1933-05-11

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Angelo Stav-row. Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Stinson.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. MALCOLM:: Has the government entered into, or concluded any arrangements for the free importation into Canada, from Great Britain, of omnibus chassis or complete omnibuses?


Mr. RHODES:: There have been no arrangements other than those disclosed in the amendments to the tariff which have already passed the house this session.


OYSTER CULTURE-LOBSTER PATROL
Mr. MacLEAN:: 1.	How much of the $13,000 grant for oyster culture W'as spent in the Bideford, Malpeque and Grand River areas?
2.	'What are the particulars in connection with the balance spent in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick?
3.	What is the total number of lobster patrol boats engaged in lobster protection in the straits of Northumberland and around Prince Edward Island for the season of 1932?
4.	If boats are rented, chartered, or owned by the department, what is the cost in each :ase?
5.	What is the number of men engaged on each boat, their names, and amount paid in each case?
6-.What is the total cost of the lobster patrol service in the county of Prince. Prince Edward Island, for the season of 1932?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: Return now tabled.


STEAMSHIP BRIGHT FAN
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Has the government any official information as to whether or not the certificate of the
[Mr. Pouliot.l
master and first officer of the steamship Bright Fan has been suspended or cancelled in consequence of the findings of the investigation presided over by Judge Hellish?
2.	How- much did the last owner of the Bright Fan pay for it?
3.	How much net insurance did the owner of said boat receive, and was the full claim paid?
4.	Had the master or first officer of the Bright Fan any monetary or proprietary interest in this boat?
5.	If the government is not in possession of any part of this information, will they endeavour to secure it with reasonable dispatch?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 
MARINE DEPARTMENT AGENT-PICTOU, N.S.
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Has any appointment been made by the Marine department to fill the vacancy as agent of the department at Picton. Nova Scotia, since the death of Mr. J. R. Davies, the late agent?
2.	If not, is it the intention of the department to make an appointment to fill said vacancy? If so, when?


Alfred Duranleau: .
1 and 2. No


ILLUSTRATION STATIONS
Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	How many illustration stations organized and subsidized under the authority of the federal Department of Agriculture are there in each of the nine provinces of Canada?
2.	What are the annual grants in connection
with such stations?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: I. Prince Edward Island	 13
Nova Scotia	 17
New Brunswick	 19
Quebec	 54
Ontario	 16
Manitoba	 15
Saskatchewan	 30
Alberta	 22
British Columbia	 19

Unemployment Relief
2. No annual grants are made. These stations are operated under contract, the department paying an acreage rental and furnishing special supplies when necessary for special experiments or demonstrations.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVE-RGNE:
1.	Who are the owners of radio station CHRC in Quebec ?
2.	If the owners are a corporate body, who are the directors or associates of said body ?
3.	When does the licence of said station expire?	,
4.	If the licence was renewed, when was it renewed, for how long, and on whose recommendation?

Mr. REID:: 1.	What lawyer or lawyers have been engaged by, or on behalf of, the harbour commissioners of New Westminster, British Columbia, since October 1, 1932, and up to April 20, 1933?
2.	For what specific legal work were they engaged ?
3.	What respective amounts have been paid for all legal purposes during the above mentioned months ?
4.	What respective amounts are still outstanding for any legal -work done during the above mentioned months?


PICTOU, N.S., RAILWAY PIER
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	How much was collected by the Department of Marine during the the financial year ending March 1, 1933, for wharfage at what is known as the railway pier, at Pictou, Nova Scotia?
2.	How much was due and owing for wharfage at said pier during said period?
3.	From whom has said wharfage not been collected though due?
4.	Who is the agent representing the department for the collection of -wharfage at said pier and what is his yearly compensation?
5.	Is any wharfage collected from the old barge allowed to remain at said pier? If so, -what is due therefrom?


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):: In a press dispatch in the Hamilton newspapers the story is carried that an agreement has been arrived at between the federal authorities and the provincial authorities in British Columbia to reduce the federal contribution of 33J per cent which is at present being paid to that province in connection with relief to 20 per cent in June, 10 per cent in July, and contributions to cease entirely in August. This report has naturally caused consternation in the larger centres o<f Ontario. I would ask the Minister of Labour if any similar policy is contemplated with reference to relief in the other provinces of the dominion, particularly in Ontario.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the question of dominion contributions in connection with relief to the provinces is essentially a matter for the provinces to determine. It is gratifying to me, although it may be disappointing to others, to know that conditions are improving throughout Canada. After long conferences with the British Columbia government it was made apparent that the need of that province for contributions towards relief was truly set out and reflected in the agreement between the dominion and the province which was tabled in this house some days ago. The province of Ontario has not indicated the extent to which the dominion may be called upon to contribute with respect to relief in that province. Unquestionably within a short time .they will consult with this government regarding the position of affairs generally. I am hopeful that the contribution will be less than last year. If so it will be very well received by the taxpayers as something about which the province, the individual and all concerned should be extremely happy.


Humphrey Mitchell: The minister said he
hoped the contribution would be less. Would that be on a percentage basis, such as a reduction of 33J per cent or in bulk?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That would be a matter to be determined after conference with the province.


Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald):: May I
ask a question of the Minister of Labour concerning unemployment relief measures? Provision is made, as I understand it, for the Dominion government to pay one hundred per cent of the relief for single homeless men going into camps. This provision is for men who may congregate in the larger towns and cities. The question I have in mind concerns men of the same class who may be found in rural towns and villages. As they in the same position to have that assistance afforded them? I have in mind also the $5 a month paid to men going on farms. Is there any chance of those men partaking of the same provision as applies to men in cities and larger towns who are going into camps?
Bank Interest Rate


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the provision that was made for that class of people falling within the definition "single homeless men" was provided on account of the situation which developed in the western provinces, and particularly the province of British Columbia. In that province by reason of a number of factors, the burden became very great. To put it shortly, the factors were these:	Many thousands of single homeless
men, a large percentage of whom arrived in Canada from continental Europe between the years 1927 and 1930 and for whose settlement no adequate provision had been made, drifted into the industrial centres, challenging the Canadian market for Canadian labour. When they found no work in industrial centres they gravitated to the province of British Columbia, and it was said by one person who knows that province very well that having regard to the situation British Columbia was rather cursed than blessed by its climate,-at least for the moment. After the matter had been investigated it was felt that there was a great deal in what had been urged by the province of British Columbia, and by reason of its action in the past some of the responsibility fell directly upon the Dominion government. It was therefore thought desirable and necessary that some added contribution-I say added contribution" meaning something more -should be made with respect to that class of person who was concentrated in British Columbia and that more should be done than had been done in other parts of Canada. This by reason of the fact that the principle upon which relief has been extended is based upon the need, in any locality. Therefore with respect to single, homeless men in that province and in the other western provinces special provision was made. Representations along the same line have not been made from the other provinces. I doubt, in fact I am sure, they could not make out any such case based upon the same facts, because they do not apply. Therefore no provision in the same sense has been made generally throughout Canada. I cannot, of course, forecast the future but I do believe, from the information I personally receive from different sources, that many of these men will shortly be absorbed in various activities. There is no question that business to-day is better and is steadily improving. A glance at the reports even in the press will disclose that in various parts of Canada, as I am sure every member of the house will be pleased to note, workmen are being re-engaged and employed in useful avocations. The question of the disposition of single men in other parts of Canada will have to depend upon the future, and the represen-
tations the provinces may make with respect to the same.


BANKING COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government if there is any truth in the rumour which appeared in the press this week to the effect that Lord Macmillan of the judicial committee of the privy council is about to be appointed to the chairmanship of the proposed royal commission on banking?


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: No conclusions have been arrived at as to the appointments to that commission.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the government to proceed with amendments to the Shipping Act at this session, and if so when we may expect them?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is. We expect the
measure down to-day.



BANK INTEREST RATE REDUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question submitted yesterday by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) I desire to say that the Dominion government is not charged under the Bank Act with the duty of determining the rates of interest allowed by chartered banks on deposits nor with the rate of interest charged their customers for banking accommodation. However, believing that it was of the utmost importance to business and trade generally that interest rates should be lowered, the government has reduced the interest rate paid on post office savings bank deposits by one-half of one per cent effective May i, thereby cooperating in the general program to lower interest rates paid on savings deposits by the chartered banks and other depositories in Canada. The government participated in this matter in order to lay the ground for an effective reduction in the cost of money to all classes of borrowers and to promote the stimulus to business recovery which should result therefrom.
My understanding is that while the Canadian Bankers' Association has made no official statement as to a general policy with respect

Government Loan
to a reduction in interest rates to borrowers, substantial reductions have already (been effected.
I may add further that I propose to bring to the attention of the Canadian Bankers' Association the question submitted by the hon. member for Battle River.



TOBACCO INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GOTT (South Essex); Mr. Speaker, some time ago proceedings were instituted to investigate an alleged combine in the tobacco growing industry. I should not say "alleged," I should just say "combine." I should like to ask the Minister of Labour, in view of the fact that conditions in my riding are nothing short of criminal, as to what progress has been made and what steps the government proposes to take to assist the tobacco growers.
Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the report of the registrar making inquiry has not yet been reviewed by me. The hon. member suggests there is a combine. If there is one, the steps which should be taken as contemplated by the statute will be taken, and those responsible for it will have to defend themselves as best they can.


Mr. GOTT:: I should like to say another word so that I shall not have to make a speech under an item.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Eccles James Gott: Burley tobacco in the United States and American tobacco sold out at fifteen cents a pound and-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Eccles James Gott: I shall make a speech some
time to-day, then.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: This is not the time to make it.



WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, there has been intimation in the press of the names of certain gentlemen likely to accompany the Prime Minister to the World Economic and Monetary conference. Might I ask the Prime Minister if he is in a position to state who will accompany him, and will he so inform the house, if not at the moment, before we adjourn?
I notice also that the Prime Minister of Great Britain has intimated to the British house the attitude he intends to take with respect to some questions coming up at the conference. Does the Prime Minister of Canada intend to make a similar, or any, intimation of his position?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, Mr. Speaker, the matter of who shall attend the economic conference has not been considered.
As to the second question, it was not the intention of the Prime Minister to make any statement.



GOVERNMENT LOAN, $750,000,000 REDEMPTION OP OBLIGATIONS AND PURCHASE OF UNMATURED SECURITIES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the governor in council be authorized to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, an amount not to exceed in the whole the sum of seven hundred and fifty million dollars, for paying or redeeming the whole or any portion of loans or obligations of Canada, and for purchasing and withdrawing from circulation unmatured securities of Canada.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Finance any intimation to give to the house as to the reason for desiring the amount which is named in the resolution; also as to what he has in mind with respect to conversion?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, this sum is similar to the sum which was sought in 1931 prior to the refunding which followed. Perhaps in this connection I cannot do better than quote one paragraph from my remarks on the budget:
When the opportune moment arrives, rye propose to offer a conversion loan to the public of this country. But it will be on a basis that -will keep faith rvith investors and will not in any sense involve repudiation of existing contracts. Under such conditions, the issue can be made, it is believed, at a rate which will involve a substantial saving to the public treasury.
We will in any event this year have to refund 4i per cent treasury bills maturing on August 1 in Canada, amounting to $50,000,000, and on October 1, we have a 4 per cent one year issue of $60,000,000 due in New York. There is also to be refunded on November 1 a residual of the 1933 issue amounting to $169,971,850.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Are those
tax-free?
4S56
Government Loan


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Those are tax-free. The
total of those three which in any event will have to be refunded this year is $279,971,850.
There will also have to be money provided to meet the deficit on the Canadian National Railways and for the amount expended under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act. So that in round figures we may say that in any event we will have to fund and refund a minimum of $375,000,000 for this year.
The balance we require for the purpose of being able to put through a refunding operation. No date has been set when that will be effected, but it will be our purpose to bring it about at such time as will enable us to secure as large a sum as we can at the lowest possible rate, with a view, through this refunding process, of saving a substantial sum in interest.


Charles A. Stewart: Might I ask the Minister of Finance if the odd $100,000,000 mentioned is all of the loan he will require to cover deficits on account of current debts?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Perhaps if it is agreeable
we might go into committee before I answer.
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River). The finance minister has informed the house that the refund will be made at the lowest possible rate. I hope he means therefore that the rate will be a good deal less than 4 per cent. At no time in the history of Canada has it been more necessary that the rate of interest should be brought down to a point below that prevailing to-day. I would like to remind the minister that under the Finance Act the government of Canada have advanced large amounts to the banks of Canada at very low rates, some at 4 per cent, some at 3 per cent, some as low as 2J per cent. I hope therefore that for the refunding of the large amount he mentioned a very low rate will be set, and if it is not all subscribed I trust he will have no hesitation in making up the difference by a direct issue of money from the treasury. We have an example set by our neighbours to the south where the president has been given power to put out no less than three billion dollars of direct issue for the purpose of meeting obligations. I therefore hope the finance minister, if the amount is not fully subscribed, will make up the balance by a direct issue from the national treasury of Canada.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Hackett in the chair.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Will my hon. friend from
Edmonton submit his question?
FMr. C. A. Stewart.]


Charles A. Stewart: I was asking if with the $280,000,000 in round figures needed for outstanding treasury bills plus the other 1933 needs, he estimates that he will have in the neighbourhood of $375,000,000 of the $750,000,000 asked for, to use for refunding? My question was whether that odd 8100,000,000 -will cover your floating outstanding capital obligations for the year 1933.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We will still have ample
legislative provision, which is customarily contained in the appropriation bill, to enable us to take care of all obligations of that character. This sum to which I had reference, apart from the refunding and funding of which I have spoken, has to do entirely with a conversion loan.


Charles A. Stewart: What I was trying to get at was the direct obligations of the government for which they must borrow money this year, in addition to their floating treasury bills. My hon. friend has just stated that those obligations amount to approximately $375,000,000, and I am asking if that is all that will be required and if the remainder will be directly applicable to refunding.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think I have already told the committee the total amount we will have to meet by way of maturities and funding this year. If there should be an additional sum required it will be cared for by the borrowing power contained in the appropriation bill, but there is no other funding that we must do this year.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I should like to direct two questions to the minister. First, what is the total internal debt of the dominion, as such; second, in addition to the $169,000,000 of tax free bonds maturing this year, what amount is still outstanding?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We have payable in Canada outstanding bonds to the amount of $2,013,201,570.85. It is not possible, of course, to say whether that is all domiciled in Canada, but that is the best answer I can give my hon. friend. As I understand it, the second question is how much remains outstanding of the tax free issue?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, after the $169,000,000 mature this year.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In round figures the total is $774,000,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Including the $169,000,000 coming due this year?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.

