $1,000,000 in licence fees. What is done with -the rest of the million?


Alfred Duranleau: We will ask the
house to vote it for the radio commission under the law.


George Gibson Coote: Will the radio commission
administer the service in the future or will that be done direct by -the department?


Alfred Duranleau: So far it has been
administered by my department, and I understand that is what is done in Great Britain. The British Broadcasting Corporation attends to broadcasting just as the radio commission here does, and the Post Office Department there performs the same service as is performed by my department at the present time. Whether there will be any change in that regard in the future I cannot tell, but at present we are following the same method of administration as in Great Britain.


George Gibson Coote: How many radio receiving
sets are there in Canada? I ask that question so that I shall be able to figure out how much of the fee which every licence holder pays goes to take care of the mechanical service and how much is devoted to the rest of the administration.


Alfred Duranleau: I said there were
about 750,000 licences sold.


James Malcolm: How many radio owners are not paying the licence fee?

Supply-Marine-Radio


Alfred Duranleau: I think the census
shows that there are abouit 770,000 radios in Canada.


James Malcolm: So that you are collecting about ninety per cent.


Alfred Duranleau: Over ninety per cent.


Mr. POULIOT:: May I ask the minister
the following question: What is the difference between static and interference, what are the causes of both and what are the remedies?


Alfred Duranleau: I will ask the expert
of the department to send the bun. gentleman a publication on the subject.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you very much.


William Daum Euler: When the Aird commission
was appointed to investigate the radio situation, the then government gave the broadcasting stations to understand that if they made capital expenditures in connection with their equipment the government assumed no responsibility in the event of such stations being later on acquired under public ownership; in other words, they took their chances whether they would get their money back, to put it bluntly. As the hon. member for West Essex said, there was expended $150,000 on the Windsor station. The minister has told us that that company has bought out the London Free Press station, no doubt at a stiff price, because in years gone by it was a profitable station. It follows I suppose that ultimately, if the policy of the government is to be adhered to and radio is nationalized by the purchase of these stations, a stiff price will have to be paid for the Windsor station. I want to know whether the principle then laid down, that the government assumed no liability whatever with regard to any additional expenditures that may have been made, will be followed when the time comes, if it ever does, that the Windsor station is acquired by the country. Will the high price which no doubt has been paid for the London station as acquired by the Windsor station be demanded? Will they not raise the question of vested rights? I am under the impression that when the Windsor station was given 5000 watts this was entirely too much to serve that comparatively small district, and I am still of the opinion that the intention in giving 5000 watts was that the station should serve not only the Windsor district but the district around Detroit. The minister said in reply to my questions a few months ago that he was not satisfied with the conduct of the Windsor station. Is he satisfied now, and if so what has taken place in the meantime to satisfy him?


Alfred Duranleau: Replying to the hon. gentleman's last question, it is not very long ago that I made a statement of the kind he refers to-about a month ago.


William Daum Euler: Longer than that.


Alfred Duranleau: It was when my estimates were last under consideration, about a month or a month and a half ago. I told the hon. member then that I had instructed the radio commission to keep an eye on that station in order that the law should be observed-


Frederick George Sanderson: Has the minister authority to instruct the commission?


Alfred Duranleau: -and I have had no report since. I understood, when the recommendations came to me about the amalgamation of these two stations, that it would improve the situation in that respect. As regards the other question the hon. gentleman asks, as to whether stations that have acquired licences since the report of the Aird commission would get compensation in case of nationalization, I am not prepared to give a definite answer at the present time. We have made such reservation as will protect the national exchequer. They were all notified very clearly that, they could not expect compensation in the event of nationalization; they were accepting the licences and making their expenditures at their own risk. What the policy of the government would be in the event of the acquisition of any stations I am not prepared to say.


William Daum Euler: Would the minister say that the purchase of the London station by the Windsor station would justify the government in paying a higher price than the Windsor station would otherwise fetch?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think it
would change the situation. If the London station had been taken over by the radio commission they would be entitled to some compensation, but that station now disappears in an amalgamation and I do not see that the government would have any responsibility respecting it.


William Daum Euler: Of course not. With regard to the Windsor station, it might have charged to its capital account what was paid for the London station although it has no actual assets to show for that payment. It was merely putting a competitor out of the way.


Alfred Duranleau: Windsor got the
licence with the reservation that they could not expect any compensation in case the radio commission should decide to nationalize the station.

Supply-M arine-Radio


William Daum Euler: The fact that they had
bought out the London station could not be regarded as an asset?


Alfred Duranleau: That is my view at the present time, but I would not be prepared to make a definite statement.


James Malcolm: Does the minister not
think that London would be a better place for a national station than at the border?


Alfred Duranleau: A layman might think so, but an expert might think differently.


James Malcolm: Do the experts think
differently??


Alfred Duranleau: It all depends upon the power of the station, the wave length and so on. I am told by the experts of the commission that with its present power, the station at Windsor will give splendid service to London.


James Malcolm: I admit that.


Alfred Duranleau: Remedial measures can always be taken. If complaints are made as to the service given, no doubt the radio commission will see that the public is satisfied.


William Daum Euler: Did London have an exclusive channel which will be available through the amalgamation?


Alfred Duranleau: I think so.


John Campbell Elliott: Did the minister make any order in council or regulation or have anything to do with the amalgamation of the Windsor and London stations?


Alfred Duranleau: No, the government
had nothing to do with that.


John Campbell Elliott: What is it that can be done under the act upon the recommendation of the minister as to suspension or cancellation of licences for stations?


Alfred Duranleau: The powers of the
commission are defined by section 8 of the act, which reads:
The commission shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Radiotelegraph Act, chapter one hundred and ninety-five of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, and in the regulations made thereunder, but subject to the power of the minister to licence stations, have power to regulate and control broadcasting in Canada carried on by any person whatever, including His Majesty in the right of the province or of the dominion, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, these powers shall extend to the following matters:
(a) The commission shall determine the number, location and power of stations required in Canada;
(c) the commission may make recommendations to the minister with regard to the issue, [Mr. Duranleau.l
suspension or cancellation of private broadcasting licences, and notwithstanding anything contained in the Radiotelegraph Act or regulations, the minister may issue, suspend or cancel such licences;


James Malcolm: Has the licence of the
London Free Press station been suspended or cancelled or did it go with the sale to the Windsor station?


Alfred Duranleau: As far as my memory goes, the recommendation of the commission was that a licence be given to a new company. The London licence expired at the end of the fiscal year.


John Campbell Elliott: Has the recommendation
been acted upon by the minister?


Alfred Duranleau: Not yet.


John Campbell Elliott: If a licence is to be cancelled it must be done by the minister.


Alfred Duranleau: The licence expired on March 31.


John Campbell Elliott: I have heard that.


Alfred Duranleau: It would be renewed upon the recommendation of the commission.


John Campbell Elliott: Either the minister or I
is under the misapprehension as to what he said. He said that the commission could of its own volition suspend a licence without his being required to issue an order in council.


Alfred Duranleau: I said that the commission had full power in allocating wave lengths and so on, and that it was up to the minister to issue the licences.


John Campbell Elliott: And cancel them.


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, of course.


John Campbell Elliott: The minister still has n
in his power to refuse to cancel the licence of the London station?


Alfred Duranleau: The minister has full power.


John Campbell Elliott: What investigation has the minister made as to the wisdom of cancelling that licence?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: It has expired.


John Campbell Elliott: I am asking the minister.


Alfred Duranleau: The licence expired on March 31. I think the minister should follow the recommendation of the commission. The commission is supposed to go into the details of these amalgamations and I do not think the minister would make any mistake in following their recommendations.


William Daum Euler: Is London still operating?

Vancouver-Vicloria Pacific Agreement


John Campbell Elliott: Does the minister think
he should follow the recommendations of the commission without making any inquiry?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not mean to
say that the minister should make no inquiry, but surely the hon. member realizes that the commission was appointed in order to make these inquiries and to advise the minister.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 11, consideration in committee of Bill No. 48, to confirm an agreement between the Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company and the Northern Pacific Railway Company-Mr. McDade.-Mr. Cowan (Port Arthur-Thunder Bay) in the chair.
On section 1-Agreement ratified and confirmed.
Mr. STIRLING:: 
Abraham Albert Heaps: This bill was before the railway committee and it passed through without any opposition. If I remember correctly, the Department of Railways and Canals said that they had no objection whatever to the passage of this measure, and it seems rather strange now to have the statement made to the house by the hon. member for Yale that the abandonment of the line is going to work a hardship on many people who have settled in that district. If such is the case I think the house ought to give serious consideration to the representations of the hon. member for the district, and perhaps allow the bill to stand if there is going to be any such hardship as he has indicated.


Grote Stirling: Was the hon. member
in when I commenced my statement? I said at the beginning that with the merits of this particular bill and what it desired to do I was not concerned. This matter I have raised is the action of that same company in a different part of British Columbia. I chose this opportunity of placing the facts before the committee.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Cowan, Port Arthur-Thunder Bay):: In the committee section 1 was amended, changing the date of the agreement from the first day of October, 1931, to the first day of November, 1932. Shall the section as amended be adopted?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have listened to the
observations of the hon. member for Yale and have been much impressed with the fact during the progress of the discussion on another measure that our law must be very much less useful than I thought it was with respect to matters of this kind. I confess my view was that a line could not be abandoned without the consent of the railway commission, but apparently that is not the law as it now reads. When in this country we charter a company to build a railway we authorize them within a given time to construct a line 
of rail of the standard width from one point to another. I say we charter them to do so within a given time, and by our standard form of charter we usually provide that if they do not complete that line to the point named within the time limit specified, the charter rights shall be forfeited with respect to that portion of the line which has not been completed.
It should follow that any line thus built under authority of a statute of this parliament could not be abandoned after people had settled beside it, without authority from some source beyond the mere management of the company itself. The argument in times past has been that railroads were profitable or they would not be built, and that therefore the necessity for having the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners was not apparent. I purpose suggesting to my colleagues the necessity of having an amendment made this session to the Railway Act to provide that no abandonment of a line may fake place without the consent of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. I believe it is highly in the public interest that such provision should be made.
When the statement was made by the hon. member for Yale he was referring to a condition not dealt with by this bill, but to a condition in his own community which in principle was somewhat similar to the proposal dealt with by the agreement which this parliament is asked to ratify. And inasmuch as it involves a question of the abandonment of facilities which have been made available through permission granted by a law making authority, whether dt be that of the parliament of Canada or a legislature of a province, I believe we should pause and seriously consider the matter before we jeopardize the interests of those who in good faith -may have settled and made their homes, and have calculated upon the maintenance of a service to enable them to transport the products of their farms to markets, wherever they may be.
Under those circumstances I suggest that the hon. member in charge of the bill might move the committee up and ask for leave to sit again, in order that the Minister of Railways, who is absent, and the rest of the government may consider the matter more oarefully. I believe the case made out for the necessity of enacting general legislation has been such that it is the duty of the government, at the present session, to make a short amendment to the Railway Act.