Government Loan


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should like to say just a word in regard to the general resolution. I am not at all opposed to it, but I should like to state my views. I very much regret that the administration has not seen fit to take steps to inaugurate a refunding program for the general outstanding debt of the dominion. I believe the initiative should have come from the administration with regard to a general reduction of interest rates and a conversion or refunding program such as was successfully undertaken in Australia. Some hon. members might suggest that it would not be easy to obtain the money at a very low rate of interest, say 3 per cent or 3i per cent, but I suggest that this is the time to appeal to national sentiment in Canada with regard to a general conversion scheme including all our outstanding obligations.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I can assure my hon. friend and the committee that it is the desire of the government to refund as large a sum as may be possible, at as low a rate as can be possibly obtained. When my hon. friend refers to a refunding of all our issues, and when he compares the situation in Canada with that in Great Britain, for example, he must remember that their bonds were callable. Ours are not, and that feature must be borne in mind in connection with the volume we can attain in the matter of refunding. I can assure my hon. friend that so far as we can judge the trend of money and interest rates we are wise, I think, in deferring until the most favourable opportunity any general refunding scheme that may be undertaken. Exercising the best judgment we can, and guided by the best advice we may secure, it will be our endeavour to carry on the refunding at the most favourable moment.
I think I might very properly add at this stage that it will be our endeavour to secure our funds not upon the basis of the Btriet value of money in the terms of the market at the moment, but that we will appeal just as far as possible to the patriotism of the Canadian people.


Mr. IRVINE:: May I ask the minister if the bonds when refunded will be payable in notes or in gold, and whether they will be payable in Canada or in other countries as well?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is anticipated that they will be payable in lawful money of Canada.


Mr. YOUNG:: May I ask if this is to be
a purely domestic loan or if it will be floated abroad, at least in part?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is anticipated that it will be a purely domestic loan.


Edward James Young: I have here the public accounts for 1931, and at page XI I find the following:
$45,000,000 three year 4 per cent treasury notes, issued on December 1, 1927, matured December 1, 1930, and were replaced by the issue of two year treasury notes for $40,000,000 at 4 per cent maturing December 1, 1932, the balance of $5,000,000 being paid from cash. These were sold at par to Canadian chartered banks.
How were those notes taken care of when they matured last September?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They were met by the
proceeds of the four per cent loan of last October.


Edward James Young: They were paid?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


Edward James Young: I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, but I have been told that those notes were payable in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver or New York. Is that correct?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sorry to say I have not the facts before me, but my recollection is that they were payable entirely in Canada.


Edward James Young: Is it the intention that this new loan shall be payable at the option of the holder either in Canada or elsewhere?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, Mr. Chairman; it is
anticipated that they will be payable in lawful money of Canada, in Canada.


Mr. SPENCER:: I take it that lawful money of Canada is either gold or dominion notes?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is whatever the law says money is in Canada at the time.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Rhodes thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 103, to authorize the raising, by way of loan, of certain sums of money for the public service.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: With the unanimous consent of the house, I move the second reading of the bill.


Mr. POULIOT:: May I point out to the Minister of Finance that I could have made a long speech at every stage of the debate; I did not do so in order not to delay the Post Office supply.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Unless the minister is particularly anxious to proceed with the bill just now, I suggest that it might' be well to

Radio Broadcasting Act

postpone it for the time being. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) could not be in the house this morning and I know he would like to speak to the bill. However, I will not press the request.


Mr. SPENCE:: He has talked enough now.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If it suits the purposes of the hon. member we can let the bill go through committee and I will hold the third reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: At a later hour this day, if that suits hon. members.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: At this sitting.



RADIO BROADCASTING ACT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 99, to amend the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act, 1932.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was under the impression that the Prime Minister would have something to say on the second reading of the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought we might have the discussion in committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It seems to me it is rather important to have some pronouncement on the second reading, because this bill will come as a great surprise to the house and to the country, especially as it is being introduced at this stage of the session. When the Radio Broadcasting Act was passed at the last session of parliament we were told that its provisions were based on the report of a royal commission endorsed by a committee of this house and, as such, should commend themselves to hon. members. My recollection is that, for that reason, the bill went through without much discussion. We assumed that we were passing legislation in accordance with what the committee, after listening to all the representations that had been made, deemed to be wise and prudent provisions in the circumstances.
In particular, it was stressed that appointments under the radio commission would be made just as are appointments to departments of the government generally, by the Civil Service Commission. We were also advised
[Mf. Spencer.]
that, with regard to capital expenditures, whether in the acquisition by lease or purchase of new stations or of stations already in existence', parliament would have a voice in the matter and that the acquisition would not rest solely with the commission on approval of the governor in council. Above all, we were told that the expenses of the commission would be met out of its receipts, and that while parliament would have to make appropriations, thus bringing before the house a review of the whole situation, such appropriations would not exceed what was likely to be raised in the way of receipts from the commission's own operations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That has continued.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: After parliament had listened to these representations the bill was passed in the belief that the act would be carried out as set forth, and last year provision was made, in the nature of an appropriation, of $400,000. This year that appropriation has been raised by $600,000 and parliament has been asked to grant $1,000,000 for the commission, as compared with the sum I have already mentioned as having been voted last year, $400,000, which we were led to believe would be sufficient.
Yesterday we passed an appropriation of $1,000,000, assuming that that amount would be equal to what would be raised by the receipts of the commission itself. As I read the present measure, the commission is to have -the right to expend not only the $1,000,000 appropriated by parliament but in addition all that it may raise by way of receipts. That seems to me to be going very much further than this house was led to believe was intended at the time it made the appropriation; for that appropriation of $1,000,000 would not have passed the commons, certainly not without considerable debate, unless it had been deemed that it would be the total expenditure which the commission would be in a position to make.
I wish to take strong exception to the provision in this bill that the officials, the clerks -and employees generally of the commission, are not to be appointed by the Civil Service Commission as are the clerks and employees of departments of government, but that the commission is to be given a free hand in the making of such appointments. I do not believe there is an argument that can be brought forward in support of giving to the commission any such powers. The employees of the radio commission are no different from the employees of the department of government which has heretofore had

Radio Broadcasting Act
charge of radio broadcasting, and those employees were all under the Civil Service Commission. I see no reason why they should now be taken out. Also as respects this commission which as yet is untried, why should we remove the matter of its expenditures, operations and so on, from such control as parliament may continue to exercise over capital expenditure? On the score of the measure taking away from the Civil Service Commission its authority in the matter of appointments, taking away from parliament its control over capital expenditures and of vastly increasing the total expenditure of t'he commission, giving to the commission all the funds that it will raise itself through receipts in addition to what may be appropriated by parliament, the bill is objectionable. Every one of these three grounds is subversive in its character of principles to which we should adhere, and contradicts absolutely the provisions of the original act which we were told was based on the report of a royal commission and of a committee of this house. On these grounds we on this side will certainly oppose this measure as strongly as it possibly can be opposed.
May I say to the Prime Minister that seeing that it has been brought in at this stage of the session I think be ought to withdraw the measure. It is not treating the House of Commons fairly to bring in at this stage of the session a measure subversive of all that we have understood to be governing in the matter of the radio broadcasting commission and particularly after this house has permitted the appropriation of 81,000,000, an increase of $600,000 over the appropriation of last year, to be passed with the distinct belief and understanding that it would cover the total expenditures of the commission and that that was supposed to be the amount which the commission itself would be able to raise from its own receipts. AH through this session we have been led to believe that the commission's total expenditures would be limited in that way and that the original provisions of the act would be complied with. If it is necessary to change this or for any reason to alter original provisions then I submit the bill should be held over until another session when all these matters can be fully discussed.


Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any organization in this country that is as unpopular as this radio commission. Apparently there is no place that one can go in this country without hearing complaints. I have received 53719-3075
considerable correspondence from radio users in the west and yesterday I forwarded to the minister a memorandum made up by a group of radio users in the city of Moose Jaw. A portion of the letter enclosing the memorandum reads as follows:
The change in wave lengths has resulted in spoiling the reception of practically every one of the good American stations which we were able to get here in Saskatchewan, and in place thereof w*e have to content ourselves with purely local programs, which, as you know, are not to be classed with either the Columbia or National programs.
We have had to stand for a lot from the new radio commission here in the west, but when Mr. Charlesworth took it upon himself to boast of what he had done for the west, it was about the last straw. So far as radio programs in the west are concerned, we were much better off before they had any commission, than we are to-day.
I do not know that I can put the complaints that we hear in better words than those contained in this memorandum and for the information of the house I propose to quote what this group of radio users have said. The memorandum reads:
1.	Judging the commission by what it has produced so far, it would appear that the members of the commission have no personal grasp of the actual history or requirements of radio broadcasting entertainment in Canada.
2.	During the past season in the main the programs provided over Canadian stations have been very much inferior to the programs provided in previous years.
3.	This is most particularly true of programs sponsored by the Canadian radio commission.
4.	The finest programs we get in Saskatchewan are furnished by western agencies without any assistance or even recognition by the Canadian radio commission.
5.	The chain programs furnished by the Canadian radio commission consist practically entirely of broadcasts by some orchestra or band with the exception perhaps of the corn husker program on Saturday night which consists of old time dance music with appropriate calling off.
6.	The commission through its chairman has publicly announced that it intends to borrow programs from the NBC and put them over the Canadian chain.
7.	It also announced through its chairman on one occasion that there were no good comedians in Canada (which may or may not be true, but there is no evidence of any effort on the part of the radio commission to find out).
8.	The demand for Canadian broadcasting commission was due to the desire on the part of Canadians to have programs of a Canadian flavour and to induce Canadian listeners to listen to Canadian stations with programs of a Canadian flavour rather than programs of an American flavour.
This is particularly necessary in western Canada where so large a proportion of our people are of foreign origin.
Radio Broadcasting Act

The demand for such programs featuring Canadian ideals, disseminating in a palatable way information as to Canada's history, Canada's status in the world, and Canada's future.
9.	A program of symphony music is just that, namely, a program of symphony music. It is much more palatable well played by a foreign orchestra than it is not so well played by a Canadian orchestra, and the mere fact that a program of symphony music is coming over a Canadian station has no particular significance, particularly to the foreign born, and those of foreign extraction in our country.
10.	The Canadian Pacific Railway broadcasts and the Canadian National Railways broadcasts of previous years were splendid broadcasts. The radio commission has apparently made no attempt to continue these programs. The Canadian National Railways programs particularly were fine from a national and educational viewpoint because they gave Canadian historical skits and playlets, such as we hear from an American viewpoint over the American. stations.
11.	The announcement by the radio commission that they were going to procure and broadcast over the Canadian chain American programs was most unpalatable because the commission was appointed to wean our listeners away from the American programs, and it was entirely unnecessary because the American programs were already accessible from the American stations.
12.	Following some criticism on the floor of the house, the radio commission through its chairman made a statement in Toronto that Montreal and Toronto should realize that they were not the whole of Canada and that the commission had done some wonderful things for the west. The fact of the matter is the commission has done absolutely nothing for the
13.	The First Battalion, King's Own Rifles of Canada at Moose Jaw, have one of the finest military bands in the country. The bandmaster wrote the commission offering the services of the band for broadcasts and received from an employee of the commission a curt if not insulting reply. Many people claim to have written the commission with helpful suggestions and to have received not even the courtesy of an acknowledgment of their letters.
14.	Jf any further evidence were wanting of the absolute total ignorance of the commission of the condition of broadcasting in western Canada the commission itself furnished this evidence by the change in wave lengths of the Saskatchewan stations. Prior to this change in wave lengths it was possible to get the following American stations regularly with splendid tone and plenty of volume:
KFYR, Bismark.
WCCO, Minneapolis.
WHO and WOC, Des Moines.
KSL, Salt Lake City.
WENR, Chicago.
This will do for an illustration.
The commission announced that the reason for the new k.c. ratings of the Saskatchewan stations is to conform to the international agreement. Whoever made this international agreement knew nothing of the situation in western Canada.

The stations above referred to can none of them with the exception of KFYR be heard in Saskatchewan when the Saskatchewan stations are broadcasting. In addition the Saskatchewan stations cannot be heard outside of their own centre when these stations are broadcasting.
To illustrate: One of the finest programs put over on a regular schedule by the Western Telephone Systems was the fireside hour from Regina Sunday night 9:00 to 10:00. Listeners in Moose Jaw trying to listen to this program through CKCK, Regina last Sunday night found it impossible to do so due to the fact that WOC, WHO came through at the same time and it was impossible to detune them and hear Regina, so that throughout this very fine program there was the other program coming through, speaking voices and singing voices and orchestra mixing in with the fireside hour.
All over Saskatchewan radio listeners find themselves in this wretched position, that their favourite Canadian station is ruined by their favourite American station, and they cannot listen to either when the other is on. In fact the situation is such that in the city of Moose Jaw for illustration, and in the city of Regina for another illustration the only stations which can now be heard satisfactorily are the purely local stations. Even in the immediate rural vicinity of the cities in which Saskatchewan stations are located the local station cannot be heard with any quality of tone because of the heterodyne caused by the carrier signal of some other station.
Had the commission deliberately planned to make it impossible for Saskatchewan listeners to hear any but their local station it could not have been achieved more satisfactorily than it has been done.
One is forced to one of three conclusions, either:
1.	That the commission does not know what it is doing, or
2.	That it does not care, or
3.	That it has deliberately made these wave length adjustments to produce this state of affairs in Saskatchewan to compel Saskatchewan listeners to listen to such programs and only such programs as are available over their local station whether of chain or local origin.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who signed that?


Charles Edward Bothwell: It is not signed. The letter is from Schull & Marquis, a firm of reputable solicitors in the city of Moose Jaw.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then there is no evidence whose opinion that is.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Except what it says in the letter-from a number of radio listeners of the city of Moose Jaw.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But who are they?


Charles Edward Bothwell: I am only judging from the letter written by the firm of Schull & Marquis. It is in the nature of a personal letter making a protest on their own behalf as well as on behalf of the others who joined in. snaking up the memorandum. I wanted to put that on record because of this fact. Since

Radio Broadcasting Act
coming to Ottawa to attend this session one hears complaints on every hand of this radio commission and the way they have manipulated things so that radio users are not able to get the benefit of the radio they bought and paid for, and when I see that the chairman of the radio commission states, "There is difficulty here but we have done wonderful things for the west," I want to show what the situation in the west is.
I believe that before any further money is voted for this commission before we give them any greater power than they now have and before they are allowed to employ their own officers, clerks and employees without the intervention of the Civil Service Commission we should have some evidence that the radio commission know what they are doing.


Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: When the bon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) was reading the memorandum complaining of the radio commission the Prime Minister asked who had signed it, and the hon. member for Swift Current replied that he had received it with a general letter written by a reputable firm of lawyers in Moose Jaw. For the edification of the Prime Minister may 1 just read a few extracts of opinions which have been expressed by individual radio listeners in the province of Saskatchewan complaining of the action of the radio commission. I do not know whether I should read them all, but I have quite a few of them condensed and I will give the names and places.
Here is one from W. S. Pierce, Archiwill, Saskatchewan, He has this to say:
We would like to express our dissatisfaction with the change in your wave length. Your station CJRM was about the only station we could get clearly on a good night. Now you are placed so close to WENR and WLS that we cannot get you or them in the evening.
Then Miss G. E. Grant of Sceptre, Saskatchewan, writes:
As we take the wheat prices for the elevators here at Sceptre, we are very disappointed with the change in your wave length. It is not half as good as it was before.
Mrs. G. Hill, Blaine Lake, Saskatchewan, writes:
Since they changed the wave length we cannot get Fleming at all and have to put on all the volume we have to get CJRM-
That is the Moose Jaw station:
-and if Saskatoon is on, we cannot get it at all. Saskatoon interferes with all the stations terrible.
Then there is a complaint of the same nature from Mrs. A. Brown of Birch Hills,
another from M. McMillan-I do not suppose *that is the member, but the name is McMillan. He writes:
Since you have changed the wave length we cannot get Moose Jaw with Saskatoon on as they both come in about the same place on our radio.
Then there are other complaints from Saskatoon, Moose Jaw, Abbey, Ridpath, Herbert, Melfort, Glenellen, Swift Current, Masefield, Saskatoon again, Richlea, Grandin. Leroy, Wadena, Milden and Regina, all making the same objections which are set out in the memorandum which was read by the hon. member for Swift Current. I feel just as he does, that instead of the chairman of the radio commission telling us what wonderful things they have done for the west, in view of the protests that are now being made against the radio commission I think we should get from the minister through his radio commission some illustration of the wonderful things that they have done for the west before we vote any more money for the commission.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: I wish to add my protest to those
which have already been expressed by my hon. friends on this side of the house against this bill. I do not see what justification there is for giving the radio commission power to employ all its officers, clerks and employees in any different way from that prevailing with the other departments and public agencies of this government. The reason which is given in the explanatory note is that the Civil Service Commission has not in the past been accustomed to employing personnel of the type required by the radio commission, and it is not considered that the Civil Service Act is a suitable vehicle through which the commission should obtain its employees either technical or clerical. Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot for the life of me see any good reason in that explanatory note. What they say there applies to every other department of the government when it is first placed under the Civil Service Commission. For example, the Civil Service Commission had not in the past been accustomed to appoint, and did not possess the qualifications for appointing, legal officers in the Department of Justice or financial experts in the Department of Finance. The practice that they follow is to appoint a board of men who are competent to select the men required from among the applicants for these positions, and the Civil Service Commission acts upon the report it receives from these various boards. Surely this radio commission, and especially at this time, should not be a state within the state, should not be
Radio Broadcasting Act

exempt from all the restrictions and control which are exercised over the other departments of the government. I agree with my hon. friend who has just spoken that there is no public body in Canada, no government body, so unpopular as the present radio commission. As far as I am concerned I must say, although I do not suppose it matters much, that the radio commission lost my entire confidence immediately after they took office, when, as it was shown in the house last session, the commission had been appointed on October 3, and sworn in on October 30 or 31, and that two days before they were sworn in a licence was given to a political newspaper in Montreal. The commission did not act after its appointment. The licence was granted by the Minister of Marine just two days before the commission was sworn in. They say they have no responsibility, because they were not sworn in when the licence was granted. But the law gave them power to prevent the opening of that station. In that instance we had an example of the worst kind of political patronage. When the radio legislation was passed I was the first on this side of the house, on the second reading of the bill, to voice my approval and give my support. Had I known that the commission now in office was to be appointed I would not have given to that bill the support I then gave. I have not confidence enough in the commission to relieve it from the control and necessary restrictions other departments of government are under. I am also opposed to section 3 which gives them the right to expend the moneys they receive from any business carried on under the act, apart from those moneys appropriated by parliament. This body is under the control of parliament. We cannot free parliament from responsibility for these moneys. As I said a few moments ago I am opposed to building a state within the state, especially in view of the personnel of this commission.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Mr. Speaker, on account of the
very illuminating speeches which have been delivered since this hill was introduced I am very happy that it has not been carried. Since I mentioned in the house that I would pull Mr. Charlesworth's whiskers I have received two anonymous letters, one in capitals and the other in semi-commercial characters. I do not pay any particular attention to them, but I do say that the Prime Minister will never say about the chairman of the radio commission the nice things he has said about the chairman of the tariff commission. Here we have a gentleman who

has been writing articles in a Toronto publication-writing about music. What does he know about music? He gave lectures about this, that and the other thing; now he is non compos mentis all the time, and is supposed to rule the air. He is full of hot air, that is all he is.


Mr. DAVIES:: You are.


Jean-François Pouliot: Who says that?


Percy Griffith Davies: I do.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member has
exploded.


Percy Griffith Davies: I suggest you have.


Jean-François Pouliot: First of all, the hon. member is. a newcomer in this house. He has to learn the law before teaching others, and he will learn the law by listening to others.


Percy Griffith Davies: Make it interesting and
I will listen.


Jean-François Pouliot: He will gain great advantage by listening to others before making such an exhibition of himself.


Eccles James Gott: The hon. member said if it
were made interesting he would listen.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not accepting the
judgment of the hon. member, the baby of the house. I am not surprised when he shouts, because we always hear babies scream.


Percy Griffith Davies: What about yourself?


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, I am speaking in a
most delicate way. I say this, that the Prime Minister is master of the land; the chairman of the radio commission is master of the air. I wonder why the aeroplanes of the Department of National Defence are not put under his control. I wonder why the flags are not put under his control, and everything in the air. The birds-why are they not put under his control? Everything that has wings and is lighter than air, or up in the air, should be under his control-as should my hon. friend the baby of the house. He should be under his control, also, so that we would have peace in this House of Commons.


Eccles James Gott: Hot air is not under control.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then you are full of
hot air.


Ernest Lapointe: You cannot make another speech before the orders of the day are called.


Eccles James Gott: The hon. member spoke, but
he did not say anything.


Jean-François Pouliot: Speaking seriously I am
.asking the government to keep control of the

Radio Broadcasting Act
radio commission. I was very sorry when.
I heard my good friend the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) say he would not interfere with the work of the radio commission. When he said that I was scandalized.
I say to him now, while he sits next the Prime Minister, that he should run the radio commission as well as 'his own department, with an iron hand and a velvet glove. He should be the master of the radio commission. Then when we come to this House of Commons we would find one man who would be responsible for what has been done by the commission. This is true parliamentary doctrine which no hon. member on the treasury benches will deny.
We have a Civil Service Commission. It is either good or bad. If it is good, leave to it the powers it should have; if it is bad, abolish it. There was a hole made in the law favouring the Postmaster General by which he was allowed to dismiss postmasters of post offices having revenues of $3,000. Under the change the Postmaster General was allowed to dismiss postmasters who previously could be dismissed only by order in council. That power was granted to him. He was granted the power to appoint postmasters to post offices earning a net revenue of $3,000. That change was an encroachment upon the Civil Service Act. Now, in connection with the radio commission, we have another encroachment of the same kind.
I have nothing to say particularly against any member of the board. The Quebec member seems to be a very pleasant gentleman, although I have not had many dealings with him. I am very discreet in these matters. I do not know the expert, and I know Mr. Charlesworth only from reading what he has written in Saturday Night. In addition to *that there has been some personal correspondence. Are these men superior to the members of the Civil Service Commission? Why should exception be made in favour of the radio commission when there is no exception made in favour of the Minister of Marine? Are these men of the radio commission such superior men? I see the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) in his seat, also the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre)-they cannot make permanent appointments in their own departments, except by a vote of the House of Commons or through the Civil Service Commission. Why should there be any exception in favour of Mr. Charlesworth and his two companions? I ask the government to decide now whether or not it will stand behind the Civil Service
Commission? I ask them whether or not the Civil Service Commission is a body worth having. That is the main point. We have to know how things are being done. If they are done properly one way they should always be done that way. That is the statement that I make with full responsibility as a member for a constituency in which there are many radio listeners, and in which there will be a permanent broadcasting station if the minister grants the licence that has been asked for for months and months. In the name of my own people as well as of all Canadians I protest strongly against such discrimination. Can a thing be good and bad at the same time? It is impossible. Sir, I entertain great fears that the Canadian people will not be treated fairly by the chairman of the radio commission. That is my personal feeling; I express it here in the House of Commons. I do not trust that man. I wonder why I should be bound to accept the decision of a radio czar in this country. It is absurd. Is there a milk bottle in the House of Commons?


Eccles James Gott: If there is the hon. gentleman should sip at it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is there a nursemaid in the House of Commons?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Onions.


Eccles James Gott: I did send the hon. gentleman a bag prepaid.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, Mr. Speaker, with due respect I stand here for the liberties of the Canadian people, for the freedom of the electors, the men and women and children of this country and of the constituencies of hon. gentlemen opposite as well as my own. We will not stand for discrimination, we want fair play for all, and as members of the parliament of this country we want to retain control of the men who are paid with the taxes that come from the Canadian people. We wish to be able to say our word about what is done; to praise if it is right, and if it is not right, to condemn. WTe want to keep the right to present to the government the grievances of the people, of the electors of my hon. friends opposite, both of them, Essex and the newborn child.


Mr. O. HANSON (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a few words on this bill on behalf of the people of central and northern British Columbia. I have had a lot of communications asking me as to what the radio commission are doing. Up in our country the people are paying licence fees to listen to American radio programs. They have re-
4S64
Radio Broadcasting Act

quested the commission and the Minister of Marine that a radio station be established in northern or central British Columbia to serve that territory, but up to the present nothing has been done. The other day I received five letters in one mail asking what they were paying licences for to the Canadian government, when they only have American broadcasting programs to listen to. I therefore urge the government and the minister, if this money is voted, that consideration be given to those people. They are isolated, many of them use the radio as their only means of keeping in touch with what is going on outside; they have not the facilities of those living in the populous centres. I urge the minister to see that something is done for those people to warrant them paying the licence. They are complaining, and rightly so, about paying it, and I submit they should be given some consideration. I trust the minister and the radio commissioners will see what can be done on their behalf.


Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIBR (Ottawa):: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with considerable interest to what the previous speakers have said. At this late stage of the discussion I do not desire to take up time. My views as to appointments to the government service are well known to hon. members of this house. May I add that I fully concur in the remarks made by the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe).


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, in view of the criticisms this morning I wish to express the opinion of this group, which is absolutely in favour of the principle of public ownership. After all, this child is only just born, and the 245 members of this house were the midwives.


Edward James Young: No, no.


Humphrey Mitchell: It was carried unanimously.


Edward James Young: No, it was not.


Humphrey Mitchell: Well I understand it was; at any rate we will not argue about that. I am not unmindful of the fact that in bringing order out of ohaos there is bound to be some disagreement.	[DOT]


Edward James Young: How about bringing chaos out of order?


Humphrey Mitchell: Someone says "How about bringing chaos out of order." That hon. member must have a very short memory. Chaos has been the general condition in the broadcasting field on the North American con-

tinent, largely through the lack of control by this government and the government to the south.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not complaining about .the right of any lion, member to criticize the commission. I believe that in view of the length of public experience of the chairman of the commission someone might whisper in his ear just to keep quiet for a time, which should be quite easy in view of his experience in the newspaper business. In my judgment the radio commision should act in the national life of this country more or less as a judicial body. I do not believe that the chairman should go about the country making such speeches as he has made. I believe that is absolutely inconsistent with the dignity of the position. It is only natural that when he utters what in my judgment were direct insults to members of this house they should be answered on the floor of this house.
But what I chiefly rose to object to is the provision in this bill further reducing the power of the Civil Service Commission.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Humphrey Mitchell: The last two sessions of this parliament have seen a fall in the prestige and influence of that commission. Last session we saw 4,000 members of the postal service given back to the old system of party patronage with all its evils. This year we have a measure passed by this house which takes from the jurisdiction of the commission certain employees of the penitentiaries. Now we have, before the ink on that bill is quite dry, this commission being given power to engage its own personnel. In my judgment, taking the long view of it, we are thereby opening the way for the entrance of all the evils of party patronage into the operations of this commission. I am not unmindful of the difficulties confronting the commission in the absorption of broadcasting stations, and dealing with the question whether it is a practical thing to absorb the staff that exists at the time the commission takes over a particular station. But I do not think it is beyond the power of the government and the commission to fit such matters into the frame work of the civil service legislation. It is only human nature that the party which created this commission will bring pressure to bear to see that its own friends are appointed to the positions coming under this commission, if this amendment is adopted. I believe this is a retrograde step; I believe it is absolutely against the building up of what I believe to be necessary in this country, an

Radio Broadcasting Act
efficient civil service. I am not unmindful of the fact that party patronage will die slowly; I have not forgotten to take into account the mental background of those members of this house who carried on during that period when party patronage was at its height.
I believe I have expressed the opinion before that it will take at least a generation to build up an efficient civil service, on the principle of trial and error. I believe the government is absolutely wrong in taking this step; I think it is absolutely unnecessary and against the general opinion held throughout this country in connection with the building up of an efficient civil service in this dominion.


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend
to take very long to reply to the objections which have been raised in this house since this bill was introduced. It seems to me that each time my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) speaks about radio matters he has an obsession with regard to the licence granted to La Patrie for the erection of station CHLP. I have answered my hon. friend once or twice in this regard and for the last time, I hope, I will answer again.
Hon. gentlemen opposite cannot understand why a newspaper which is supposed to be Conservative should have a station. They have been accustomed to having their following in Quebec in control of all the newspapers and radio stations in that province, and they cannot get over the fact that a Conservative paper should have a small, one hundred watt station in order to give a chance to every party and every man who wants to broadcast his opinions with regard to public and even political matters. They cannot understand why we should have even one small station. I have already said to the house that the acting Minister of Marine did well when he granted that licence. The commission was not functioning at the time; the acting minister had the power and he took that action. I believe the people of the province of Quebec are satisfied to have that station ; I think we should have more in Quebec, and I hope the radio commission will give justice to every party in that province and see that the electors are given proper treatment and that they have a chance to hear and read both sides of all questions. Since the radio estimates were brought down we have heard a great deal of criticism. We expected it, because we know there are enemies in this country1 who are heard through the members of this house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edward James Young: What kind of enemies?


Alfred Duranleau: When I say enemies
I mean those opposed to state control or state ownership of radio in this country. We expected opposition, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think this criticism is fair when it is remembered that the commission has been in charge of radio in Canada for only three or four months. Why not give these men a fair chance? I know they have been on the job from nine o'clock in the morning very often until twelve o'clock at night in order to give the best possible service to Canada. Of course they had to comply with the international agreements that are in existence, and on April 1 they had to make some changes in wave lengths. That has resulted in some criticism, but conditions will be remedied; give them time. Next June there is to be a conference in Mexico of all the countries of America, at which we will discuss the whole question of wave lengths. All these matters will be readjusted, and I think the commission should have at least a few months in which to satisfy the public. I do know that their aim is to give Canada the best service possible. We hear many local complaints, but if hon. members could go to the offices of the radio commission they could find volumes of letters of congratulation which are being received every day with regard to the programs the commission have put on during the last two months. Hon. members would be amazed to read the congratulations they have received.


Ernest Lapointe: We certainly would be.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: May I say to the minister-


Alfred Duranleau: I am sure hon gentlemen have not had the opportunity of hearing all the programs that the commission have put on during the last two months, because they have been attending the sessions of this house every evening.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: We cannot get them in Ottawa.


Alfred Duranleau: I know there has been some trouble in Ottawa, but in ,a short time it will be remedied. We will have an agreement with the United States in a short time which will enable us to adjust matters satisfactorily. I do not want to take up very much of the time of the house at this late stage of the session-*


Ernest Lapointe: Explain the bill.


Alfred Duranleau: I should like to mention a few of the things that have been done
Radio Broadcasting Act

by the commission since its appointment. They started with the Christmas broadcast, with which I am sure everyone was pleased. We tried previously to have an imperial broadcast on Christmas day, but we could not get it. This year, however, due to the organization of the commission, that broadcast was successful and everyone was pleased. The commission has transmitted many programs by means of transcontinental chains to all radio stations in Canada that were in a position to take them. On the average this has amounted to about forty stations for each broadcast. We had thirteen one-hour concerts by symphony orchestras; surely that is something. We had eleven forty-five minute concerts by army, navy and municipal bands, and we had ten popular dance programs. In addition we had twelve one-hour French programs from Montreal and Quebec. I am proud to say that with respect to these programs the largest number of letters of congratulations have been received from various parts of Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The memorandum continues, giving the following details of broadcast:
Choral societies and choirs-two one-hour programs.
Special events, such as finals and semi-finals in the Canadian hockey series, speeches by the Right Hon. Ramsay MacDonald, Right Hon. R. B. Bennett-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Alfred Duranleau: -and Sir Arthur Salter-seven programs varying from fifteen minutes to an hour and a half. I am glad to hear hon. gentlemen opposite applauding, because I am sure that every Canadian who listened to the remarks of the Prime Minister of Canada when he was in Washington on a recent occasion will admit that it was a great achievement for the radio commission to have brought over so clearly and distinctly the speeches made on that occasion.
In the western provinces radio listeners have been hearing for the first time in the history of the radio regular symphonic programs. A survey made by the university of Alberta some weeks ago showed that they were the most popular programs of any kind with radio listeners. Dr. Stapleford, head of the United Church's college at Regina, recently said that the commission's work for the west had been magnificent. A similar tribute with reference to the commission's work for the maritime provinces was recently expressed by Hon. F. D. Richards, Prime Minister of New Brunswick.

One of the most remarkable of the commission's trans-continental broadcasts occurred on April 21st when the Western Canada High Schools' Orchestra, composed of 265 juvenile musicians from the prairie provinces, was assembled at Winnipeg and heard in a beautiful program. Commenting on this program, Mr. P. G. Padwick, the organizer of the concert, wrote: "The Radio Commission was able to do more for the extension of the orchestral movement in forty-five minutes than has been accomplished in ten years of hard missionary work."
The Empire Christmas broadcast brought upwards of 3,000 congratulatory messages from various parts of Canada. It could not have been carried out had the commission not been appointed. An attempt in the previous year failed because the necessary co-ordinating forces did not exist in Canada. The magnificent Anglican broadcast on Sunday, April 23ird, was arranged through the cooperation of the commission; otherwise it could not have been organized. One of the other recent acts of the commission was the broadcasting to every part of Canada of Right Hon. Ramsay MacDonald's address at Washington on April 22nd. Without the commission's assistance this broadcast would have been heard only in the Toronto and Montreal areas.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to interrupt the minister in the reading of the memorandum he has been quoting from, but I would ask him this question. If the commission is doing so splendidly under the statute as it stands, why is it necessary to amend that statute in the way proposed?


Alfred Duranleau: I shall come to that in a minute. Since the commission has been functioning we have observed that its activities are handicapped by the provisions of the act as it is now in force.


Ernest Lapointe: With such a glorious record?


Alfred Duranleau: We are to-day acting on the advice of a man of very considerable experience. As I say, I shall come to that point in a moment or two, but at present I am merely stating to the house what the commission has done, is doing and intends to do. Surely my hon. friends cannot expect the commission to have done everything conceivable during the short time that they have been in office. They did not own these stations in Canada; they have to hire wireless stations, and their operations cannot be expected to have been so far perfect. But they are doing their best and I hope that in a few

Radio Broadcasting Act
months my hon. friends will admit with others that no other organization could do better than the commission has been doing.
It is the intention of the commission to organize a complete wire chain across Canada, tying in all the principal stations in each area throughout the country. This chain will be operated by the commission for a certain number of hours each day, and Canadian programs of the very higest calibre will be transmitted throughout Canada over these lines. It is the intention of the commission to secure the very best talent in all the cities throughout the country, and to have these artisits broadcast from as many Canadian stations as possible. These programs will comprise all types of entertainment, including dramatic productions, talks and music, in such a way as to interest all classes of listeners in Canada.
Due to the wide variation in time between Halifax and Vancouver, it will be necessary for the country to be organized into a number of regional chains in addition to the main trans-Canada hook-up. This work is already well under way. It is the intention of the commission to have available at least four hours of Canadian programs each day. These programs will be clear of all advertising matter and will be transmitted at suitable periods for the various parts of the country.
Upon taking office in January, 1933, the commission found that an agreement had been signed between Canada and the United States, laying down very definitely the distribution of channels and power throughout Canada. This treaty had been arranged by the Canadian Legation with the State Department at Washington in May, 1932. This agreement made it possible for Canada to use an increased number of clear channels and permitted a very large increase in the power of Canadian stations. To effect this agreement it was necessary for a few small stations to be reduced in power and for a number of changes in channels to be made throughout the country. Since the commission could only make these changes at the time of the renewal of the station licences, it was impossible for effect to be given to the agreement until April 1, 1933.
These changes have had the effect of clearing a greait deal of interference from Canadian channels and, while it is possible that in some parts of the country certain American stations are not now well received, it will be found that other American stations carrying exactly the same chain programs can now be heard in those particular areas, whereas before these latter stations were blanketed by the Canadian
stations. This is the situation which exists in Ottawa at the present time. American stations carrying all of the high class chain programs are now heard here that could not previously be picked up on any set in /the Ottawa district.
With respect to western Canada, it is the intention of the commission to build two powerful stations which will give entire satisfaction to the west.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where?


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: Is it true
that the complaint just now is that the radio commission is working only one way-that it works in the west but not in the east? Is that true?


Alfred Duranleau: Why should that be?


Paul Mercier: I do not know; I am merely putting 'the question to the minister, because I am not an expert.


Alfred Duranleau: I am told that it is working both ways. The commission is trying to give satisfaction to the whole country.


Paul Mercier: As they are
linked up just now, I am told that the west cannot hear the east.


Alfred Duranleau: If my hon. friend has followed the programs of the last two months, he will realize that some were heard from one end of the country to the other.


Paul Mercier: I heard one
last Sunday evening and I will admit that it was wonderful.


Alfred Duranleau: I am making a statement in connection with the west because of the complaints which have been voiced in this house. After a careful survey of radio conditions in Canada, the broadcasting commission consider that it is essential that two new stations should be erected in western Canada in order to serve this large area. It is proposed to begin construction of two high powered stations in British Columbia and in Saskatchewan. The coverage in British Columbia is at present very poor on account of the fact that only low power stations are available, and these are all in the vicinity of Vancouver. One large station, suitably located, would give excellent Canadian service to the entire province. The province of Saskatchewan is now served by a number of low power stations scattered over the southern half of the province. It is proposed to erect one large station near the centre of the area where satisfactory power supply can be obtained.
Radio Broadcasting Act


Olof Hanson: Can the minister tell us where the station in British Columbia will be located?


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot give definite information at the present time. The commission is trying to find a location for a station which will cover the whole province.


Olof Hanson: To reach the outlying districts?


Alfred Duranleau: To reach even the
outlying districts, yes. The hon. member for Temiseouata (Mr. Pouliot) quoted me as having said that I would not interfere with the operations of the commission. What I stated to this house and what I repeat is that I intend to follow the provisions of the statute which last year was adopted unanimously, with the exception of the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young). Apparently these amendments will not be accepted unanimously. I intend to follow the provision of the statute. I shall intervene where it is my duty to do so, within the provisions of the statute. I shall conform strictly to the law; that is the position I intend to take.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the minister be
responsible to the House of Commons for everything done by this commission?


Alfred Duranleau: The minister will be responsible for his own acts.


Ernest Lapointe: He has got enough of that.


Alfred Duranleau: The radio commission is under the Minister of Marine but his responsibility will not go the length of covering all the acts of the commission.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then the commission is an irresponsible body.


Alfred Duranleau: The commission has the authority and the powers which have been granted to it by this house; that is all I can say.
Now, with regard to the proposed amendments submitted to the house. Since this commission has been in operation it has been noticed that there was something lacking in the law. As the house knows, the Prime Minister of England was kind enough to lend us a gentleman of great ability and of much experience in these matters. This gentleman, for the last ten years has been one of the leading officials of the British Broadcasting Corporation and we were fortunate in having the services of Major W. E. Gladstone Murray. This gentleman has covered the whole situation, he has travelled all over Canada and has heard representations from many different bodies. He has come to the conclusion that
fMr. Duranleau 1
the act should be amended in the way in which it is proposed it shall be amended by this legislation. I think it is my duty to read to the house the interim report of Mr. Murray. When he has completed his survey, Mr. Murray will make a complete report but he thought it wise in the meantime to make an interim report which suggests and urges the amendments now before the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would it not have been better to have waited until the final report was made?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the reason he made the interim report.


Alfred Duranleau: That would mean that we would have to wait until next session. The commission has been so handicapped with the law as it is at present, that it was thought desirable to proceed at this session. The following is a letter dated May 5, 1933, from Mr. Murray to myself:
In accordance with the arrangement of this morning, I have the honour to make certain submissions. Having had the opportunity of considering, not only the present state of organization of the commission, but also the public attitude across the dominion, I am convinced that it is of the greatest importance in the public interest that reforms should be effected during the present session of parliament. If, unfortunately, immediate action is not taken and the problem is left over until a later date, there is real danger that either the work of the commission will be paralyzed or will evolve in the wrong direction.
The situation is that public opinion is ready to have implemented the wish of parliament as expressed with almost unprecedented unanimity last summer, when the radio broadcasting bill became law. There is, however, a growing suspicion that the law is in certain respects defective, and that, unless it is amended, the unanimous wish of parliament will be thwarted. Guided by experience in connection with the parliamentary side of the B.B.C. during the past ten years, I would seriously commend to your attention the following reforms:-*
(1)	That the appointments under the broadcasting commission should not be made to conform to the Civil Service Act.
Conditions of broadcasting are essentially different from those which apply to the civil service, and this fortunately was recognized in the early days of the B.B.C. Broadcasting, while too important to be left to private enterprise, is nevertheless too sensitive to be brought fully into the machinery of state. If broadcasting is to flourish in Canada, the authority created by parliament should be empowered to choose, on its own responsibility, those who are to carry out the work.
(2)	That detailed expenditure on the work of broadcasting, whether it be in the creation of programs, in the leasing or purchase of stations, or in the erection of new stations, should not be allowed to become the subject of debate on the floor of the House of Commons. The essence of public service broadcasting is to keep it clear of party political warfare. It

Pensions Committee
seems to me that procedure by order in council would surmount the objection of inadequate public control.


Ernest Lapointe: Send that gentleman home.


Alfred Duranleau: The letter continues:
Moreover, as in the case of the British House of Commons, it is highly important to confine discussion on broadcasting to broad matters of policy, avoiding detail in all directions.


Ernest Lapointe: That is very kind of this gentleman.


Alfred Duranleau: It continues:
(3)	That the revenue accruing from the licence fee paid by listeners should not be regarded as part of the consolidated fund, as apparently is the case at present.
As long as the moneys accruing from licence fees are included in the consolidated fund vote, so long will it be possible to suggest that licence revenue is part of general taxation. In point of fact, as the Prime Minister made clear in the House of Commons on April 21, 1933, the federal government is in the position of a trustee. When the owner of a radio receiver pays his licence fee, he is actually subscribing to a contract for service. If and when the licence revenue, as in Great Britain, becomes greater than is necessary for the purpose for which it was provided, then the state is obviously entitled to take the surplus. But, for the moment, with a national system in embryo, it is obvious that the contract between the "listener and the state should be fully honoured. It is submitted that the only way to achieve this result and to prevent misrepresentation is to have the licence revenue paid over direct to the commission, there being, as in the case of the B.B.C., an annual independent audit and a report to parliament.


Ernest Lapointe: Are we doing anything
to this gentleman for lecturing parliament?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because he does not
agree with you there is no reason to talk that way.


Ernest Lapointe: It is terrible to have the parliament of Canada spoken of in that way by that gentleman.


Alfred Duranleau: To continue:
(4)	That there should be no impediment to a moderate scheme of development.
The commission is anxious, and, in my opinion, rightly so, to create new stations as opportunity permits, in order to extend effective coverage beyond the limits of what is possible under existing private ownership. Moreover, there is confident expectation on the part of the public that the commission will go forward in this way. It would appear, therefore, to lie inadvisable to impose any reduction either in the main or supplementary votes which would imperil a moderate plan of development in the form of new stations.
In conclusion, sir, I would reemphasize my feeling of the urgency of these reforms, upon
the early enactment of which may well depend the success or failure of a potentially great asset for the Canadian people.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant, (Signed) W. E. Gladstone Murray.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is one o'clock.



PRIVATE BILL


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask that the house by unanimous consent revert to the order for motions so that I may have the privilege of introducing a motion which is more or less of a routine nature?
The house having reverted to the order for motions,


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I beg to move:
That pursuant to a special order made on the 27th of March last, Bill No. 102, respecting a certain patent of Genter Thickener Company be now read a first time and a second time and referred to the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second times.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May we refer back to
the orders for motions in order to enable the report of the select standing committee on pensions to be submitted.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The house will revert
back to the order for motions.



PENSIONS COMMITTEE

Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: I beg ito present the second and final report of the special committee to which was referred Bill No. 78, to amend the Pensions Act.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is the
hon. member moving concurrence?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That the bill be placed upon the order paper this day.
He said: I understand that the conclusions were unanimously arrived at with no divisions, and it is for that reason I make this motion.