Supply-M mine-Radio


Albert Joseph Brown: Does the same point arise
in the bill before us?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; that is the reason I spoke. This bill contemplates the abandonment of lines in a portion of the territory in British Columbia, but not the territory mentioned by the hon. member for Yale.


Mr. McDADE:: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 57, respecting the criminal code (appeals to privy council)-Mr. Lapointe.
Richard Bedford Bennett: That matter has been dealt with by
amendments to the criminal code introduced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie).
Order stands.



DEPARTMENT OF MARINE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Barber in the chair.
Radio service, to provide for the construction and maintenance of radio ship to shore stations and the general administration of the provisions of the Radio Act and regulations throughout the dominion, $679,550.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Carried.


Edward James Young: No, it is not carried.


Mr. McINTOSH:: You are not through
broadcasting.


Edward James Young: I should like to read from
a speech made by the Prime Minister on May 18 last year, as it appears at page 3036 of Hansard. Speaking of the licence fees and the moneys to be expended by the radio commission, he said:
We therefore in this measure for the present have provided that capital expenditures and all expenditures shall be within the income derived from the licence fees. That is, if there are 500,000 licences at $2 per licence, the commission would have an income of $1,000,000, which sum would not be more than expended by the commission in any one year.
The impression left upon the house at the time was that no money would be expended on radio broadcasting or any public service connected therewith, except that which was collected in licence fees. It now appears from the estimates for this year that the radio commission are asking permission to spend a million dollars on broadcasting, or whatever they are doing. But here is another item not charged to the radio commission. The sum of $280,400 for broadcasting improvement is charged to a department of government. That is to say, the commission being held down to an agreed sum, that is, not being allowed to spend any more than the licence fees, other expenditures which it is desired to make in connection with the same service can be made by a department of government. It seems to me that is breaking the spirit, if not the letter, of the act.
Let us see what the position is. Before the radio commission was set up the licence fee was only one dollar. AH of that dollar went into the public treasury. Out of the amount, which went into the public revenue the sum-of $280,400 was taken out for certain services"-in connection with radio, as outlined in item 140. The balance of the fees, something like-half a million dollars, was left in the public-treasury to ease the burdens of the taxpayers. The licence fee has now been doubled. Two dollars goes into the treasury, and all of it is turned over to the radio commission. In addition to that, $280,400 can be taken out of the treasury to do the work that was being paid for by the licences. The result is that whatever the revenue from the dollar licence amounted to, if as the Prime Minister says there are 770,000 radios in this country it means that $770,000 that would have been paid into the treasury and made available for this public service is now diverted to radio and therefore has to be replaced out of the pockets of the taxpayers. So I say that this method of doing things is actually taking out of the pockets of the people some $700,000, and breaking the letter if not the spirit of the act.	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I gladly avail myself of this opportunity to make a statement with respect to the policy of the government in connection with radio broadcasting. This house unanimously decided-


Edward James Young: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This house unanimously decided-


Edward James Young: No, I voted against it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman may have expressed his disagreement, but that only tends to show how great the unanimity was. This house, with a single exception then, expressed its view that radio broadcasting in Canada should be a public utility. A commission investigated the matter at some length. The commission made a report. The report was unanimous. It was adopted by the House
Supply-Marine-Radio

of Commons. The hon. member for Wey-burn (Mr. Young) says he was opposed to it; I recall that he was. A bill giving effect to the recommendation was introduced. It passed this house without division. That bill provided that radio service in Canada should be a publicly owned utility. A contract was made by the parliament of Canada by statute with radio users in Canada that the $2 licence fee collected from them should be used for the purpose of providing them with radio service. There is therefore outstanding in Canada today a contract by which this parliament undertook that we would collect from licensees at the rate of S2 per licence certain sums of money to be held in trust and utilized for the purpose of radio broadcasting, supplying radio service. Now, the attacks that have been made are being made for the purpose of destroying this publicly owned service.


Edward James Young: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The people who are desirous of destroying it are not numerous, but they are very vocal, and their influence is painfully apparent in many places. The effect upon other countries on this continent of establishing in this country publicly owned radio service will be very great. The opposition to our system is not limited to Canada. Those who are assisting in the opposition to the public ownership of this service are aiding and abetting the private ownership of what in my judgment cannot, in a new country, with the great extensions of knowledge being made from year to year, be properly committed to a private interest.
The money about which the hon. member for Weyburn speaks is therefore money collected from licensees for the purpose of providing radio service. Under our constitution that money is paid into the consolidated revenue fund, but it is earmarked as a trust fund for the purpose mentioned in the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act, 1932. The duty of the government is to make available to that commission the money that is collected for the purpose mentioned in the statute. To do that an estimate has to be submitted to this parliament. In a sense it is a pro forma estimate, for under the statute of last year it is money in trust for the development of the radio service; not to be used for any purpose you may please, but to be used for just one purpose, the providing of radio service for the Canadian people. Unfortunately-and the government must take the responsibility for it-when the estimate was printed it was not made clear that this was merely releasing to the commission the money thus collected.

Had it stated, as it should have stated, and I must assum/e the responsibility for its not being done, that this money was merely being released for the purposes for which parliament had declared it should be used, there never would have been any difficulty about it.


Edward James Young: Does that apply to this item of $280,400?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to that. There has gone throughout the country a statement that the Canadian people in these days of grim adversity are voting a million dollars for radio. That is not correct. What has happened is that a limited number of Canadians have provided at the rate of $2 per licence a sum much in excess of a million dollars-to be exact, up to the moment $1,400,000-for this sendee. A million dollars of it is contained in that item, and I think the criticism of the hon. member for Wey-bum, that it is not clear that the balance necessary to maintain that service should come from this amount, has not been established. Nevertheless that money that is necessary, whatever sum, is for two purposes; first, to provide a service-I propose to have submitted to this house next week a resolution providing for the purchase by the radio commission of the Canadian National Railways radio plant. The plant is being bought for the sum of $50,000, if I remember aright. Of course it cost a good deal more than that, but as it was a branch of a government owned railway the railway officials expressed the view that it should be placed in the hands of the commission. The engineers agreed upon the price, but as the statute says this purchase could be made only with the approval of parliament, it is proposed that a resolution shall be presented to this house and to the Senate of Canada in order that parliament may express its approval of the purchase of these facilities for the sum I have mentioned.
This item, in the words in which it now stands, is to provide for the improvement of reception service, doing away with interference in connection therewith. In my judgment that sum will have to be deducted from the licence fees that are paid into the consolidated revenue fund, because it is a part of the maintenance of the service.


Edward James Young: That is good.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The other item, as the hon. gentleman properly points out, has reference to the maintenance of our safety radio stations on the coast lines of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. It involves a large sum of money. Once more it is the old story: when

Supply-Marine-Radio
some newspaper editor, with a wider knowledge of Canadian conditions than members of this parliament or this government, undertakes to expose the wasteful use of public moneys in connection with radio, he is talking about something with respect to which he knows absolutely nothing; for as I have tried to make clear to this house,-and every hon. gentleman can take the statute and look at it for himself,-the money is money paid under a trust for providing radio for the Canadian people.
There is another item, dealing with ship to shore stations and direction finding and the safety of life and ships coming into our ports. Why are we spending this money? Well, Canada must do one of two things: either expect marine insurance rates to be doubled, or maintain radio stations for the purpose of enabling ships to determine their position by radio and to maintain in fog and storm constant communication between ship and shore and ship and ship in order that there may be safety for all who go down to the sea in ships, passengers and crew.
There are a number of such items. This affords one an opportunity to say that, owing to the fact that we have long coast lines, we are compelled to spend literally millions of dollars in bearing our share of the international obligations that rest upon all maritime peoples; to maintain light service, buoys, aids to navigation, direction finding stations, fog horns, everything that goes to make for safety of ships, alike for passengers and crews. When one reads ill-considered statements as to why we should pare down this or that estimate I can only say that I could go through our estimates and show how little really is under the control of any government in these times, how slight is our control with respect to these items. I received a letter yesterday, I think, asking why the members of parliament do not cut down their indemnities by SI,000 and why the cabinet ministers do not cut down their stipends by $3,000 or $4,000. Every service is to be cut except the service in which the individual is directly interested; there must be no cut in that. I am not going to do more than say that if you take these estimates and ask yourselves on what one item you could expend less money than this government is asking for, all you have to do to answer the question is to investigate the character of the service rendered.
So far as this particular item is concerned the Canadian people have made a choice between the privately owned and the publicly owned enterprise. Having concluded that we are going to own our own radio service we
must have patience to see that, in the face of great difficulty and opposition, and a very earnest desire on the part of those opposed to the principle to destroy it before it is well bom, it gets a fair chance. A fair chance means that the money which a limited number of the Canadian people have paid for radio service, which money is paid into the consolidated revenues of the country earmarked as a trust fund for a particular purpose, which we must vote in order to release it and make it available for that purpose, shall be used so that every encouragement is given the enterprise which we brought into being unanimously-pardon me, with a single exception, the hon. member for Weybum-so that it may grow up and become a real, virile Canadian industry.


Edward James Young: I am quite satisfied with the explanation given with regard to the item for $679,000; it is quite reasonable. I am also glad to know that this item of $280,400 is to be charged against the funds available to the commission and made up of the licence fees collected. There is one statement, however, in connection with which I should like a little further information. I understood the Prime Minister to say that there was a contract between the government of Canada, or the radio commission, and the licence holders, and that it was a part of that contract that the licence fee should be $2. Is that correct?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I said the fee was
fixed at S2. The hon. gentleman will remember that it was so stated by the minister last year when his estimates were under consideration. The contract is that the money derived from licence fees should be utilized for the purpose of providing a radio service in .accordance with the terms of the act passed last session. In my judgment that is a statutory trust between this parliament and those who pay their money for licences.


Edward James Young: There is no assurance that the licence fee will not be varied from time to time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I think that is a
matter of regulation.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I should like to ask the
minister if he has taken up with the commission the idea of broadcasting to ships on the Atlantic coast, in the way broadcasting is being carried on in the west. At the present time there is a service on the Pacific coast by means of which all ships are in constant touch with the radio stations, from which they get the news of the day while at sea. I understand that this service is greatly appre-
Supply-M arine*-Radio

ciated, and I should like to know whether steps have been taken to provide a similar service on the Atlantic coast.


Alfred Duranleau: I may tell my hon. friend that consideration is presently being given to the introduction of a similar service on the Atlantic coast.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Having
regard to the announcement just made by the Prime Minister that the commission will take over the Canadian National broadcasting service I should like to ask if any policy has been formulated as yet with regard to broadcasting in the maritime provinces. I may tell the minister that the station at Moncton owned by the Canadian National is obsolete, and I hope the commission are not paying very much for it. I think the people down there are anxious to have a national station established in that community as soon as possible, and if any policy has been adopted I should like to know what it is.


Alfred Duranleau: I know that the radio commission is working at present on the location of stations all over Canada in order to satisfy every part of the dominion. Of course their work has not been completed, but I know they are endeavouring to select the best possible location in order to satisfy the Canadian people.


Alan Webster Neill: In connection with these
range finding stations I may say that one was established in the district I represent some six or seven years ago, and it has done excellent work. I rather think another was established recently, but one plant has been in operation for several years. It is located along a section of the coast that was formerly known as the graveyard of the Pacific, and that name was fully justified. I walked along that coast a number of years ago, and at least once in every mile, and sometimes oftener, there would be the wreck of a boat lying on the beach. I would ask what that was, and I would be told that it was such and such a boat that went ashore several years before. So far as I know, and I think I am in a position to speak with certainty, since the establishment of that range finding station there has not been a single considerable wreck on the west coast of Vancouver island. The cost of the station has been amply repaid, not only in the saving of lives but also in the saving of ships and property.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: I should like to ask the minister if any definite policy has been laid down in connection with the collection of licence fees. A week or two

ago, when this item was up for discussion, I told the committee the difficulty experienced by myself and the others in parts of my constituency in finding anyone who would take the money for radio licence fees.


James Houston Spence: The postmaster.


Olof Hanson: I know some people never paid their licence fees because they could not find anyone who would take it. I inquired at the post offices, the town halls and the radio dealers in two towns in my constituency and was unable to find the proper person. I have had letters this year asking how to get a licence, because no notice has been given, and I do not know the answer myself.


Alfred Duranleau: There has been no change in the system of collecting fees; the postmasters, the radio dealers and some banks are authorized to sell licences. The only change is that we have authorized the supervisors, who were appointed last year, to canvass from house to house after April 1, and they receive the same commission that is paid the banks or the dealers, which is 15 cents per licence. If there is any locality which is not provided with a vendor of licences I should be glad to be notified and the matter will be attended to immediately. I think the country is well provided to-day with authorized vendors.


Olof Hanson: The minister says there has been no change. I have always obtained my licence from the dealer every year until last year when, together with other radio owners in the locality, I applied to the dealer and was informed that he could not take our money because he had no authority to collect. I went to the post office and I found that they could not take it either, and finally I wrote to the inspector of the mounted police in the district and he replied, "Send your money and I will see that you get the licence." The average citizen cannot go to all that bother, and I know that the government has lost some revenue merely because people have been unable to find anyone to take the fee and give out a licence.


Alfred Duranleau: We will attend to the matter.


Olof Hanson: The radio dealer said he could not give me a licence.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I believe we are dealing with item 140, which has reference to radio service, to provide for the general improvement of reception conditions to licensed broadcast listeners.


The CHAIRMAN:: We are on item 139.

Supply-Marine-Radio
Mr, McINTOSH: What I have to say can be said equally well under that item, although I understood that we were discussing both. Before passing on to another item I wish to place on record three protests I have received from my riding with respect to present broadcasting conditions. It seems to me that many people have the conviction that equal treatment is not being meted out to every listener, and I would submit that impartiality is an important asset of any national broadcasting system. These three protests which I am about to put on record are concerned with the broadcasting of Judge Rutherford's lectures. I do not know Judge Rutherford or the protesters mentioned but as a matter of principle I am anxious to record these protests which I have received with regard to the treatment that is being meted out to those people in this country who believe in that gentleman.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: We all have a dozen of such protests.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes, but just take your time. The first protest is dated Hillside, March 17, 1933, and reads:
Regarding Judge Rutherford's lectures and censoring of same, I hereby protest.
That is the right of every citizen, to protest. Further:
We believe God's word is truth and life, and should not be subject to any man to say what we shall hear.
I am,
Yours truly,
Mrs. Frank Connelly,
Hillside P.O., Sask.
The second protest is from the same locality, dated also March 17, 1933:
Am writing to protest against Judge Rutherford's lectures or anyone else being censored before going over radio. I am one who believes "God's word is truth." I believe it should go over the air without interference.
Yours truly,
L. Carr.
The third, also from the same locality and bearing the same date, March 17, 1933, reads;
I have read Judge Rutherford's important notice to the Canadian people and do not hesitate to protest against Judge Rutherford or anyone else speaking upon the scriptures having their lectures subject to censorship by the commission or anyone else, as I truly believe God's word is truth.
And thus far have found nothing in Judge Rutherford's lectures of an anti-social nature.
Yours respectfully,
Mrs. H. Rector.
These three protests I wish to have on the record, but before resuming my seat I want to ask the Prime Minister a question. The
right hon. gentleman made a statement to the house in connection with radio broadcasting, and incidentally touched upon the critical attitude of many newspapers in Canada towards certain aspects of the question. May I ask him to be specific enough to name some of the newspapers he had in mind.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am asking the Prime Minister to be definite enough in that regard. I want the information, and I believe that the accused newspapers of Canada would want to have it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This afternoon an hour was spent disposing of the Judge Rutherford incident, and now, in order that a member of this house might try to secure three votes at the next election-


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No, it is six.


Richard Bedford Bennett: *-we have put upon the record these three protests, for no other purpose in the world.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of order. I think the right hon. gentleman is imputing motives.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not imputing
motives.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You are. The right hon. gentleman made the statement that for the purpose of securing three votes at the next election the hon. member is placing three protests on record.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, knowing him as I do, I say so.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He says six.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
Prime Minister aggravates his statement. He says, "Knowing him as I do, I say so". I submit that according to the rules of the house no hon. member, and least of all the leader of the government, has any right to impute motives to any hon. member.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was so apparent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has stated his point of order; I do not propose to make a speech about it. Go on and say what you have to say.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: More impudence.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not think the Prime Minister is doing himself justice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the point of order?
Supply-Marine-Radio


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am speaking to the point of order. May I have permission to speak to the point of order? I say that the right hon. the Prime Minister, after my hon. friend from North Batbleford had recited certain incidents, rose in his place and said that the hon. gentleman, for the purpose of securing three votes at the next election, had placed three protests on the record.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He admits it himself,
only he says it is six.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He did
not admit it a.t all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He said six.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He just
made a statement as to the number of protests, that is all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Go on with your point of order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is a wonderful exhibition of Tory tolerance. Here we have the right hon. gentleman, who should be the custodian of the rules and procedure of the house, imputing motives to another member of the house. I suggest that the hon. member for North Battleford should insist upon his withdrawing his remark.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He said six votes himself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point of order has
not been negatived1 by the hon member for North Battleford. There can be no imputation of motives when I said three and the hon. gentleman said, no, it was six.


An hon. MEMBER:: He was only joking.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What imputation of
motives can there be when he admits it is six and not three? It was a statement of fact, only it was understated-'that was the only trouble. I said three and he said six.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I insist
on the point of order. The Prime Minister has imputed motives to a member of the house and I suggest that he should withdraw the imputation.


Thomas Reid: It might settle the matter if
I say for the information of the house that none of the sect ever voted.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Mr. Chairman-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The Prime Minister's imputation is more silly than ever.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Cheap.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was
a cheap remark made by the Prime Minister.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The Prime Minister was asked a definite question by myself as I was closing the few remarks I had to make in connection with this item before the house. I asked him for definite information on another matter that has to do with derogatory remarks concerning certain Canadian newspapers, and he proceeds to draw a red herring across the political trail. He did not answer my question, but instead he made an imputation in regard to my submission of three protests which I have received from a section of the North Battleford federal constituency. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that the Prime Minister in this regard has given- a very poor lead to the house in decorum, as he has often done before. It is not the first time he has done it and he has repeated his actions to-night. I made no admission at all, I only said that mathematically he was doubly wrong and in every other way he was wrong. When he was making his imputation he might as well have had the correct number of protests thereby making his imputation more ridiculous than ever. I deny the imputation made by the Prime Minister and I ask him to withdraw it.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are too late.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No, I am not too late;
I am asking him to withdraw and if he is a gentleman he will do it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For an hour this afternoon the committee discussed this matter. It has received petitions without number with respect to Judge Rutherford and explanations have been given with respect to Pastor Russell's statements over the radio, and they have been repeated with respect to this matter. The general consensus of opinion of the committee has been that the action taken by the commission was sound. The point I rose to make was as to whether or not an hon. gentleman who has seen fit to absent himself from the chamber should, after an hour has been taken up in the discussion of this matter, rediscuss the matter for the purpose of having three protests placed upon Hansard.


An hon. MEMBER:: You said more than
that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course I said more:
I said for the purpose of making certain that three votes would be available. The hon. gentleman says that the number is inaccurately stated, that it should be six. He said that the imputation is not correct in number. There is no point of order to be raised; the hon. member himself has made it clear that no

Supply-M arine-Radio
public purpose is being served. There has already been an hour's discussion on the matter but the hon. member takes up at least $150 worth of the time of this country to have this matter placed on Hansard.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The right hon. gentleman has imputed motives against an hon. member and he knows that according to the rules of this house he is distinctly out of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I wonder when hon. gentlemen sitting behind the Prime Minister will decide to observe the decencies of debate. I am trying to state a point of order and there is no one in this house knows the basis of that point of order better than the Prime Minister. The right hon. gentleman said, and he repeated the statement, that the remarks of the hon. member for North Battleford were made for the purpose of obtaining three or six votes-the number is immaterial

at the next election. That imputation is distinctly and emphatically out of order and no hon. member of this house has a right to make such a suggestion about any other hon. gentleman. Again I ask the right hon. gentleman to do the courteous thing and withdraw his imputation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has a habit of bobbing up on every occasion; he is like a jack in the box, and in nine cases out of ten he is wrong. That is his record.