James Arthurs: The reprinted bill has
not yet come to my hand, but I expect it will be ready for distribution among the members within a very short time. It is expected this afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Radio Broadcasting Act

Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: At this point would I be in order to ask the Prime Minister if the statement regarding importations of New Zealand 'butter has been made out?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is being prepared in the Department of Trade and Commerce, and it will be submitted.


Mr. STEVENS:: I shall have it in hand
very shortly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It cannot be done in a minute.



RADIO BROADCASTING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bennett for the second reading of Bill No. 99, to amend ithe Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act, 1932.
Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend
to add much to what I stated to the house this forenoon. I cannot add much to the interim report of Major Gladstone Murray, except to say that I hope hon. members opposite who are criticizing the radio commission at the present time will not deny that the commission is attempting to give the best service possible to the country. Their experience of three or four months has shown them that they need these amendments, and that is also the opinion of that great expert, Major Gladstone Murray.
It seems to me the opposition is not consistent when it criticizes the commission and at the same time denies the commission the tools which they think they need in order to make a success of their administration.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, without unduly detaining the house I desire to make one or two observations arising particularly from the observations of the Minister of Marine this morning. In the first place I desire to recall to the minds of hon. members the very wonderful spirit of unanimity manifested a year ago in this house when the principle of the control of radio broadcasting was before the house for decision. At that time, Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that hon. members to your left, with the exception of one, were all in favour of the principle embodied in the legislation. Therefore I do not at all give way to the hon. member for East Hamilton

(Mr. Mitchell) when he suggested that hon. members to your immediate left were not altogether in favour of the principle of public ownership. I wish to assure the hon. member-


Humphrey Mitchell: I wish to correct that
statement; I never said that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rather gathered that inference from the hon. member's remarks. I wish to assure the house that members of His Majesty's opposition sitting to the left of the Speaker have the finest record possible in regard to our public activities, and are as strongly behind the principle of public ownership as are any hon. members in this House of Commons.
I was greatly amazed to hear the Minister of Marine, when referring to criticisms from this side of the house, suggest that the attacks made upon this measure were inspired by a dislike for state control. May I remind the hon. member that we have been the unfailing champions of public ownership. The other day he and the administration of which he forms a part, in connection with another measure which I cannot mention at this time because it is contrary to the rules to refer to a previous debate of this session, most signally departed from the principle of state control, in connection with our railway systems of the Dominion of Canada.
In the first place the minister's defence consisted of reading a long and elaborate memorandum which was obviously and transparently prepared by one of the officials of the radio commission, or by the director of public relations. After hearing the complaints from Saskatchewan, the far west and Quebec in regard to the operation of the commission the minister submitted a memorandum obviously prepared by one of the officials I have named, and giving us a wonderful description of their various activities. He told us about the wonderful Christmas broadcast, about the symphony concerts, about military band concerts and, as a climax to the wonderful description, he told us that only the other day the people of Canada had the high privilege of listening over the radio to the broadcast of the inspired words of our Prime Minister, while in a foreign country.
Despite the obvious attempt of the minister to defend the operation of the radio commission since its inception, it is a fact they are to-day a very distinctly unpopular body throughout Canada. It is a fact that complaints received have been more than justified. The minister did not give us one reason which would justify the presentation of the bill we

Radio Broadcasting Act
now have before us. What were the reasons he gave. He read us an interim report of Mr. Gladstone Murray. The report of Mr. Murray referred, in the first place, to section 1 of the bill, namely taking away from the Civil Service Commission the power of employing staffs, and vesting that power in the radio commission itself. Speaking for myself, may I say that I have not sufficient confidence in the present personnel of the radio commission to entrust them with control over their employees, and my distrust is shared by a great majority of the Canadian people.


Ernest Lapointe: I agree.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Here is an obvious and to my mind unwarrantable intrusion upon the fundamental activities of the Civil Service Commission. There has been a continual effort to lessen the powers of the Civil Service Commission., If this . government is allowed to function for a longer time in the Dominion of Canada, the Civil Service Commission will be nothing but a pale anaemic ghost, without any power of its own. Those who believe in the Civil Service Commission, as such, cannot possibly support the principle of this bill.
Let us turn to clause 2. We are taking away from parliament the power to purchase, and placing it under the supervision of the governor in council. The only possible justification I can see, after reading the section, would be that occasions might arise where expedition would be proper. But when I heard read the memorandum which the minister submitted to parliament, I found it was inferred, if my recollection is correct, that it was considered improper for this Canadian parliament to discuss details of radio administration. That appears to have been the opinion of Mr. Gladstone Murray. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the sooner specialists brought from other lands cease to criticize the affairs of Canada or the parliamentarians of Canada, our duties and our functions and our responsibilities, the better it will be for the Dominion of Canada as a whole.


Ernest Lapointe: There are too many of them.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It seems that we cannot any longer settle our own problems with Canadian brains. We have to import specialists from other countries to settle our affairs,-and this from the party of "Canada first." Although Mr. Murray was Canadian bom and undoubtedly an eminent gentleman I resent the repeated suggestion he made that members of this parliament should
not be given the opportunity of discussing the details of radio administration. Here again we are setting up another independent body in Canada and giving them power over their own employees. According to the interim report read this morning by the Minister of Marine we are going to be deprived of the opportunity of discussing session after session the details of radio broadcasting and radio administration in our various communities. The complaints which are raised in Ontario, Quebec or the maritimes we cannot properly ventilate unless we discuss the details of that administration. Unless that gentleman is prepared to submit a more constructive final report than his interim report he should be immediately dismissed from further investigations of our Canadian radio system. We have never in this house passed legislation that more directly touched the lives of Canadian people than this Ra^io Broadcasting Act. That act, according to the minister himself-I am not agreeing with him-has been functioning well during the last year. The minister read an elaborately prepared memorandum to defend the actions of the commission. If it functioned so well why the necessity for this new legislation, brought into this house in the dying hours of the session without any knowledge by any member of this house as to the contents? As far as I am concerned I think it unfair on the part of the government to introduce this legislation at this late hour. I think the four paragraphs of the bill are absolutely indefensible, they infringe upon the Civil Service Act, take away the powers of parliament and recast the financial structure which was so ably defended by the Prime Minister himself a year ago.
In view therefore of these considerations, although I am in favour of the principle of public ownership of radio, I am obliged to oppose this bill.


Mr. ONESIME GAGNON (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the house very long, but having been a member of the special committee on radio broadcasting which studied this problem very diligently last year I think it will not be out of order if I attempt to demonstrate that the powers which are now aaked are not at all inconsistent with the unanimous report which was made by that committee last year. I have the report here and would like to quote a few propositions which were unanimously adopted by all members of the committee before being submitted to the house. In passing may I say that no committee worked more harmoniously and more earnestly at problems concerning Canadian life than that which
Radio Broadcasting Act

last year studied the radio problem in Canada. Here are some of the main principles which were unanimously adopted:
Your committee further recommends that the commission be vested with the necessary powers to carry on the business of broadcasting in the Dominion of Canada, such powers to extend to the following matters:-
I will pass over a few items which are unnecessary for the purpose of my argument.
(j)	subject to the approval of the parliament of Canada, to take over all broadcasting in Canada.
(k)	to be vested with all other powers necessary or incidental for the fulfilment of the objects of the commission.
Last year when we were studying these problems we considered whether we would recommend the appointment of all officers and employees or artists by the radio commission, and we were unanimous in deleting from our report anything relating to the Civil Service Commission. In no part of our report do you find any reference to that commission, nor anything which could be taken as recommending parliament to take steps to see that radio artists or employees of the commission be appointed by the Civil Service Commission. I may go further and say that the first draft of the bill submitted to the house did not make any mention of the Civil Service Commission. It was only on the morning on which the bill was presented to the house, during the last days of the session, that we found a new draft which obliged the radio commission to have recourse to the Civil Sendee Commission for the appointment of its employees. Therefore I say that those who contend that the bill now before the house is in conflict with the report of the radio broadcasting commission last year are certainly mistaken.
Before going further may I interject a few remarks with respect to the criticism directed against the commission by the distinguished member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) with respect to the erection of a radio station in Montreal. First I must say in all sincerity that this criticism is wholly unfounded, because it has not been proven yet that these small stations of 100 watt power will come in conflict with the national hookup. If hon. members of this house would read the report of the committee they will find that section (c) provides:
That all stations, 100 watt and under, not required for the national system, remain under private ownership, but be regulated as to programs and advertising by the rules of the commission.

Therefore it was absolutely in order for the minister acting for the Minister of Marine during last fall to grant a 100 watt power radio station licence to La Patrie of Montreal. I think 'I (Can offer a very serious argument in support of that contention. Montreal is the biggest city in Canada. Its population exceeds one million people. While hon. members from the other party have found no fault with the fact that there are four or five high-pow7er stations in Toronto, the population of which is certainly less than that of Montreal, in Montreal there was only one station providing French radio broadcasting, that is the station of La Presse. Why is there not room in Montreal for another radio station, especially when it is contemplated that probably the high^power station of La Presse may be acquired in the future by the national radio system? Now this criticism is absolutely unfounded and only made in an attempt to mislead the people of Canada.. Some say that La Patrie is a Conservative organ. It is true that in recent months it has approved the policy of the federal government, but my hon. friend from Quebec East will recognize that some of the large shareholders and directors of that concern are Liberals who are supporting the Tasdhereau government in Quebec. Therefore if La Patrie supports this government in federal affairs and on the other hand the Tasehereau government in Quebec, the least we can say is that La Patrie is rather an independent newspaper.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ernest Lapointe: Strike one!


Onésime Gagnon: Of course, this is only a
matter of detail on which we must not dwell at great length. Last year, Mr. Graham Spry, who is not a Conservative but I understand is one of the directors of the Farmers' Sun of Ontario, a newspaper which is far from approving all the policies of the present government, came before the committee on radio broadcasting, as chairman and president of the Canadian Radio League, and presented a very carefully prepared report to which the members of the committee gave great attention. Mr. Spry 'himself explained before the committee how the Canadian Radio League met with the approval of many associations in Canada. He said:
National associations, labour and farm organizations with a membership of 279,308 have passed resolutions and have supported the Canadian Radio League. Sixteen university presidents, eight provincial superintendents of education, and other educational leaders are members of our council and have supported us.

Radio Broadcasting Act
The heads and other leaders of Roman Catholic, Anglican, United. Baptist and Presbyterian churches. Some of those religious organizations as bodies, have contributed in a small measure to the financing of the league. Leaders of women's organizations and women's organizations with a total membership of 683,800 are supporting us, and we have the suport of 70 publications with a combined circulation of over 2,000,000.
I could analyse the support in any way you wish.	Geographically take for example the
west.	The legislature of the province of
Alberta passed unanimously a resolution endorsing the public ownership of broadcasting in Canada.
Now, sir, what did this distinguished gentleman propose to the commission? He proposed the organization of a national system of radio broadcasting which would be put in operation in the course of three or five years. If hon. gentlemen opposite are interested to read the memorandum which was submitted to the committee by Mr. Spry they will find that for the first year, for instance, he recommended that the sum of 11,400,000 be devoted to the establishment of a system of radio broadcasting. What has been done? Last year the government asked this house to vote $400,000, and this year the house is being asked to vote another $1,000,000, so these demands by the government have been wholly consistent with the recommendation made to the committee last year.
When we hear hon. gentlemen opposite criticize the present broadcasting commission we are amazed to think that they would expect the commission to establish a broadcasting network in two months, when the president of the Canadian Radio League told us last year that it would be better to proceed very slowly, that the best way to deal with the problem would be to take three to five years to carry out that project. In providing, under the present bill, that the commission shall be entrusted with all the money paid by radio set owners the government is entirely consistent with the unanimous report of the committee of last year, which recommended to this house that all revenues obtained from licence fees and the sale of advertising, and other revenues accessory to the business of broadcasting, should be used by the commission in the interests of radio.
Major Gladstone Murray, a man of great experience, who also appeared before the committee last year recommends that all moneys paid by the owners of radio sets should be left in the hands of the commission. Why should hon. members opposite now try to throw discredit on such a distinguished gentleman as Major Gladstone Murray? It has been incorrectly stated that
he is a stranger. Major Murray is a distinguished Canadian; he was born in British Columbia, educated in Montreal at McGill university, and went to England at the age of twenty. When Major Murray was sufficiently competent to leave Canada at that age and become general chairman and director of publications of such a wonderful organization as the British Broadcasting Commission by the time he was thirty years of age it does seem to me that hon. members of this house ought to applaud his success and congratulate him instead of trying to discredit his ability. When he appeared before the committee last year he was not acting on his own impulse; he came because his presence was desired by all political parties. I remember that the nicest compliment paid to Major Gladstone Murray last year came from the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), who sits in the extreme left comer of this chamber. That committee was not composed only of Conservatives; I am happy to say that among its members were two very distinguished Liberals, namely the hon. members for Richelieu, the former Minister of Marine (Mr. Cardin) and the hon. member for North Waterloo, the former Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler). I am sure these two hon. gentlemen will agree that Major Murray is a very efficient and experienced gentleman with regard to radio broadcasting. When he came again this year to help the commission it was not at his own suggestion, or in order to impose his views on the Canadian government; he came here because the government and ithe radio commission asked for the benefit of his experience and wisdom. I think we should be glad to have had his valuable suggestions and the benefit of his ability in this matter.
I should like to conclude my humble remarks, Mr. Speaker, by saying that it is absolutely incorrect and unjust to attempt to mislead the people by stating both in and out of this house that the Canadian government is imposing an additional burden on the taxpayers of Canada by voting $1,000,000 for radio broadcasting. This money is paid by the owners of radio sets. I think when the government raised the licence fee from $1 to $2 it entered into a contract with the owners of radio sets by which it bound itself to make available the best possible programs and to improve the whole system of radio broadcasting.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in order to express my dissatisfaction with the suggestion made this

Radio Broadcasting Act


Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Solicitor General) :: I did not intend ito take part in this debate but this morning I heard again some criticism from the other side especially on two points-first, the issuing of a licence for a one hundred watt station to La Paitrie in Montreal, and secondly criticism with respect to the appointees on the radio commission, one such criticism coming especially from the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe).
So far as ithe licence to La Patrie is concerned, I am the one responsible for it and I have no apologies to offer the house. I did it when I was Acting Minister of Marine because I thought it was the proper thing to do. At that time there were five stations

Radio Broadcasting Act
in Toronto and only two in Montreal. There were in Toronto three stations of five hundred watts each, plus one station of nine thousand waitts, and another of five thousand watts, as against one station of five thousand watts in Montreal, La Presse, and another station of four hundred watts, Marconi. All I did was to add one station in Montreal, a station of one hundred watts, and this resulted in these comparative figures: fifteen thousand watts in Toronto and five thousand five hundred in Montreal. I took it upon myself to do that because it came in the ordinary routine of business and because I considered it in the public interest. The criticism that has been offered in this matter is not that it was a wrong thing to do, not that these people were not entitled to any station, not that they would manage it badly. The sole criticism is founded on the fact that La Patrie is a Conservative paper. I do not think tha/t criticism can be defended, but rightly or wrongly I did as I have indicated, and if I had to do it again I would do the same thing.
The second point is this. My hon. friend from Quebec East again attacked the personnel of the commission. The three principals of the commission are the president, Mr. Charlesworth, the vice-president, Mr. Thomas Maher and Colonel Steel, and respecting these gentlemen all I can say is that we entirely disagree with my hon. friend from Quebec East. We are proud of these appointees, who have done very good work up to now. They are only beginning and it will take a certain time before they can finish their work. They have to please everybody all over Canada and everyone knows it is extremely difficult to please everybody, especially when you are dealing with a population of ten millions scattered over nine provinces with different tastes, different ideals, different traditions and so on. But there is one point particularly I wish to bring forward and it is this. I resent very much the criticism made by my hon. friend from Quebec East against the appointment of the vicepresident of the radio commission.