Edward James Young: This is the tenth case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is one of the nine. The hon. gentleman says that it is improper to impute motives, but one is not imputing motives when he is stating the absolute facts. After an hour's discussion -had taken place the hon. member, who had been absent, takes up time to the value of from $100 to $150 to make a statement which could not possibly serve any public purpose.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not the point at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was a bald statement of fact. I say it could be done for only one purpose and there is nothing to withdraw.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The right hon. gentleman knows as well as I that he cannot state that purpose even if he believes it to be true. I am asking for the withdrawal of the imputation.


James Houston Spence: He had no business reading the letter.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am insisting on my point of order.


James Houston Spence: I could have given him a bushel of them.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am rising to a point of order and I ask for a ruling.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Barber):: What is the point of order?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: According to the rules of the house, no hon. member can impute motives to another hon. member.


James Houston Spence: Let us go on with business.


Harry James Barber: We will proceed with the item. I rule the point of order is not Well taken.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I appeal from the ruling. If you want to make progress, we will make progress.


Harry James Barber: Give it to me in writing.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If you knew the rules, Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now the hon. gentleman has raised a question. He has asked the chairman if he knew the rules. Since he is such a paragon, I assume he will withdraw that statement.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The chairman asked me to submit it in writing and my right hon. friend knows very well that that is not necessary. The chairman may have to submit the point in writing but I do not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman said: If you knew the rules of order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am quite correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let us get on with the business.
Mr. MoINTOSH: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Houston Spence: You start -more trouble than Jezebel.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The Prime Minister made a statement-


Harry James Barber: Let us get this settled.
Supply-Marine-Radio


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I appeal from the ruling.


Harry James Barber: Will you state your point?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rose to a point of order, that the right hon, the Prime Minister had imputed motives to another hon. member of this house. The chairman ruled that I was out of order and I appeal from the ruling.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a point of order for an hon. gentleman to rise and say that another hon. member imputes motives.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is well knowTn that when one hon. member imputes motives against another hon. member and a withdrawal is requested, that is considered as a point of order. I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, to demand that withdrawal; you ruled against me, and I appeal from your ruling.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question must be
properly stated for the chair. An hon. gentleman, not the member affected, has raised a point of order; he says that motives have been imputed against an hon. member. He did not say improper motives, so there is no point of order to be raised. The gentleman affected said the number was not three, that it was six, so what is the point of order?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The point of order is very obvious. When an hon. member imputes improper motives against another hon. member, any hon. member has the right to rise to a point of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is the first time the word "improper" has been used.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The rule of the house dealing with motives is No. 297. This rule reads: The imputation of bad motives,-
I do not know that any bad motives have been imputed. If it is an imputation of a bad motive to accuse a member of trying to get six votes, I suppose every hon. member would be guilty. Even an attempt to get them in this house by making speeches or reading letters would hardly come under that heading. The rule goes on:
-or motives different from those acknowledged,-
I do not know that there has been anything done contrary to that rule. It continues:

misrepresenting the language of another-
There has been no misrepresentation here.
-or accusing him, in his turn, of misrepresentation.
[The Chairman.]
I do not think that has been done. Then it says:
-charging him with falsehood or deceit; or contemptuous or insulting language of any kind; all these are unparliamentary and call for prompt interference.
While there has been a good deal of talk and perhaps a little heat in the chamber, I think that under a strict interpretation there has hardly been a transgression of paragraph 297.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to raise the point which has been raised by my hon. friend. Knowing my hon. friend from North Battleford as I do, and knowing his ability in this house since 1925, I do not think he should be called to order for saying that a certain statement would give him six votes. I should like to give hinj six thousand votes. I do not see any point of order at all unless hon. gentlemen desire he should be adjudged unworthy of any votes.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The Prime Minister made the statement that because I was absent from the house this afternoon I made the statement which I did in the house in order to capture three votes. That is about as cheap a statement as could be made by any citizen of Canada, but perhaps it is not too cheap for the Prime Minister of this country. At all events he has made it.


Harry James Barber: I would ask the hon. gentleman to confine his remarks to the question before the Chair.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am doing so. The Prime Minister in the statement he made in regard to my unavoidable absence from the house went on to harangue us about what it costs the country. I wonder what it costs the country for his absences during the last three or four years from his seat in this house. Can the Prime Minister be absent and another member not? That is a fine type of justice and a fine specimen of Canadian equality to come from the leading parliamentarian of Canada. Well, I throw it back in his teeth right here, and as far as my absence is concerned I shall be absent from my seat in the house when I want to be, and I do not intend to ask the Prime Minister whether I can be absent or not. I am responsible to the electors of my riding for my absence. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw his dirty insinuation, and if he is any man or if he has any decency he will do it.


Harry James Barber: I think the words "dirty insinuation" are unparliamentary,, and the hon. member should 'withdraw them..

Supply-Marine-Radio


Cameron Ross McIntosh: If they are net parliamentary, Mr. Ohairman, I will withdraw them, but I think perhaps they are not.


Olof Hanson: Why not
withdraw altogether?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The statement he made is absolutely false and I am asking him to withdraw it, every letter of it, every syllable of it and every word of it.
Bradette,
Cardin,
Chevrier,
Fiset, Sir Eugene, Hanson (Skeena), Ilsley,
King, Mackenzie,
Maelnnis,
MacLean,
++NAYS
Messrs:
McKenzie (Assiniboia), McPhee,
Neill,
Reid,
Sanderson,
Stewart
(Edmonton West), Taylor,
Young.-17.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I appeal from your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Might I ask you, Mr. Chairman, what this is costing the country now?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I was
thinking. You might ask the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Ask the
Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
The bon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) having stated that the Prime Minister had imputed motives against him, the member tor Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) raised a point of order. The chairman ruled that the Prime Minister had not done so. Against this ruling the member for Vancouver Centre appeals to the house.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: I was paired with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Chairman's ruling.


Mr. SAUVE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Se-guin). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Chairman's ruling.


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: I was paired with
the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Chairman's ruling.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was
paired with the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan). Had I voted I would have voted against the Chairman's ruling.


Mr. SMOKE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for South Oxford (Mr. Cayley). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Chairman's ruling.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted I would have voted against the Chairman's ruling.


James Houston Spence: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser). Had I voted I would voted to sustain the Chairman's ruling.


Mr. ANDERSON (Ilalton):: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Chairman's ruling.


Mr. SIMPSON (Algoma):: I was paired
(vith the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Chairman's ruling.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Embury). Had I voted I would have voted against the Chairman's ruling.


Mr. BLAIR:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Peel (Mr. Charters). Had I voted I would have voted against the Chairman's ruling.
Mr. MicINTOSH:	I was paired with the
hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy). Had I voted I would have voted to repudiate the unfair ruling of the chair.


Mr. TOTZKE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber). Had I voted I would have voted against the Chairman's ruling.

The house resumed in committee of supply, Mr. Barber in the chair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the point of order was raised the hon. member for North Battle-ford made the statement that I had been guilty of a falsehood. 'If that language is correctly stated I ask to have it stricken from the record.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: On the point of order, the Prime Minister stated that the remarks I made in connection with radio broadcasting were made to secure three votes. I said that was a false statement, and I say it again.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what was said.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is exactly what I said before.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the language is taken down; if the reporters have it in that way it can easily be verified. That certainly cannot be put upon the record.


Harry James Barber: The hon. member cannot say that the remark of the Prime Minister was a falsehood. He might say that they were not-


Richard Bedford Bennett: He can say they are incorrect, if he likes.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: May I say in language that is clear and plain that they constitute an untruth and are not in accordance with the facts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would be improper, too.


Harry James Barber: I ask the hon. member to withdraw that statement; I appeal to the hon. member.

Supply-Marine-Radio


Cameron Ross McIntosh: And to make it still more emphatic I will say the statement is not a true statement. How do you like that?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is quite satisfactory.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Surely if it is not true my good friend from North Battleford will-


Harry James Barber: We were dealing with item 139.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, it is not carried, with that kind of tactics.


Frederick George Sanderson: I should like to ask the minister if the radio commission have purchased or taken over any broadcasting stations in Canada, if so where, and at what price?


Alfred Duranleau: I understand we are now discussing three items together, namely items 139, 140 and 247. Otherwise all this discussion would have to come under item 247. If the three are not being discussed together we should limit the discussion to items 139 and 140. They have nothing to do with the radio commission.


Frederick George Sanderson: I have been under the impression that we have been discussing items 139 and 140. We have not yet reached item 247. On items 139 and 140 we have been talking for four hours, and my question is along the line of others which have been answered by the minister.


Alfred Duranleau: I understood that the three items were under consideration, because the question of the hon. member would come under item 247.


Frederick George Sanderson: If the minister thinks item 247 is included, my question will be quite in order.


Harry James Barber: We are discussing items 139 and 140.


Alfred Duranleau: And 247?


Harry James Barber: No.


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not think it makes much difference.


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, it does. I shall answer the hon. member's question when item 247, which concerns the radio commission, is under consideration.	.


Frederick George Sanderson: There have been many questions asked this afternoon and this evening which affected the radio commission.


Alfred Duranleau: I understand that.


Frederick George Sanderson: The discussion has been centred on the commission.


Alfred Duranleau: Why does the hon.
member object?


Frederick George Sanderson: I am noit objecting;
I am putting a question to the minister.


Alfred Duranleau: Why does he object to the three items being considered at the same time?


Frederick George Sanderson: I have no objection
to that.


Mr. GARDINER:: Certainly we object;
there is no reason why we should discuss more than one item at a time.


James Malcolm: We have been discussing two all day.


Robert Gardiner: That does not make
any difference. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that you should confine the discussion to one item.


Harry James Barber: The item under discussion is No. 139.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Frederick George Sanderson: No, it is not passed
yet. If it is 139 it says:
Radio service, to provide for the construction and maintenance of radio ship to shore stations and the general administration of the provisions of the Radio Act and regulations throughout the dominion.
Surely my question would come under that.


Alfred Duranleau: Item 139 has nothing to do with radio broadcasting.


Frederick George Sanderson: But it says "administration of the provisions of the Radio Act." Is not 'that broad enough to cover my question?


Alfred Duranleau: That is not the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act, 1932; it is the Radio Act, which existed before the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act was adopted last session.