Ernest Lapointe: I did not say a word
about him to-day.


Maurice Dupré: For the last three or four
months my hon. friend has delighted-


Ernest Lapointe: All right.


Maurice Dupré: -in criticizing Mr. Maher, trying to minimize his work and his efforts. I am to a certain extent responsible for that appointment and all I can say is that up to now that gentleman has proved highly efficient, broadminded and very active. We 53719-3085
placed great hopes in him and I may say that they have been more than fulfilled. The only people Mr. Maher has not been able to please are in Liberal quarters.


Mr. DUFF:: Hear, hear.


Charles Marcil: That is, half the population of Canada.


Mr. MANION:: Not after the last election.


William Duff: Wait until the next election.


Maurice Dupré: From every part of Canada, with the exception perhaps of Quebec East or Liberal constituencies around Quebec, we have received nothing but praise for the work done by Mr. Maher and we are very proud of his appointment as vice-president of the commission. He has done well up to now and will in the future justify what I have just said regarding him.


Charles Marcil: When the appointment of a radio commission first came before parliament for discussion, the consensus of opinion was that the commission would be kept out of politics, and my hon. friends opposite were unanimous in their expression of that view. I remember hearing the Prime Minister say that these commissioners would not be politicians and that the commission would be a non-political body. Now it has been made a political body, for if you can find a more thorough politician than the organizer for the province of Quebec, Mr. Maher, then I am at a loss to know where he is. The commission has been made a political commission, and now an effort is being made to turn its staff into a political staff. We -have a bill here to create a new Civil Service Commission; it will be a brand new commission appointed by this government. Should we entrust the commission with the appointment of friends of the government, leaving that power wholly in their hands?
I wish my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) had been in this house in 1917 and had heal'd Sir Robert Borden and the stalwarts of the Conservative party at that time defending the soundness of appointments by merit and the creation of a Civil Service Commission. The Conservative party of today is simply trying to undo what was done by the Conservative party of the past. First it was penitentiaries, now it is radio and the year before it was post office. The government is simply making a political organization of this service and I am sure the people of Canada will look upon it in that light. It is
Radio Broadcasting Act

all right for the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) to say that he has no apologies to make, that he is proud of his appointees, but why did he grant a licence to La Patrie twenty-four hours before the appointment of the commission? Why such precipitation? Did he not trust the new commission to give La Patrie what it was entitled to?


Mr.   DUPKE@: That application was before the department for many weeks and it came up in the course of the daily routine. There is no doubt it could have been signed before and I do not know why it was noit. I have nothing to say except that it came before me and I signed it in the ordinary routine. My hon. friend can be assured that this matter had been in the department at least two or three weeks.


Jean-François Pouliot: Why did not the minister
give it the six months' hoist?


Charles Marcil: I think the Solicitor General has made the case still worse. The minister went to Spain and enjoyed a very nice vacation in that country. We cannot afford these things with the budget of Canada in its present position. We cannot afford to create a new commission when we already have a competent body in the Department of Marine. This department is made up of Canadians and it seems to me to be a mistake to employ a stranger to come to tell us what to do. The government is trying to get away from governmental and parliamentary responsibility. This commission is to receive the money of Canadians and is to spend it as it likes subject to the approval of the governor in council. Parliament will have nothing to say. We are running away from our responsibility. When we go back to our constituencies and hear complaints of the radio commission we must tell our people that even though we have their mandate to represent them in this house, we 'have nothing to do with the matter, it rests in the hands of three appointees. That will not work at all. Canadians are accustomed to responsible government but I am sorry to say 'that we are drifting away from it. There will finally be a revulsion in public opinion throughout the whole of Canada and a desire to go back to parliamentary representation and parliamentary government. We have received the mandate of the people to act for them and we will have to account for all these commissions. Thirty-three years ago when I was a young member of parliament the people could say to me: you are young and active and you can do things; we trust you. But to-dav they say: you are powerless, everything is in 
the hands of a radio commission, a soldiers' commission, a pension commission and a civil service commission. We are departing from that most sacred of principles, parliamentary control and parliamentary responsibility.
The Solicitor General is a man of learning and a man of letters and he remembers the fight which took place in Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces to obtain parliamentary government and parliamentary responsibility. We are drifting back to the old days when the government with a selfappointed council could dispose of the moneys of the people and the representatives of the people had nothing to say. We can remember when the representatives in the legislature at Quebec were debarred from voting a dollar of public money. Is it the ambition of hon. friends opposite to return to such a form of government? I hope not. They are Canadians like ourselves, they are proud of the position which Canada occupies as the foremost sister nation of the empire and we should not override, overrule and overthrow the sacred principles of responsible government in order to make a few political appointments which will mostly be wiped out by the incoming administration. Hon. friends opposite are reasonable men. Do they think that Canada will stand for long for the position in which this government is at the present time? The salaries of the members of the tariff board are being increased while the members of the old tariff board were dismissed twenty-four hours after this party came into power. This new board is to be merely a fact finding body, it will have no responsibility or power except to report to the government. The government can do what it likes with its recommendations. The salaries of these men are being increased when the men and women of Canada, the charwomen, the members of parliament and the civil servants have had their salaries decreased. All statutory increases have been withheld for the last two years.
I am sorry that the Prime Minister of Canada, talented as he is, patriotic as I think he is, has come forward and set such an example to the people of Canada. Ho has stated that there are two measures which shall apply; if a man occupies an exalted position, he is entitled to an increase in salary but if he does not occupy such a position, he will have to take a cut. This session we are voting 870,000,000 in new taxes. I wish hon. members would come down to the part of the country I represent to see the conditions which prevail. There has not been a sawmill in operation for the last two years; taxes have not

Radio Broadcasting Act
been paid and the people are forced to live from hand to mouth on herrings, potatoes and whatever else they can get. Yet we come here and increase the salary of this, that and the other gentleman. We oreate new commissions and we abdicate our powers.
We have even reached the bench, the most sacred institution we have in this country. Outstanding men are to be forced to retire from their judicial offices in order that new judges may be appointed by this government. The Prime Minister is a distinguished lawyer and I can remember his saying when in opposition that no appointee of his would be raised to the bench except for his judicial qualifications. Let him look over the list of appointments which have been made since he became Prime Minister and then repeat that statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall be glad to.


Charles Marcil: That is not the impression of the country. Some of these appointments have been considered as purely political. There is a wrangle now going on in the province of Quebec over the new appointments to be made to the superior court. I admit that the plums of office belong to the friends of the party in power, but there should be a limit.
We should consider the financial position of the country at the present time. If we go on abdicating all our powers, we might as well close up this house and the Senate. There will be no need of placing this additional burden upon the overburdened taxpayers. It is unfortunate for the Prime Minister that he should be presiding over the destinies of Canada at the most unfavourable time in its whole history, and apparently he is trying to undo much of what he did in 1930. During the short session of 1930 he came here and raised the tariff probably thinking it would bring about what he had in view. But what has been the result? Since that time he has been trying to undo what was done in 1930, first with the mother country, to-morrow probably with the United States and the day after perhaps with France. He is trying to get back to the policy of the liberal party which is the policy of all the men who have led Canada. Canada cannot be self-contained. Canada cannot live by itself. What do we need at the present time? Markets, and nothing but markets.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought it was radio.


Charles Marcil: That is an illustration. There are thousands and thousands of people in this country who- have no radio and have no means of getting one. What we are trying
to get. now is markets for our products. Yesterday we passed legislation for the creation of a new board in connection with the joint operation of the railways in Canada. If Canada had continued as it was in 1911, when that great Canadian presided over the destinies of this country, or if we had continued the policy we followed in this country when I occupied your chair, Mr. Speaker, and when I heard every man from western Canada ask, not for one 'but for half a dozen transcontinental railways the country would not now be in the difficult position in which it finds itself.
I was old enough to hear from the lips of Sir Charles Tupper when he came to Queen's Hall in Montreal to explain the Canadian Pacific Railway contract, and when the country was afraid that it had sold out a second time to the Canadian Pacific, that western Canada would become the granary of the world and that Halifax, from where he came, would be the new Liverpool of America. But in those days we had a moderate tariff compared with our tariff to-day. Sir John A. Macdonald had a moderate tariff. The Conservative party had always had a moderate tariff. Sir Wilfrid Laurier bad a moderate tariff, and it is' suicide for Canada to-day to raise its tariffs against the other nations of the world.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but I would remind him that the discussion is not on the tariff but on the second reading of the radio bill.


Charles Marcil: I must apologize, Mr. Speaker, for being carried away by my faith in these old-time notions of parliamentary government. The only thing I have to say about radio is this. It is unfortunate that the radio commission has been made a purely political combination, that its personnel should be political appointees, and that now the radio commission should be trying to evade the Civil Service Act by making all its appointments independent of the Civil Service Commission. It is unfortunate because such a policy will be condemned by at least half the population of Canada, and by its present policy this government is condemning the traditional policy of the Conservative party as it was laid down in 1918 by Sir Robert Borden, then leader of that party, when he brought the outside service under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Cimmission.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my criticism of this bill is in the main confined to the first section. Had it not been for that I think I could have seen my way clear to have supported the other two clauses. Like the majority of the members of this
Radio Broadcasting Act

'house I gave hearty support to ithe principle of national control of our broadcasting system. There is no occasion at this time to go into the reasons why we thought that .that was the best system for the Canadian people. I still believe, in spite of some of the difficulties that have arisen, that our hopes lie in that direction. It is true that difficulties have arisen. Perhaps that is inevitable in view of the fact that we have to trust .the oarrying out of our ideals to weak and imperfect human instruments, and it may always be that way.
Criticism has been made of conditions prevailing in broadcasting in the west, and particularly in Saskatchewan. I do not know what the conditions may be in Manitoba since I have not had any representations from any of the people there. For my part I am prepared to concede this, that it is only natural that in a transition period there should be some inconvenience and some disarrangement of the former conditions. We cannot overhaul and rebuild a .house and live in it at the same time without being subjected to some inconvenience.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


John Livingstone Brown: For my part I am prepared to recognize that fact so far as the technical end of the work is concerned. My thought is that if we fail to give the commission the finances for which they are asking at the present time, possibly we may only prolong this period of inconvenience and dissatisfaction. So on that point I am not going to offer any criticism.
I think we have some reason, however, to suppose that from another standpoint the commission is deserving of criticism. Certain public statements which the chairman of the commission has made would indicate that in some respects he is not temperamentally fitted to be at the head of the commission, for he seems inclined to resent, and to rush into print to repudiate, any statements that are made in criticism of his actions. Being a public servant he will have to learn to take criticism without being too ready to rush into print. The very fact that he was reported the other day to have said that anybody who criticized the radio commission on the ground that it was not functioning properly was either a liar or a fool indicates that the chairman needs a little advice as to that courtesy which is due to the public from a man occupying the position he does. However, as I said, I have an objection to raise to the first section of the bill, and it is to the proposal that the employees of the commission shall be chosen purely at the will of

the radio commission, that appointments shall be taken out entirely from under the control of the Civil Service Commission. This radio commission is to be given the power to set up an entirely new organization of its own in spite of the fact that we already have in the employ of the government men who are well qualified from their experience to deal with these matters. What does that mean? It means the possibility of the setting up of a very expensive organization, and if that organization is set up without any control by parliament we have reason to suppose that at least it might become so expensive that the people of Canada would not be able to bear the expenditure, and we might be faced later on with the proposal to raise the licence fee, which has already been raised from one to two dollars. Who knows, if we put into the hands of the radio commission the power to create such an organization as I have suggested, that it might not become so expensive that the people of Canada would rise in revolt against the whole system and would recede from the position we have taken, which I think is endorsed by the great majority of the people of this country, that radio should be under the control of a national system. So there lies in this the danger of completely destroying our national system of broadcasting. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, and for that only, I feel I cannot give my support to this bill. For the reasons I have indicated other sections of the bill may commend themselves to me, especially in view of the fact that as soon as possible the disabilities arising from unsatisfactory methods of broadcasting must be removed.


Sir EUGENE FISET (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he has taken cognizance of section 3 subparagraph 14 of the bill. I believe in this paragraph he is creating a precedent that is bound to have an ill effect on every department of government. He wall recall that during the present session of parliament the Minister of Justice introduced a bill to modify the mounted police legislation and to authorize the department to spend, over and above the estimates voted by parliament, whatever revenues would accrue. I objected to that part of the bill, and it was withdrawn.
To-day we are doing exactly the same thing. We are authorizing the radio commission to expend money voted by parliament, and they are being given the right by statute to expend sums of money over and above estimates voted by parliament, and without the control of parliament. I believe the Prime Minister will readily realize that such a precedent

Radio Broadcasting Act
would be detrimental to other departments. No other department has been granted the right to expend moneys which have accrued through revenues. As a rule all these receipts are credited to the receiver general.
Such a provision obtained last year with regard1 to the radio commission. The Prime Minister himself told us that the appropriations voted for the radio commission represented the income received from the sale of licences, and that in no way shape or form would the moneys received from radio licences be exceeded. Here however we are authorizing the commission to spend money voted by parliament, and beyond that we are creating two sets of estimates for the department, one voted by parliament yearly, and the other consisting of money which will accrue from rendering services mentioned in the bill. It is quite true that in the next section further provisions are made concerning appropriations. We must remember however that these moneys divide themselves into two classes, one being the estimates voted yearly by parliament representing the income received from the sale of radio licences, and the remainder money the commission will have the right to spend without the authority of parliament. I am calling the attention of the Prime Minister to this fact because in the house we have always fought shy of authorizing any department of the crown to spend money, from whatever source, except that voted by parliament.


Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee on radio which sat last year I should like to offer one or two observations on the bill. Those of us who were members of the committee and did not belong to the party in power were, I believe, entirely fair in our attitude when we supported the idea of the nationalization of radio as a great public benefit and public utility. There was no difference of opinion, and we supported the report unanimously. Again in the house we supported the bill unanimously, when it was introduced by the Prime Minister. I 'aim still one hundred per cent in favour of the nationalization of radio. I say without any intention of giving offence that I am not quite satisfied with matters as the5'' have been conducted by the commission. I am willing to make due allowance, and to admit that possibly the commission has not had sufficient time to make good on the work which they have undertaken. As I say, I am quite willing to make some allowance in that regard. I should like to say, further, without intending to give offence to the Prime Minister that I believe he made an error in making appointments, and that the public, and perhaps parties opposed to him, lost just a bit of confidence in the genuineness of the statements made by the government to the effect that politics would not enter into the work of the radio broadcasting commission.
As I said before, we accepted in good faith all assurances, and embodied in the report a clause to the effect that there should be no political influence of any kind either in appointments to the board or in the conduct of the work of the commission, after it had been established. I criticized, as did some other members, the appointment of one of the members of the commission-not on any score of policy, but because it did not seem to me to be in accord with the report of the committee, or with the promises made by the Prime Minister, when the bill was in the house, to the effect that there would foe no political influence in connection with appointments.
I cannot agree with the Prime Minister in his definition of what constitutes a political appointment. I will say that I have had a short meeting with one of the commissioners, to whom reference has often been made, the gentleman from the province of Quebec, and I had the pleasure of receiving his assurance in the presence of other hon. members in the committee to the effect that so far as he was concerned no political influence would be wielded in carrying on the work of the commission. In the meantime, at least, I am willing to take him at his word. I think at the outset one mistake was made.


Samuel William Jacobs: What does the hon. member propose to do with politicians who are out of a job?


William Daum Euler: I would elect them to parliament. The chief point of contention in regard to this bill seems to be that there has been a political bias exercised in appointments and in the work of the commission. Very naturally, denials have been made by the government. I do not .believe-and I do not blame the commission for this, but mention it at this time so 'that it may serve as a warning in the future-that the granting of the licence to or what took place subsequently in connection with the Windsor radio station was entirely free of party politics. I make that statement, trusting that in future, whatever the commission may do, it will see to it that there will be no further interference, so far as political influence is concerned. I am willing to say that as only three or four months have elapsed since the commission was appointed, it is not reasonable to expect that within such a short time they can properly
Radio Broadcasting Act

rearrange the whole system of radio distribution so that everybody will be satisfied, or so that we will have a perfect system of radio broadcasting. That is not to be expected and for my part I am inclined to be liberal and to make allowance for the difficulties of the work which has to be done.
I find that the bill deals with three things. First it proposes to take from the purview of the Civil Service Commission the appointment of all employees connected with the work of the radio commission. Secondly, it proposes to vest in the governor in council the approval of all capital expenditures in connection with broadcasting stations. And lastly, although I am not quite clear as to the meaning of the third clause, it proposes to give to the commission the right to expend all moneys they receive-I presume by way of licence fees, or revenues received from advertising, and so on. I have not a great deal of fault to find with the last dause, because when the committee drew up its report I favoured the principle that the commission should collect the licence fees. I feel that if it were a responsible commission, a good commission, a commission that wanted to do its duty, it should be entrusted with the work of collecting the licence fees and expending the money for the purpose for which the commission was created. I do not entirely agree with some of my hon. friends on this side that all those moneys must necessarily be voted by parliament. The commission would be limited absolutely to the amount of licence fees which it collects and can spend no more. I can see no very good reason why we should depart from the principle that is observed in the conduct of the Canadian National Railways. Ever since we took over the national railways the revenues collected by those railways in the ordinary conduct of business, charges for freight, passengers and so on, were expended by the board of the railway without reference to the House of Commons. I have not a great deal of fault to find with that, because I believe that if you have a commission worth its salt, one that should have encouragement to go on and do a good job, you have to give it a certain freedom of action. If i't is not deserving of such freedom then, of course, it should be replaced.
With regard to the sections of the bill-I am taking them in reverse order-I know they are the result of the recommendations of Major Cdadstone Murray, an expert adviser who comes from the British Broadcasting Corporation and has made an investigation into the Canadian situation. I receive these recommendations with a great deal of respect, but

I am constrained to say that merely because Major Murray made them it does not necessarily follow that we must approve of them in every particular. In conversation with him the other day and with some of my colleagues on that committee this matter came up; I cannot see why all the employees of the radio broadcasting commission should be removed from the control of the Civil Service Commission. I quite grant this, that as far as the technical advisers and technical officers and artists are concerned there is good reason why the commission itself should make those appointments. I should say the commission should make them. But when you come to the clerical staff, stenographers and so on-


Ernest Lapointe: Secretaries.


William Daum Euler: Secretaries if you like, and clerks engaged in the office of the commission, I see no reason why they should not be subject to appointment by the Civil Service Commission just the same as similar employees in any other department of the government. While it may not mean a very great deal at this time, while the number of employees is not very great, this matter of radio broadcasting is a very big thing and may expand in such a way that in time there will be a great many employees. I think there is real cause for criticism by those on this side who believe that, whether or not it will be exercised, there is at least room under this provision for the exercise of political patronage. For my part, as I have said from the beginning, I would like to see as many opportunities as possible for the exercise of such patronage removed. The radio broadcasting commission cannot be as successful as it ought to be if any government exercises political patronage in the conduct of such a national undertaking.
As far as the substitution of the governor in council for the parliament of Canada is concerned in the matter of expenditures on capital account, I have not a very great deal to say except again I do not see why we should depart from the principle that we observe in connection with the Canadian National Railways. When the Canadian National Railways require appropriations for capital expenditures they go not to the governor in council, but to the parliament of Canada, and properly so. I see no reason for varying that practice. The only apparent reason that was given I think was that since parliament meets only once a year and there is an interval of perhaps seven or eight months when parliament is no't in session, and

Radio Broadcasting Act
the commission might find it necessary to acquire a station here or there or perhaps build a station, it would be prejudicial to the work of the commission if they had to wait until parliament met to get an appropriation for capital expenditure. There may be a little weight in that argument, but I do not think there is enough to justify us in violating the principle.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, while in some respects I am in favour of the provisions of the bill, I feel that the government might very well make a distinction as far as appointments are concerned, they could segregate the technical officers and have those appointed by the radio commission itself but as far as other clerical employees are concerned they could leave them for appointment by the Civil Service Commission. And they should make no change as far as capital expenditures are concerned but should have those authorized by parliament in the same manner as capital expenditures are authorized for the Canadian National Railways.
Hon. RAYMOND D. MORAND (East Essex): Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a very few minutes to discuss one or two phases of this situation. The main criticisms that are offered at the present time to this bill are only two or three; one the appointment to the commission of a man with some political background. Now I have been in the house long enough and I know my own people long enough to realize that as it was necessary to appoint one French-Canadian upon that commission I doubt very much if you could find one who had not been in politics somewhere. I am quite sure that hon. members on the other side would not expect us to take one of their friends particularly, consequently, we have taken one from this side. However, that is not a new principle, that applies to the appointment of our judges, and I am sure we cannot and will not say that our judges are guided by political consideration in their judgments or the work that they do.
Another thing I find a little difficult to get quite straight in my mind is the objection that the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) has to the station at Windsor. He complains that there was some political bias in respect to this station. There were two stations in that part of the country, that were thought to be somewhat political, but they were amalgamated and now there is only one. Is there no way to please hon. gentlemen opposite? Even for removing them they still find fault.
A fact that appears to be overlooked in respect to this question is that radio broadcasting is a business. It is not a department of government, it is purely a business. The hon. member for North Waterloo in connection with two of the clauses of this bill made reference to the Canadian National Railways. Why not carry the principle a little further? To my mind it is just as sensible to say that the Civil Service Commission should appoint the men working for the Canadian National as those employed by this commission. Can one conceive of the Civil Service Commission holding an examination for a prima donna for instance or someone who is going to appear before the microphone at a broadcasting station? The thing on the face of it is ridiculous. It might be that for a few appointments here in Ottawa such as stenographers, and so on, the Civil Service Commission might act, but from time to time this business of broadcasting will be taking over stations throughout Canada, will be employing technical men and artists, consequently it is surely ridiculous to think that the Civil Service Commission must pass upon whether these people can or cannot be hired and appear, or shall have their salaries set by the Civil Service Commission.


William Daum Euler: I made an exception in the case of the technical officers.


Mr. MORAND:: Well, others did not. To me that is so evident that I cannot imagine why such an argument is made. The Civil Sendee Commission are not losing anything they ever had, because they have never had anything to do with this new business. Again I say one might just as well expect them to appoint the engineers, firemen, switchmen and so on all over the Canadian National system.


Ernest Lapointe: Bring us something
stronger.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Maybe you would not
understand it.


Eccles James Gott: Too deep for him.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: As far as the financial
feature is concerned, it is simply a question of making definite the ideas which were both understood and written in the report which was unanimously brought into this house. The intention was, and I believe still is-and I think the feeling is quite unanimous-that money received from the broadcasting business should be used in order to give Canada proper programs and proper radio stations. That is all that is done here.
With regard to paragraph 2, I do not think it makes a great deal of difference in the practical working out of the matter whether parliament or the governor in council has this power; what goes to the governor in
Radio Broadcasting Act

council usually comes to parliament later, so practically there is not a great deal of difference.
We have been hearing a great deal with regard to changes in wave lengths and interference. Certainly there will be trouble. I do not think anything could better justify the action taken by the committee last year than this tremendous effort that is being made to halt the nationalization of broadcasting. It is my firm belief that if this action had not been taken last year it never would have been taken in Canada, because the opposition has been very great. It took a government with a great deal of courage to put through the nationalization scheme last year. Personally I am just as strong now in my belief that this is the proper way to handle the radio situation, and I think in all fairness we can ask the members of this house and the people of Canada to give the commission a chance to work out its own salvation and deal with a most difficult problem, even though there may be a good deal of trouble during the period of transition.
Mr. ECCLES J. GOTT (South Essex): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) has been very critical of the operation of station CKOK in Windsor. I venture to assert that he has been prompted by the suggestions of United States citizens operating stations in the city of Detroit, and that the ammunition he has been using has been furnished by those operators. Let me quote from page 3696 of Hansard for April 14:
Mr. Euler: My hon. friend will pardon me if I remind him that my statement was made in reply to the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy), I think it was. in which he attacked Ontario and Quebec with regard to tariffs. I had no intention of making a vicious attack; I do not think I ever made a vicious attack on anyone or anything in my life. Would the hon. gentleman say that this was a fair attack to be made by a western member ?
I want to say that the hon. member for North Waterloo has made a decidedly vicious attack on the operation of station CKOK. The Border Cities Star of Saturday, April 22, quotes the hon. member as follows:
I am not an expert in radio matters-


Alan Webster Neill: I rise to a point of order,
Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to interrupt the bon. gentleman, but I should like to get home before the grass gets much greener. The hon. gentleman is entirely out of order. What has this to do with the bill before the house?


Eccles James Gott: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker', I want to say that this is the first 
time I have addressed the 'house this session while the hon. member for Comox-Albernd (Mr. Neill) has been on his feet continually with regard to minor, petty questions.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I did not understand the hon. member to be quoting a report of what was said in this house.


Alan Webster Neill: I understand that he is
doing so, and surely that is not in order. My point of order, however, is that the discussion being carried on by the hon. member has nothing to do with the second reading of this bill, and I ask for your ruling on that point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to the
point of order, Mr. Speaker, since this house opened at three o'clock we have listened to amplifications of principles that had nothing to do with radio. Is it to be expected that men should sit here and listen to that sort of thing, with your permission, sir, without replying? The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) referred to the whole question of the operation of this station CKOK in Windsor, and the hon. gentleman who represents a nearby constituency is replying; that is all.


William Daum Euler: If I might make a suggestion, Mr. Speaker, it would be to let the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott) go as far as he likes.


Eccles James Gott: The Border Cities Star of
Saturday, April 22, contains this front page heading:
United States Influence Seen in CKOK-CJGC Merger
There is also a picture of the hon. member for North Waterloo on the front page. The Border Cities Star quotes the hon. member as follows:
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 ithan 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.
In vieiw of the fact that the minister did not say anything in that regard I will tell the hon. member that this is one of the most important sections of the whole Dominion of Canada, and I think it is entitled to a first class radio station. Station CKOK is one of the best equipped radio stations in Canada, and if the hon. member had his ear to the ground he would cease his criticism of it. The hon. gentleman seeks to imply that station CKOK has been really a United States station, while the fact is that thirty-five of the forty-two employees of that station

Radio Broadcasting Act
are Canadian citizens and residents of this country. I have here many newspaper clippings, but I am going to read only one to prove that the hon. member, to use a slang expression, is all wet with regard to station CKOK. I quote again:
Politics and "Influence"
CKOK, the border's broadcasting station, is under fire from the stronghold of local opponents. The management of the station has been panned and accused because it broadcasts the programs of the Columbia network, a United States organization.
Operators of the station have been accused of using "political influence" to get the licence to operate. Rather amused are some of the onlookers, who recall the election of 1930. The Conservatives were far from satisfied at the treatment of a local organization which it is believed was promised the radio licence by Mr. King, the leader of the defeated party.
In the face of this, however, the present owners of the station are still accused of operating only through "political" influence.
I rise merely to put this clipping on record and to ask the hon. member for North Waterloo if he will not give us a little cooperation and support, instead of continuing to criticize one of the best radio stations in Canada, so that CKOK may have a fair trial and the people of western Ontario may have a station by means of which they can hear Canadian programs instead of being compelled to listen to United States programs all the time. Station CKOK has reached out and obtained business in the city of Detroit, and I believe the jealousy which has arisen because of that fact has been responsible for much of the opposition to this station.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just taken his seat has quoted something in which reference was made to myself as having promised to some one a radio licence or something of the kind. Seeing that I am in the house, and that it might in consequence be assumed that having listened to that quotation I agreed with it, I want to say now that never at any time, directly or indirectly, did I promise anyone anything of the sort or in that connection.