Frederick George Sanderson: Then with all due
respeot to the minister, he apparently does not want to answer the question. I hope he knows more about the Radio Act than he does about 'the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
17$
Sup ply-M urine-R adio


Frederick George Sanderson: No, Mr. Chairman, it is not carried. I still put my question to the minister and ask for an answer.


Alfred Duranleau: I am telling my hon. friend that not a cent of this vote will go to the radio commission, neither for its administration nor for the purchase of any station in Canada. I would suggest that my hon. friend wait until item 247 is brought before the committee; that will 'be the proper time to discuss the purchase of stations by the radio commission.


Frederick George Sanderson: This afternoon we discussed broadcasting stations for about an hour, one in London and one in Windsor, and we were then on item 139. The hon. minister raised no objection. Why he objects now I cannot understand.


Alfred Duranleau: Because this afternoon I thought we were proceeding with the three together. My hon. friends will recall that when these items were called a few weeks ago the three were called together and dismissed at the same time. I thought we were doing the same this afternoon. Why does my hon. friend insist upon discussing the administration of the radio commission on a vote which has nothing to do with it? The other item will come up very soon.


Frederick George Sanderson: Well, I do not want to prolong this. I think the minister is unreasonable. If he is right in his contention that all three items should be discussed together, then why does he not answer my question? Take it under 247 and answer it now.


Alfred Duranleau: It is objected that we should proceed with only one item at a time, so we are proceeding with item 139. The hon. member's question has nothing to do with that item.


Jean-François Pouliot: Speaking on item 139, I wonder why that is not under the jurisdiction of the radio commission. The radio commission has certain powers. It has in its service experts, men who have special and trained knowledge of the radio business, I wonder why they cannot see to it that these short or long waves are submitted to regulation, and look after interference throughout the dominion from coast to coast. If the hon. gentleman who has just spoken intends to prove that the ocean and river radio service should be under the jurisdiction of the commission, there is at once a relation between the two votes, and the minister, who is a very able lawyer, understands it very well. If he sub-

mits that the ocean radio service should be under the control of the radio commission, just as the radio commission is under the superintendence of the minister himself, both items can be discussed together, on account of the relation that exists between them. I submit that point to the chairman. There is certainly an apparent link between the items, and the minister will not deny it.


Frederick George Sanderson: If the minister thinks my question does not come under 139, let me read item 140.


Harry James Barber: I think we had better deal with 139 first.


Frederick George Sanderson: Item 140 is as follows:
Radio service, to provide for the general improvement of reception conditions to licensed broadcast listeners.
Is not that wide enough to cover my question?


Harry James Barber: We are dealing with 139.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Frederick George Sanderson: No, Mr. Chairman.
With all due respect, is that your ruling?


Harry James Barber: We are dealing with 139 at present.


Frederick George Sanderson: Apparently for the last four hours we have been dealing with 139, 140, and the minister says 247.


Richard Bedford Bennett: An hon. member said he wanted it confined to one item.


Jean-François Pouliot: This item is not subject to the radio commission?


Alfred Duranleau: No, because it is not broadcasting. It concerns radio for navigation, and comes under the Marine department.


John Vallance: It is not under the commission?


Alfred Duranleau: This item was voted by the house for years before the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act was adopted. The items are the same that existed years ago. The item that concerns the radio commission is No. 247.


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister says that the radio commission has nothing to do with this vote?


Alfred Duranleau: Absolutely.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Marine-Radio
Radio service, to provide for the general improvement of reception conditions to licensed broadcast listeners, $280,400.
Frederick George Sanderson: Then I will ask the
minister my question on item 140.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Frederick George Sanderson: No, there is a question to the minister.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: The commission has nothing to do with either of these votes; they are entirely under the control of the department?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, that is a fact.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: The Prime Minister said a few minutes ago that this amount of $280,400 comes from the revenues received from licensees, and therefore was under the control of the radio commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Rimouski is mistaken; I did not say under the control of the commission. The question whether the commission shall exercise jurisdiction in respect to interference has been discussed. Interference between stations has to be controlled by the commission, it is true. The prevention of interference with the use of instruments owned by the individual has heretofore been carried on by the marine department. I said this sum of money would be charged against the licence fees, but I did not say it was going to be directed by the broadcasting commission. This item at the moment is being managed and controlled by the marine department as heretofore.
I think perhaps the difficulty of the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) is that he did not hear the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) suggest that the committee confine itself to one item at a time. Under those circumstances the chairman was bound to do so, but this is the usual item that has been passed for years for the purpose of remedying difficulties in connection with reception. As I tried to explain, it will be paid from the sums collected in fees, but at the moment it is administered by the marine department.


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask if it is the intention to leave the inspection and location of difficulties in the hands of the Marine department or whether this work will be turned over to the commission?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The matter has been considered from every angle. In Great Britain the post office looks after the interference with individual reception and the broadcasting corporation looks after matters connected 53719-264
with the facilities of the corporation. The matter is being considered; whatever experience teaches us is in the public interest will be done. I saw Mr. Gladstone Murray the other day for the purpose of ascertaining just how it had worked out in England, and the minister and I have been discussing the matter at some length in the light of the knowledge we have obtained. When the commission came into being the department had a force of experts looking after these matters, and they have continued to do the work. The commission and the minister, as he will tell you, are in constant communication as to *what will best serve the public interest.


John Vallance: In spite of what the Prime Minister has said this is hardly clear to many of us yet. Item 140 is to provide for radio service and for the general improvement of reception conditions to licensed broadcast listeners. Has the commission no control over these people who pay licence fees in order to listen to the broadcasts? It seems to me there is some misunderstanding still. When you turn to vote 247 you find that it is to provide for the Canadian radio broadcasting service. Here is another broadcasting service. The Prime Minister has tried to explain it, but it seems to me some further explanation is necessary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman was not in his place when I explained the matter; if he had been here he would have heard the whole explanation. I endeavoured to make clear that the fund was collected from licence holders, and by statute we undertook to provide them with a radio service in return for the fees thus paid. This is an item that appeared in previous years with respect to the improvement of reception by individual licence holders. Now this amount is being charged against the fees of the licensees, which are paid into the consolidated revenue fund. Item 247, to which attention has been directed, deals directly with the operations of the broadcasting commission itself. I am not going to take the time of the committee to repeat what I have already said; I think the hon. gentleman will agree that it is hardly necessary to repeat these explanations three or four times.


Eugène Fiset: I wonder if the Prime Minister would permit me another question in order to clear up the matter. Is that amount of $284,000 paid under the Radio Act or under the radio broadcasting act? I understand that the power to collect these licence fees and apply them to this vote comes under the radio broadcasting act.

Supply-Marine-Radio


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, this work is done under the provisions of the radio act but, as I have explained, since the last fiscal year- since these estimates were prepared, in reality -the broadcasting commission has come into being and there has been already coordination of the work between the two departments. That work is going on all the time, but at the moment it is proposed, as I explained to the hon. member for Weyburn, to charge that sum against the fund collected from the licensees, which is paid into the consolidated revenue fund. As the hon. gentleman has remarked, part of these operations would come under the radio act, but the collection of fees and matters of that kind come under the provisions of the broadcasting act.


Frederick George Sanderson: 
Alfred Duranleau: No.


James Malcolm: The minister explained that the $280,000 provided in item 140 represents the cost of giving service to radio receivers, keeping sets in repair, looking after wave lengths, eliminating interference and so on. This afternoon he told us that it cost either $170,000 or $190,000 to look after interference.


Alfred Duranleau: It cost $90,000 to collect the licence fees.


James Malcolm: Will the minister tell us why he thinks it necessary to farm out his taxation? I ask that question advisedly. People who secure their radio licences go to the post office and pay $2, yet people who do not pay must be looked up, and the state receives only $1.60. The minister admitted that the other night.


Alfred Duranleau: The post office only gets 5 cents per licence. The vendors get 15 cents per licence, and that applies to those who canvass from house to house as well. They get 15 cents per licence instead of 40 cents, which they were paid last year.


James Malcolm: The minister admitted that a supervisor also costs some money.


Alfred Duranleau: Last year we paid 40 cents, because the house to house canvass only started in September; it was a clean up. This year we are paying only 15 cents to canvassers, which includes the expense for the supervisors.


James Malcolm: I want to say to the
minister that if someone is found who has not bought a licence I think the state should get the $2 and the individual should pay the extra cost of finding out that he did not secure a licence. I do not think the revenue of this country should be less by virtue of the fact that someone must go round and make a man pay a licence fee which by statute he is supposed to pay.


Alfred Duranleau: At the present time
it does not cost more.


James Malcolm: Why should it cost
890,000?


Alfred Duranleau: Because we must have someone to issue these licences, the postmasters, radio dealers and so on, and we must have a central organization in the department to look after the accounting, auditing and other work. I do not think $90,000 is an excessive charge for the collection of $1,500,000; I suggest that it is a very small amount.


Eugène Fiset: I wonder if the
minister would be kind enough to inform me if the vendors are still obliged to buy those licences in advance in order to get the 15 cents commission.


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Eugène Fiset: How many at a
time?


Alfred Duranleau: They come in books of ten.


Jean-François Pouliot: I should like to ask what
amount was paid each of the collectors, and especially to Mr. Bigonesse of Montreal.


James Houston Spence: Sit down.


Jean-François Pouliot: 
Alfred Duranleau: As I explained previously, supervisors have been appointed in every city and every constituency, and during the clean up they received a commission of 40 cents.


Jean-François Pouliot: How many supervisors were appointed?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not know that I am able to give that information.


Jean-François Pouliot: But you should be able to.

Supply-Marine-Radio


Alfred Duranleau: About one hundred and forty, I understand.


Jean-François Pouliot: How many in Montreal?


Alfred Duranleau: One.


Jean-François Pouliot: Who was he?


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Bigonesse.


Jean-François Pouliot: What is his first name?


Alfred Duranleau: L. J. Bigonesse.


Jean-François Pouliot: What is his occupation, trade or profession?


An hon. MEMBER:: When was he bom?


Alfred Duranleau: He is an architect.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Are you sure?


Alfred Duranleau: He is a good man.


Jean-François Pouliot: As he is a good man he is probably receiving high commissions; I want to know how much.


Alfred Duranleau: Not very much. He received last fiscal year the same as any other -ten cents.


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister should not be reluctant to tell us how much he gets. Did he get ten cents all the time?


Alfred Duranleau: Ten cents per licence. I have told the committee many times how many licences were sold in Montreal from September to the end of the fiscal year. There were 11,385 licences sold by canvassers from September to the end of the fiscal year. This means that the supervisor received ten cents per licence, or $1,138.


Jean-François Pouliot: And how much did he get on collections besides that?


Alfred Duranleau: That is what he got.


Jean-François Pouliot: He did not get forty cents?


Alfred Duranleau: No, the canvassers got thirty cents.


Jean-François Pouliot: So Mr. Bigonesse got
$1,100?


Alfred Duranleau: He got ten cents on every licence from September to the end of the fiscal year, or $1,138.


Jean-François Pouliot: How many supervisors are there in Toronto?


Alfred Duranleau: In Toronto there are eight supervisors. There they prefer to have a supervisor in each constituency.
53719-264J


Jean-François Pouliot: How is it there was only one in Montreal, a bigger city than Toronto, and so many in Toronto? The member for Parkdale ought to have something to say about that.


Alfred Duranleau: Toronto is the only place where they preferred to have a supervisor in each constituency. In all the other cities, Quebec, Vancouver and everywhere else, there was only one supervisor. There was no difference between Montreal and any of the other cities except Toronto.


Jean-François Pouliot: Did the supervisor do any work himself for this money which he received?


Alfred Duranleau: Of course; he pays a clerk to help him.	.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is he an expensive clerk such as the Clerk of the House of Commons?


Alfred Duranleau: He himself is the clerk but he has to have some assistance. It would be impossible to do the work properly in Montreal, collecting from house to house, with only one supervisor and no assistance.


Jean-François Pouliot: So that all that the government paid was ten cents to the supervisor and he took care of all other expenses.


Alfred Duranleau: The supervisor purchased the licence books, paying sixteen dollars per book of ten licences. The canvassers purchased them from the supervisor, paying seventeen dollars, and the licences were sold at the rate of twenty dollars per book or two dollars per licence. In other words, the department did not lose a cent. Everything was paid in advance and, according to the report of my officials, the work was wonderfully well done.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am sure the work was
wonderfully well done, but this is the way I look at it. The licence books were worth twenty dollars and they were sold to the supervisor at sixteen dollars; he sold them to the canvassers at seventeen dollars, making a dollar on each one. Why did not the government sell these tickets or licence books direct to the canvassers. They would have saved ten per cent on the licences. The supervisor did nothing; he was nothing more than a go-between. The supervisor simply acted for the government in dealing with the canvassers.


Mr. STANLEY:: The supervisor did the
financing.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the hon. gentleman
say the canvassers were all bankrupt?
41S2
Supply-Marine-Radio


George Douglass Stanley: Not necessarily, but the
financing was a large contract and the supervisor did it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would suggest to the
Prime Minister that he appoint the hon. member for East Calgary Minister of Marine, because he gives illuminating answers to questions addressed to the minister. I thank him for his kind interjection. He knows I like him, but now I am showing how this business was carried on. Here is a man who has the backing of some fellow. He is an architect and he goes to the minister and says, "I want to be appointed supervisor." It is a strange sort of appointment. It reminds me of the sweepstakes bill. The minister says to him, "Buy tickets; if you do so you at once become supervisor."	A great title.
Well, the man buys tickets. He has a booklet of ten tickets or licences, at two dollars each, or twenty dollars, but all he pays is sixteen dollars.


Alfred Duranleau: To-day he pays $18.50.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member for East Calgary says that the supervisor is a great financier; he must be, because he got ten per cent without doing anything-a very able man. He goes to the banker and says to him, "I am a friend of the Minister of Marine. You will give me a margin of credit and with that I will buy booklets. I shall now *be a supervisor." The banker says, "What is your occupation? Are you an architect?" The man says, "No; I am future supervisor," and then the banker takes off his hat to him :and says, "You must be a great man because you enjoy the friendship of the Minister of Marine, and as you know, the friendship of a good and great man is a boon of the gods."


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Wonderful, wonderful.


Jean-François Pouliot: Pardon me?


James Dew Chaplin: I said wonderful.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would suggest to the Prime Minister that he appoint the hon. member for Lincoln supervisor for St. Cath-.arines between sessions.
TMr. CHAPLIN:	No, you would want a
little job like that; that would suit you.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, if I did get a job
like that at any rate it would be easy for me to sell some of the tickets to the hon. gentleman, he likes me so much.


George Douglass Stanley: How would you finance
it? Would you get me to do it?
/Mr. Pouliot.]


Jean-François Pouliot: I don't know. My hon.
friend from Lincoln is a rich man and he likes me. However, this is a great business for this architect. There must be a go-between who has some pull and is able to get tickets from the department to sell them to the poor devils who make a little money by selling these licences to the people. But this man sits in his office and does nothing; all he has to do is to sell the tickets.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is political interference.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is the way these
things happen. The minister is a business man, the hon. member for Lincoln is a business man, and the hon. member for East Calgary is a most serious, genial and amiable man, and I do not know why they stand for it. I take this opportunity of denouncing this practice to the Minister of Finance in order that he may stop it. These booklets should be sold to the poor devils who are canvassing at the same price, and then the government would save ten per cent. Previously a booklet containing ten one dollar tickets was sold for $9, and the government was losing only ten per cent. Now the government is losing much more, and it is too bad. I think I offer some very timely suggestions to the minister and there is no reason why these supervisors should be treated any better. I suppose they are given their titles in order that they may get credit at the banks to enable them to buy their booklets. I do not know that that actually happens, but I would not be surprised if it does. Will the minister stop this practice?


Alfred Duranleau: In fairness to the
supervisors all over Canada I think I should say a word in reply to the hon. member. Since April 1, 1933, the canvassers have been getting only fifteen cents per licence, just the same as the banks and the dealers. The supervisors receive two and one half cents out of that fifteen cents. The department decided that they would deal only with one man in each city. There must be some organization for the collection of these fees. In a city like Montreal we would have from thirty to forty canvassers and there has to be someone to attend to the distribution. The city is divided into districts and a district awarded to a canvasser, and the man in charge of this work gets only two and one half cents per licence. For a book of ten licences he has to pay $18.50 and that book is sold to the canvasser for $18.75.
I am told that this system has worked out very well. Last year it was more of a clean-up job. We started in September and the can-

S upply-M arine-R adio
Yassers found that they had to go to from ten to fifteen houses before they would find a householder requiring a licence. They received forty cents last year, but this year they will not get more than fifteen cents.


Edward James Young: Why was the commission of the supervisors increased? Previously they were getting 10 per cent and now they are getting 16~ per cent.


Alfred Duranleau: They are receiving 2J cents per licence.


Edward James Young: Two and one-half cents out of fifteen; formerly they got one-sixth but now they are getting one-tenth.


Alfred Duranleau: Formerly they were
getting ten cents and now they are getting 2i cents per licence.


John Vallance: Do the mounted police
sell, supervise or canvass in connection with radio licence.


Alfred Duranleau: They are empowered
to sell licences in the unorganized districts.


John Vallance: Was an order not issued by the department last spring to the effect; that the mounted police would be the sole selling agents for radio licences in western Canada?


Alfred Duranleau: The department never issued such an order.


John Vallance: The minister will probably remember that I wrote to the department upon more than one occasion pointing out that the mounted police were not available at all times. I was instrumental in getting permission for some jewellers and two or three other individuals to sell radio licences. Do I understand that the mounted police are not now selling licences?


Alfred Duranleau: They are selling them in the unorganized districts.


John Vallance: Only in the unorganized districts?


Alfred Duranleau: Where there are no
vendors, the mounted police are authorized to sell licences.


John Vallance: Do the mounted police receive the same commission?


Alfred Duranleau: They receive the
same commission which is paid into their pension fund.


James Malcolm: Does the minister intend to continue this system of selling radio licences?


Alfred Duranleau: Generally the licences are purchased from a dealer, a post office or a bank, but the opportunity to canvass for licences has been given to men who are out of work.


James Malcolm: I do not want to delay
these estimates but I object to the way in which radio licence fees are collected. It seems to be a haphazard system. As citizens we have understood that if we had a radio receiving set we would have to go to that post office to secure our licence. This was a similar provision to that prevailing in Ontario in the case of motor car licences. However, if we operate a motor car without a licence no one comes around to canvass us and coax us to buy one, we are prosecuted for operating a car without a licence. If the minister proposes to sell licences only through these canvassers, well and good, but I do not think he should continue the present system as well. What do these men do when they go to a house and find that a radio set has been operated for five years? Do they ask to see the licences for the back years? What do they do when they find a man has defrauded the treasury out of licence fees for four or five years? Can nothing be done? The man's neighbour may have bought his licence every year. We should buy our licences as we did previously and be subject to punishment if we operate a set without a licence, or else we should be told that a canvasser will call to collect the licence fees, a record should be kept of receiving sets.


Alfred Duranleau: This system has been adopted in an effort to accommodate the people.


James Malcolm: Why not follow it right through and have it understood that the canvasser will call?


Alfred Duranleau: Some citizens prefer to go to the post office to get their licence while others do not want to go to that bother and will ask the canvasser to come back again next year. We try to accommodate everybody by allowing both methods.


John Vallance: Suppose I own a receiving set and do not take out a licence and no supervisor comes along, but the mounted police come along and ask to see my licence. When they find I have not got one will they prosecute me or arrest me, or merely sell me a licence?


Alfred Duranleau: As a rule a report is made to the minister, and the department deals with the case-
Supply-Marine-Radio


James Malcolm: What licence fee is
charged in England?


Alfred Duranleau: 


James Malcolm: And in the United States nothing.


John Vallance: Does the department prosecute in very many cases?


Alfred Duranleau: Not very many.


John Vallance: So there is a laxity in the taking out of licences.


Alfred Duranleau: If a man says to the canvasser, "I am out of work and cannot pay now," a report is made to the department and orders are given to wait, but if a man says, "I won't take out a licence," I think it is the duty of the department to prosecute, and that is what we do.


Jean-François Pouliot: Do the canvassers report to the supervisor or to the department?


Alfred Duranleau: We deal with only one man in any city whom we call the supervisor.


Jean-François Pouliot: So the canvasser reports to the supervisor, and the supervisor to the minister. Does the supervisor receive a commission on the licences that are sold by the post office?


Alfred Duranleau: No.


John Vallance: Does the mere possession jf a radio set, even if it is not being operated, nake one liable?


Alfred Duranleau: If the radio is connected up and is in operating condition the owner is liable to payment of the licence fee.


John Vallance: That is if it is hooked up. Take an electric radio in the city here; you see the supervisor coming and you pull out the plug, and then when you see him going away down the lane you push the plug in again; is that set considered to be in operation?


Alfred Duranleau: In such a case the owner is liable to pay the licence fee. The radio is not in operation when it is down in the cellar, for instance, with all the tubes out.


Jean-François Pouliot: Usually there is something else in the cellar.


James Malcolm: Has the minister come to any decision as to what licence fee he is going to charge a hotel with a thousand rooms?


Alfred Duranleau: The matter 13 under consideration but no decision has been arrived at.
fMr. Duranleau.]


James Malcolm: At the present time all they are paying is one licence fee?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: When I look at item 140
and then at item 247, I find one is within the border and the other is across the border. Both these items, one dealing with radio service and the other with Canadian radio broadcasting service, should be together. Item 140 is followed by an item to provide for a compassionate allowance to Lawrence Larson, formerly employed as caretaker at the Esquimalt workshop of the radio-telegraph service. Would it not be better, instead of having that item follow item 140 to have item 247 in its place? Then you would have the two radio items together, and both could be discussed together. The Prime Minister made some observations which I did not quite catch because he was speaking in a low tone, but I respectfully offer this suggestion to the hon. Minister of Marine in order that his estimates may be presented in better form to the house. The two items could remain separate, if he wishes, but they should be placed together; there should not be so many other items relating to a wide variety of matters between them. That is most important. I was sitting at the other end of the house just now where the hearing is very bad, and I did not hear all that was being said. I would ask the minister if the matter of improvement in reception conditions is under the control of the radio commission.


Alfred Duranleau: No. That matter
comes under the Marine department.


Jean-François Pouliot: So the radio commission
has nothing to do with reception conditions?


Alfred Duranleau: Absolutely nothing.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is a great mistake,
as I shall prove. We have spent millions of dollars in order to have a radio commission, and then when we want to improve reception conditions that is done by the department. I did not catch what my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Myers) interjected. He surely will be Prime Minister one day because he speaks so low; he croons in the house. I would ask the minister if the $280,400 for radio service in item 140 is paid out of the licence fees received from radio listeners.


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: And does the $1,000,000
for Canadian radio broadcasting service in item 247 also come from the same source?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.

Supply-Marine-Radio


Jean-François Pouliot: The two services should
be done by one body. I do not see the utility of the radio commission if they cannot improve reception conditions. It is for that they were created.


Alfred Duranleau: No, to have better
programs.


Jean-François Pouliot: But if the programs cannot be listened to, if there is too much static and interference, the programs will not be worth anything. I do not see why we should have this duplication. Why bring in a gentleman from outside as expert on the radio commission when we have Commander Edwards here who knows just as much, if not more, and who would have made an excellent expert on the radio commission? Times are hard, and we talk of economy, but here we have a duplication of service in the radio commission which is absurd; it is nonsense. The country cannot stand for it. The people have to pay twice as large a fee for a radio licence, and why? Because there is this duplication of service. If there was no such duplication the licence fee would be only one dollar, but now it is two, because we have to pay first for one board and then for another board. To improve reception conditions we have the Department of Marine and to improve the programs we have the radio commission. Not a single program has been changed since the radio commission was appointed, and so if the reason for its appointment was the improvement of programs the commission has proved absolutely useless because there has been no change in the programs. I am giving the minister sound advice, as I did to the Prime Minister the other day. I urge him not to stand for this duplication of service.


Mr. MYERS:: Why not take a spoonful
of advice yourself?


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. gentleman speaks so low that he will surely be Prime Minister one day. He croons. Let him repeat aloud what he said. Evidently it does not interest even himself because he will not repeat it.


Mr. SPEARMAN:: I thought I heard the
hon. member say that the problem of perpetual motion had been solved, but probably I was mistaken.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is the observation of a statesman. Of course I am not a statesman; I am just a vulgar politician, and I do not belong to the class to which the hon. member belongs. But if the hon. member who speaks so much about economy stands for duplication of services let 'him say so to his electors, let
him say it to the country. I am trying to save money for the government. If the Minister of Marine would listen to my speech he would save the country hundreds of thousands of dollars.


James Houston Spence: If you would not talk so
much we would save a lot more.


Jean-François Pouliot: It costs much more because of the interjections of the hon. member for Parkdale. Hon. members opposite cannot make a constructive suggestion to the government. Those suggestions come from the opposition, because government members are too proud to make them. We make suggestions because we are sincere-


James Houston Spence: You do not know what you are talking about.


Jean-François Pouliot: There are none so blind
as those who won't see, and none so deaf as those who won't hear. So the hon. member from Parkdale is in a class by himself. As the minister has told us that the radio commission was to improve programs, would he be kind enough to tell the committee what programs they have improved.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacDonald, Cape Breton):: We are discussing item 140; the
radio commission comes under another item.


Jean-François Pouliot: I should like to speak
about that.


Finlay MacDonald: Confine yourself to the item.


Jean-François Pouliot: To separate the items
concerning radio services is absurd. I am not now discussing the items, but the manner in which they have been placed in the estimates. Mr. Chairman, as you are a most brilliant lawyer you will understand my point better than anybody else, and as well as the minister who is an able lawyer himself. I say that there is duplication of sendees. Now I am saying that the items concerning radio broadcasting should be put together. Am I in order when I say that?


Finlay MacDonald: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: As you say, sir, I am in
order, I am pleased that you have brought the attention of the committee to a most important fact. I ask the minister why Commander Edwards has not been appointed an expert on the radio commission.


Mr. QUINN:: You did not nominate him.


Jean-François Pouliot: I did not, but I am asking why he has not been appointed.
Supply-Marine-Radio


Felix Patrick Quinn: You did not bring it to their attention.


Jean-François Pouliot: He is an expert. Will the minister admit that Commander Edwards is an expert?


Felix Patrick Quinn: You are.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not an expert; I
am just a plain citizen asking for information.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I thought you were a clever lawyer.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not pretend to be clever, but I am a lawyer and I am defending a good case. When the minister is surrounded with so many experts I should like to know why I cannot have an answer to my question as to the difference between static and interference. What is the use of having so many experts about him if he does not know the difference? He should have Commander Edwards attached to his department as a personal expert to explain these highly technical matters. Then, what work has been done in connection with the improvement of reception in Ottawa? There are many places where there are awful noises in Ottawa-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: -on the radio. Conditions have been the same for a long time. What is the cause? Is there some electrical trouble? Would the minister be kind enough to tell us, and will he see that the causes of interference and static disappear? Will he see to it that duplication is eliminated, and that his supervisors and canvassers are selected from soldiers who are out of work? These are the practical suggestions I offer. Would the minister be willing to abolish duplication in his department?


Alfred Duranleau: The Prime Minister explained very clearly that there was no duplication in services. If the radio commission took over the administration of the Department of Marine they would take over only the employees in that department who are spread throughout the country attending to interferences and selling licences. My department sells licences, and at the same time our inspectors attend to interferences. As the committee was told this afternoon the very same system is in existence in England. Over there that service is under the administration of the Post Office Department, while in this country we have placed it under the Department of Marine. There is no duplication whatever. Commander Edwards,
TMr. Pouliot.]
so well known to my hon. friend, is in charge of the collection of licences, interferences and what we call the improvement of reception conditions.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I wish to thank the minister for the statement made this afternoon which holds out hope in northern Ontario for better radio service in the coming year. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister state that out of the revenues for radio licences about $1,500,000 would be collected, and that expenditures on radio broadcasting, and in the erection of new stations would come out of that special fund. Coming from the Prime Minister those words will be appreciated, because they will clear the atmosphere.
I should like the minister to be a little more explicit as to how expenditures will be made. I have in mind the fact that in the more densely populated centres there is good reception. In the city of Montreal radio reception is good; the same applies to Ottawa, Toronto and Winnipeg. Why does it not apply to the more sparsely populated centres? What I want to bring to the minister's attention is the fact that in our section more money will have to be spent for giving service. We have no station whatever, so that more will have to be spent there this year than in other sections. I hope the minister will see that the expenditures that are proper in these sections will be made. No doubt very little expenditure for transmission of programs will have to be made in the older sections, but as long as there is money left from the ordinary income from radio I hope the minister will see that we receive the service that we are entitled to in northern Ontario.


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot add anything to what I said this afternoon on this subject, except that the radio commission is working for a system by which the whole of Canada will be covered. Of course it is important work and cannot be completed in a few days. The commission has been functioning only since last January, and I am sure this committee will realize that within these few months it has done a great deal in that respect. A great many sections of Canada which had no coverage whatever with radio will be served properly within a short time.
I know that northern Ontario is being looked after.


James Malcolm: The minister is no doubt aware of the many complaints that are being published in the papers regarding the wretched reception we are getting in the city of Ottawa and neighbouring districts. This vote is for

Supply-M arine
the improvement of radio reception. Is this bad reception due to some policy of the new radio broadcasting commission, or can it be corrected by the minister's department under this vote?


Alfred Duranleau: I am informed that this trouble is due to power lines in and around Ottawa. We have that trouble in many parts of the country, and we are trying to improve the situation as much as possible.


James Malcolm: It is a strange thing that the power line trouble should have started just after the radio commission got functioning.


Alfred Duranleau: There may be something in the way of changing wave lengths also. It is an experiment, it is temporary; they try a certain wave length for certain stations; it may be changed later on in order to improve the reception. I understand that the radio commission is trying to find the best means of doing away with this interference.


James Malcolm: I do not want to labour the point, but there is a great deal in what the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pou-liot) said. There was none of this trouble when Commander Edwards had full charge of the situation in Canada. If Commander Edwards has to look after radio reception and improving the service for listeners it seems very strange that there should be this fooling with and changing wave lengths that almost wrecks the reception in the capital from most stations that the people have been listening to in the past. The minister must see the articles in the papers; there was a long one in this evening's Journal. They are becoming very common. The minister would be well advised to put both radio broadcasting and radio reception under the command of someone who is technically expert and able to look after it. He has in his department an officer who is said to be one of the best radio men on this continent, and it seems to me unpardonable that when the commission begins operation, reception should be spoiled through the changing of wave lengths, making it utterly impossible for the department under this vote to correct it. Money is being spent to improve reception, and on the other hand the commission is changing wave lengths and ruining reception. It is really serious, and I think the minister should look into it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the minister to take item 247, in order to finish the discussion, if he is agreeable? "


Alfred Duranleau: I was asked this afternoon to suspend this item until we have more information, perhaps have some of the radio commission here to give the information desired.


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that was the understanding this afternoon.
To provide for the maintenance and repair of retaining dams in the St. Lawrence river, $90,000.


James Malcolm: Will the minister explain the increase?


Alfred Duranleau: This appropriation is for the purpose of maintaining in good condition the dams constructed in the years 1929 to 1931 in the St. Lawrence river below Sorel, to retard the flow of the river and thereby maintain a higher level, including Montreal harbour. Some repairs had to be made to these dams. The water made some encroachments on the banks, and repairs had to be made, and will have to be made. It is an absolutely necessary expenditure.


Robert Gardiner: Where are the dams?


Alfred Duranleau: In the Sorel islands.


Robert Gardiner: Can tlfe minister give any information as to what has been the result of building these dams?


Alfred Duranleau: According to Sir
Alexander Gibb's report, these dams have increased the depth of the water at Sorel by a foot and a few inches, and at Montreal by five inches.


Robert Gardiner: Has the department received any complaints that because of these dams the flow of water is more rapid in the main channel than it was previously, and therefore more dangerous?


Alfred Duranleau: It has increased the current a little,-but not to a great extent.


Robert Gardiner: Has the department any information in regard to the flow to-day as compared with that of the time prior to the construction of the dams?


Alfred Duranleau: I think we have that at the office. But I know from the report of Sir Alexander Gibb that the velocity of the current at the present time is still reasonable. It is not dangerous to navigation.


Robert Gardiner: Can the minister give the committee any information with regard to the condition of these dams to-day as compared with when they were first put in? Is it not true that these dams are made of rock
Supply-M mine

ballast? Is it not true that the ice in the spring has moved a good deal of that rock ballast out of place?
Mr. DURAN'LEAU: I have as yet no report for this spring.


Robert Gardiner: What was the condition
last year?


Alfred Duranleau: Last year little
breaches were made, but not much. The damage from the water was on the banks. Of course there is settlement of the dams. It takes perhaps two or three years before they are absolutely settled.


Robert Gardiner: Could the minister give any information in regard to the depth of the top of these dams or dykes below the surface of the water? That is, what amount of water flows over the top of them at the average flow? Do these dams come right up to the top?


Alfred Duranleau: Not exactly. *


Robert Gardiner: How far down are they?


Alfred Duranleau: I have not a definite statement, but I kn-ow they do not come up to the water level.


Robert Gardiner: How many of these dams have we at the present time?


Alfred Duranleau: Five.


Robert Gardiner: Where are they located?


Alfred Duranleau: All in the Sorel islands below Sorel.


Robert Gardiner: Is there just one main channel left without any dams at all?


Alfred Duranleau: No, two. There is only one main channel, the ship channel; there is another channel on the north side of the river.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for breaking ice ih Thunder bay, lake Superior and other points deemed advisable in the interests of navigation, $44,000.
John Vallance: Perhaps the minister
might give us a little explanation. Would this include icebreaking in Hudson Bay?


Alfred Duranleau: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Meteorological service, including magnetic observatory, grants of $450 each to Kingston and Montreal observatories, and allowance of $360 to L. F. Gorman, observer at Ottawa, $393,290.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the reason for the increase?


Alfred Duranleau: In addition to the
vote of last year there is provision for the sum of $6,000 to give effect to the recommendations of the meteorological conference held in Bermuda in 1931. The purpose of this conference was to investigate the meteorological requirements of the naval fleet in the Atlantic and the possibility of liaison in meteorological matters between the fleet and the local meteorological services. In addition provision is also made for necessary meteorological service in connection with the new air mail service which it is proposed to establish between Montreal and the maritime provinces; the total sum is $21,174. Provision is also made to meet the demand for further meteorological assistance in the prairie provinces. arising out of the Winnipeg conference of 1931.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Steamboat inspection, $136,808.
James Malcolm: Would the minister mind telling us, if his officer has the information, what revenue was collected under this vote?


Alfred Duranleau: It is self-sustaining.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian radio broadcasting service,
Frederick George Sanderson: If we take up this
item it will have to be on the understanding that it will not be passed to-night, because that was the agreement this afternoon.


Alfred Duranleau: Very well, but we
might have some discussion.


John Vallance: The minister stated that he would like to have some members of the commi&sion to assist him. It seems to me that any discussion would be futile unless he had the assistance of that august body.


Alfred Duranleau: I secured some information this evening which I can give to the committee with regard to this item. I can give the details now.


Frederick George Sanderson: Then W'ould the minister be good enough to give the full details, which he did not have this afternoon, with regard to salaries, the staff of the commission, and so on.


Alfred Duranleau: The amount will be divided as follows: Administration, salaries and expenses, $125,000; purchase of Canadian National Railways radio system, S50,000; new construction in western Canada, $225,000; rental of lines for chain broadcasting,

Supply-Marine-Radio
$200,000; expenditures on programs, including payments of artists, orchestras, royalties and performing rights, S400,000.


Robert Gardiner: How is the item of
salaries made up?


Alfred Duranleau: The radio commission is composed of one chairman, one vice-chairman and one commissioner, the total being $23,400.


Frederick George Sanderson: What does the vicechairman receive?


Alfred Duranleau: The chairman receives $10,000 and the vice-chairman S3,000, less ten per cent of course. The engineering branch is composed of five radio engineers and eleven broadcast operators, representing 837,780. The secretary's branch represents $22,500, providing for one secretary, one chief clerk, one file clerk and ten stenographers.


Frederick George Sanderson: What is the secretary's salary?	[DOT]


Alfred Duranleau: It is either $3,400 or
S3,800. These are proposed expenditures for this year.


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not think the minister has mentioned the publicity member.


Alfred Duranleau: That will come as I proceed with the list. In the operations branch there are the following; One director of broadcasting, English; one director of broadcasting, French; one director of education, English; one director of education, French; and three station managers. That represents $27,820. In the public relations branch we have:	One director of public
relations and one French press representative, $10,500 for the two. In the accounts branch: One accountant, S3,000. This makes a total of $125,000. In this personnel will be found the staff to operate the headquarters of the radio commission in Ottawa, in addition to that required for the operation of such stations as are being taken over from the Canadian National Railways. This also includes the staff at headquarters engaged in planning programs for transmission from coast to coast, together with the necessary technical operators required in the actual broadcasting of these programs.


Frederick George Sanderson: I did not get the salary of the publicity man.


Alfred Duranleau: There are two publicity men.


Frederick George Sanderson: That's enough.


Alfred Duranleau: The total is $10,500.


Frederick George Sanderson: How is the salary
divided between them?


Alfred Duranleau: I know that the English public relations man is paid $5,800 less ten per cent, so that the other must get the difference.


Frederick George Sanderson: Why was it necessary to pay such a salary to the publicity man?
I understand there are publicity men in the other departments, the Trade and Commerce department, for instance. My information is that the publicity man in the Department of Trade and Commerce does not get nearly so large a salary. Why a publicity man in broadcasting? What does he do? Does he talk over the radio? Is that his function, business or duty? In short, precisely what does he do?


Alfred Duranleau: I am told he is a
very useful man in >the publication of programs and in publicity in connection with the [DOT] operations of the commission. The position is not a new one; it exists in other countries. He has to get in touch with all the newspapers in Canada, because listeners like to be informed by the newspapers as to what programs are being broadcast. He is the man who attends to that part of the work.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Is he sober all the time?


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not think the
minister has made it very clear how this publicity man will earn his salary of $5,800 a year. I have always been under the impression that the chairman of the commission was the man who arranged -the programs. Somebody said he was a music critic, having followed that line for some years in the newspaper business. Why there should be a publicity man at $5,800 a year I cannot understand. Has the minister any further information in this regard?


Alfred Duranleau: I must confess that
my exposition of the duties of this employee may not be complete. If my hon. friend is not satisfied with the information I have given I will obtain from the chairman himself a full statement of this official's duties, but I was told by the chairman that the position was absolutely necessary. As I say, it exists in other countries and this man is a veiy important employee. He is essential to the publicity in connection with the broadcasting of the commission.


Frederick George Sanderson: Will the minister be
good enough to get further information from the chairman?


Alfred Duranleau: Surely.
Supply-M urine-R adio


Frederick George Sanderson: That brings up another point.


Alfred Duranleau: I should not like to
leave the committee under the impression that this man was not useful and was not earning his salary.


Eugène Fiset: Dead wood.


Alfred Duranleau: As a matter of fact,
the man in charge of the job asked a great deal more than that.


James Malcolm: Lots of them do.


Alfred Duranleau: The salary was fixed by order in council and we came to the conclusion that $5,800 less ten per cent was a fair remuneration for the position.


Frederick George Sanderson: I agree with the minister that it is a fairly good salary these days, $5,800. In the selection of the staff, or in the arrangement as to what they were to be paid, was the minister consulted by the chairman of the commission? That raises the whole point again. It does appear to me that there is overlapping between the department under the minister and the commission under the chairman, and while we have endeavoured, not once but many times, to get from the minister some information as to who really is in charge, we have not succeeded. Is he over the chairman or is the chairman over him, or do they work together? There must be one head. If there is any conflict between the minister and the chairman of the commission there is bound to be trouble all the time. I would not like to think that the chairman was over the minister. I feel that a minister of the crown should have absolute control over a public servant. No matter how eminent a man this chairman may be, no matter what he did before he got into this work, he is a public servant and should be responsible to the minister who in turn is responsible to parliament for everything done in connection with the work.


Alfred Duranleau: As I told the committee this afternoon, the act gives full powers to the commission in connection with the allocation of stations, the power of stations, wave lengths and so on. I do not think it is the duty of the minister to interfere with the commission in that respect.


Frederick George Sanderson: Subject always to the approval of the minister. This afternoon the minister said that he had issued instructions to the commission, I think in connection with the Windsor station. If he issued instructions to the commission, he must consider that he 
has control over the commission and that they are responsible to him.


Alfred Duranleau: There must be a misunderstanding about that statement in connection with the Windsor station; I did not issue instructions.


Frederick George Sanderson: I think the minister said that he issued instructions that they keep their eyes on the station.


Alfred Duranleau: I may have expressed the desire that they do so but I cannot give any orders where the act gives them absolute powers.


Frederick George Sanderson: It is a very humiliating position for a minister not to have control over a commission which is practically in his department and which spends a vast amount of money.


Alfred Duranleau: The act was adopted by the house with only one dissenting vote.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order..
Monday, April 24, 1933