Eccles James Gott: I gladly accept the statement of the right hon. gentleman, but let me say that rumors to this effect were circulated throughout the county of Essex prior to the election of 1930.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose
Bill No. 99, an act to aimend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1932. May I say that when the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific railway bill was before the house I opposed that measure. I opposed that legislation for more
than one reason. In the first place I took exception to iit because it came to the House of Commons in an indirect way. It came into this house through the Senate and my contention was that a bill of that nature ought to be brought before the Commons directly and not indirectly. I argued that it should first have come before the representatives of the people, men elected by the people, and not before the Senate, which is the result of indirect election. Because of the mistake by the government in that respect I opposed that irresponsible legislation. I opposed it for another reason, namely, that it was based on a report which had been prepared by a nonCanadian commission. The report was submitted by ,the Duff commission, which was not a full-fledged Canadian commission inasmuch as it included representatives from Great Britain and the United States. I pointed out that such representation was unnecessary, because in my opinion the time had come in the history of Canada when there was sufficient ability to be found right in this dominion to deal with matters affecting transportation and kindred subjects. I said that we should appoint our own board or commission, a purely Canadian body, to investigate the transportation problem and report accordingly.
I oppose the legislation now before us on somewhat the same grounds. I understand that there has been dragged into this discussion-and quite rightly-the report of Mr. Gladstone Murray, an expert of the British Broadcasting Corporation, a native Canadian but a man who thinks that there are some phases of the radio problem that ought not to be discussed in parliament. What an impossible thought! What will we hear next in this chamber. I differ entirely from that point of view; it is not the Canadian point of view. Every question touching the welfare of the Canadian people ought to be discussed in this house and settled by the representatives of the Canadian electorate, and we are in no need of experts, whether born within or outside of this country, to come to Canada and tell us what we should do-to tell us that the time has arrived when certain aspects of important parliamentary legislation ought not to be reviewed fully by the members in this chamber elected to represent the dominion as a whole.
I oppose this legislation for the further reason that there is an endeavour to take out of the hands of the Civil Service Commission appointments to the radio broadcasting commission. I do not believe that there is any support in the way of public opinion in Canada for action of that kind. I do not believe
Radio Broadcasting Act

there is support for it in the far west; certainly there is none in the middle west. Nor is there any support for it, in my opinion, in Ontario, Quebec or the maritime provinces. Consequently action of that kind is purely govermental, purely executive and partisan, and has no justification in public opinion.
Because these appointments are not to be left to the Civil Service Commission, because we are by this means doing our 'best to destroy the Civil Service Commission as a national organization that should function properly, because this bill proposes something that will militate against the successful operation of the Civil Service Commission, undermining its efficiency and permanency-because apparently my hon. friends are out to destroy it as far as possible by taking away from it the powers which it ought to exercise-I am opposed to the legislation which is now before the house. More than that, it seems to me that in the new section 14, subsection 1, wherein the expenditure of moneys is to be taken out of the hands of parliament, we are giving up one of the historic functions of parliamentary government. I cannot sanction anything that looks like a move in that direction. History tells us that parliament must have control of every dollar, every cent of revenue which is raised by taxes, and the moment we depart from that principle in the Slightest degree we are in danger of destroying parliamentary government in this country, and I am opposed to any move along that line. Further than that, if we are to have parliamentary government in Canada, parliamentary government worthy of the name, we must see to it that parliament exercises proper control over such matters. There should be no control through commissions, executives and experts. The best ex-,pert opinion in Canada can be found in this house; we do not need to import experts.


Mr. ERNST:: Speaking.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Is the hon. gentleman referring to himself?


William Gordon Ernst: No, I am referring to you.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: You are doing well if that is what you mean.


William Gordon Ernst: I was judging by your own estimate of yourself.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I suggest that the hon. gentleman should try to estimate himself properly. He will have quite a job on his hands. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if we have not full control in this house over the revenues of the country then we have not complete parliamentary government in Can-

ada, and any action on the part of any government that will tend to weaken parliament in this respect will meet with my opposition.
With regard to this bill, from the point of view of its effect on the Civil Service Commission, I have some information which I wish to put on Hansard. It brings out the political relationship that exists at the present time between the Civil Service Commission, the Px-ime Minister of Canada, the government of this country and those who are seeking positions on the radio commission. The information I want to put on the record is this:
Sessional Paper No. 382 Canada
Department of the Secretary of State
Tuesday, April 25, 1933. Return to an address of the House of Commons, dated 3rd April, 1933, showing:
A copy of all correspondence, documents, orders in council and certificates of the Civil Service Commission, respecting the appointment of Mr. E. C. Buchanan to the position of director of public relations to the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission.
C. H. Cahan,
Secretary of State.
Reference No. 268.
Mover: Mr. Gray.
Dated: April 25, 1933.
I will not read the whole return, but there are a few parts of it that bear on the main problem before the house, namely, the attempt to make this radio commission a purely political body. If that effort continues then we might as well as a parliament scrap the Civil Service Commission at once and be through with it. I have here a return dated Ottawa, November 24, 1932, in which reference is made by Hector Charlesworbh, chairman of the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, to organization work-organizing the commission, or in other words, dealing with the filling of key positions. The Prime Minister's name is mentioned in this return, and I shall read the document as it has been submitted to the house:
Ottawa, November 24, 1932.
Dear Sir,-
In connection with the organization of the work of the radio broadcasting commission, it is becoming urgently important that the services of a director of publicity be secured as well as a director of programs. I have discussed the matter with the prime Minister, who assures me that the question is being taken up of an amendment to the act, whereby these .and other important key positions on the staff of the commission may be exempted from the provisions of the Civil Service Act. In the meantime I should be glad if your commissioners would give consideration to the temporary employment, for a period of three months, of Mr. E. C. Buchanan as director of publicity at $6,500 per annum, and Mr. E. A. Weir, at present employed with the radio

Radio Broadcasting Act
division of the Canadian National Railways, at $6,500 per annum, as director of programs and station relations.
As I indicated above, the question of the permanent appointment of the incumbents of these positions will, it is hoped, be dealt with under an amendment to the act, but in the meantime I should appreciate it if the commission could see its way clear to sanction the above temporary appointments. It is important, in view of certain commitments about to be entered into, that these appointees should enter our service by December 1st.
Yours faithfully,
Hector Charlesworth,
Chairman,
Canadian Broadcasting Commission. The Secretary,
The Civil Service Commission,
Ottawa, Ontario.
That letter was dated November 24, 1932. The next letter on the return is dated November 25, 1932, the day after the letter I have just read was written, from the secretary of the Civil Service Commission to Mr. Charles-worth :
Dear Mr. Charlesworth,-
By direction of the commissioners. I am enclosing herewith a report to council asking for authority, under section 40 of the Civil Service Act, for the temporary employment of Messrs. E. C. Buchanan and E. A. Weir in accordance with the request contained in your letter of November 24. I might explain that, in order to bring reports before council, it is necessary to have the signature of the minister in charge and I presume that the Minister of Marine is the minister through whom the radio commission will be expected to report to council. That being the ease, the report should be signed by the Minister of Marine in the space provided for that purpose before being forwarded to the clerk of the privy council for the consideration of that board.
Yours very truly,
W. Foran,
Secretary.
The next is the report to council referred to in the previous letter. This is addressed to His Excellency the Governor General in Council under date of November 25, 1932: It reads:
Under section 40 of the Civil Service Act, the Civil Service Commission, on the recommendation of the chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Commission, submits the following report for approval:
It is recommended that authority be granted for the temporary employment of Mr. E. C. Buchanan as director of publicity and Mr. E. A. Weir as director of programs and station relations for the radio broadcasting commission for a period of three months at such salaries as His Excellency the Governor General in Council may approve.
The chairman of the Canadian broadcasting commission reports that appointments to these positions are urgently required.
That report is signed by W. J. Roche as chairman and J. E. Tremblay as commissioner,
and a space is provided for the signature of the Minister of Marine. The next letter is from the chairman of the radio commission to the secretary of the Civil Service Commission. It is dated February 16, 1933, and reads:
Dear Sir,-
I would call your attention to my letter of November 24 in which I asked you to give consideration to the temporary employment for a period of three months of Mr. E. C. Buchanan in connection with the public relations activities of the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission.
In view of the urgent necessity of the commission obtaining more publicity for the programs which we are now putting out, we would ask you to give this matter your attention in order to obtain the necessary certificate for Mr. Buchanan under section 40 of the Civil Service Act, Mr. Buchanan to be employed by our commission as director of public relations at a salary of $6,500 per annum.
It is considered that Mr. Buchanan's services should begin as and from February 15, 1933.
Very sincerely yours,
Hector Charlesworth,
Chairman.
There you are! There we have the chairman of Canada's Radio Broadcasting Commission, himself a well known Conservative propagandist, urging with all his power the appointment of Buchanan, a government extremist, as director of public relations at twice the salary he is worth or could draw in the open market.
The next letter is from the secretary of the Civil Service Commission to the chairman of the radio commission. It is dated February 16, 1933, and reads:
Dear Sir,-	.
Replying to your letter of the 16th instant. I beg to call your attention to the fact that your letter of the 24th November last referred to the employment of Mr. E. A. Weir as director of programs and station relations as well as of Mr. E. C. Buchanan as director of publicity. On November 25, the Civil Service Commission forwarded to you the necessary report to council, as required under section 40 of the Civil Service Act, covering the employment of both these gentlemen and has not been advised as to what action was subsequently taken either by the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission or by the Governor General in Council in regard to this matter. Is it your intention now that the question of Mr. Weir's employment should he dropped and a separate report made out in the case of Mr. Buchanan? You will understand that, until the salary has been authorized by the Governor General in Council, the commission is unable to issue any certificate of temporary employment under section 40 of the Civil Service Act.
Yours very truly,
W. Foran,
Secretary.
The next is a letter from the chairman of the radio commission to the secretary of the
488(3

Radio Broadcasting Act
Civil Service Commission. It is dated February 17, 1933, and reads:
Dear Mr. Foran,

In reply to yours of February 16 I may say that the present situation with regard to Mr. E. A. Weir and Mr. E. C. Buchanan is as follows: The appointments of these gentlemen were held up owing to the decision of the Department of Justice that until the return of Colonel Steel in January our commission was powerless to make any appointments. Since then a new situation has arisen with regard to our relations with the Canadian National Railways whereby the appointment of Mr. Weir may be dealt with in a different manner from that originally decided.
With regard to Sir. Buchanan, now that our board is fully constituted we desire to engage his services as soon as possible. There is a clamour throughout Canada as to lack of advance information about our broadcasts. The Commission has also decided to drop the title "director of publicity" and use that of "public relations." The matter of Mr. Weir may have to stand in abeyance for the present, but we should like a new order on the lines I have mentioned in the case of Mr. Buchanan. The former certificate in each case may have to be cancelled. I believe that these orders are in the hands of the Hon. Alfred Duranleau if they were not returned to your commission.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Hector Cliarlesworth.
Following that letter we have a letter from Mr. Foran to Mr. Gharlesworth. It is dated February 22, 1933, and reads:
Dear Mr. Cbarlesworth,-
The commissioners have had under consideration your letter of the 17th instant with reference to the case of Mr. E. C. Buchanan.
I am now directed to call your attention to the fact that when the temporary employment of Messrs. Weir .and Buchanan was originally discussed with you the commissioners agreed to issue temporary certificates for three months in these cases on the understanding that new legislation was contemplated which would exempt these positions from the operations of the Civil Service Act.
The idea was to gradually destroy the act.
So far as the Civil Service Commission is aware, no steps have yet been taken towards the amendment to the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act but, if your commission is able to give the civil service commissioners an assurance that the act is to be amended without delay, the commissioners are prepared to issue a certificate as requested for the employment of Mr. Buchanan for three months from February 15.
The letter closes with the following very important sentence:
If it is intended, however, that the position of director of public relations should later be advertised for competition under the Civil Service Act, the commissioners decline to certify Mr. Buchanan's employment at the present time and are of the opinion that the position should be advertised immediately.
Yours very truly,
W. Foran.

That is the viewpoint of the Civil Service Commission, that is the viewpoint of its secretary and it is the viewpoint of anyone who wants to build up an efficient Civil Service Commission in Canada. As I say, that letter was signed by the secretary of the Civil Service Commission. The next letter is from Mr. Hector Charlesworth to Mr. W. Foran, the secretary of the Civil Service Commission. It is dated February 23, 1933, and reads:
Dear Mr. Foran,-
I have yours of February 22nd relative to our request for the appointment of Mr. E. C. Buchanan as director of public relations.
I beg to advise you that last evening we received personal assurance from the Prime Minister that an amendment to the Radio Broadcasting Act would be submitted before the close of the session covering this as well as other matters. In accordance with the terms of your letter I therefore ask that the certificate be issued for Mr. Buchanan as from February 15th.
Hector Charlesworth.
I shall not read further from this return. The point I wish to emphasize is that the Civil Service Commission tried to stand its ground, took the stand that it ought to take in order that it might function properly and successfully in the interests of the people of Canada, but it was prevented from carrying out its functions. It was prevented by political interference from doing what it thought it ought to have done, and that political interference came from the present government, came from the cabinet of Canada, came from the Prime Minister of this country, and because of that political interference the Civil Service Commission had to sidetrack its real functions and make appointments which should only have been made after advertisement and after competition. To my mind, Mr. Speaker, that is a very important and serious departure. If we are going to have the Prime Minister and the cabinet of this country go out and take the stand which I have shown the house was taken, I see no future for the Civil Service Commission in this country. It will be impossible for it to function as it should function, and it will become nothing more or less than a political commission. It is no wonder that we have heard argument after argument from member after member here this afternoon that the Civil Service Commission was gradually being undermined and destroyed, and it is being gradually destroyed by the government taking unto itself the making of appointments which are purely political, perhaps appointments which should not be made because of a lack of efficiency and a lack of those qualities that are necessary to give that

Radio Broadcasting Act
efficient service for which the people of Canada are paying.
I think I have made clear, Mr. Speaker, my stand and that of the party to which I belong in regard to the bill before the house, and its effect upon the efficiency of the Civil Service Commission. I hope that the government will take new ground and act differently towards the Civil Service Commission, instead of continuing to do what it has been doing for the last year or two, deliberately making it a commission that is becoming weaker and weaker every day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If no one else is going to speak
I may say that since early this morning this house has been engaged in discussing the measure, the second reading of which I moved, and I venture to say that if anyone will take the trouble to look at Hansard he will find that all that is referable ito this measure can be contained in a very few pages. The discussion has wandered on in that way.
First of all I would like to say that the observations made by the right hon. leader of the opposition as to the undesirability of this measure being brought in at this date give expression to a sound objection. It is an objection to which I attach a great deal of importance. It arises by reason of circumstances over which the government had no control. The last member who spoke (Mr. McIntosh) referred to the fact that there was an earnest endeavour on the part of the commission to get a particular individual to act with them, and that they spoke to me, and I suggested that that could not be done unless there were amendments to the act, which is true; but I did not desire to commit myself to amendments to this act with respect to matters of that kind unless I knew something more about it than I then did. As a result of the very kind thought of the government of Great Britain we were able to ask Major Gladstone Murray to come here. After he had agreed to come, he was detained and he did not arrive here until much later than was expected. He completed a trip over Canada, not accompanied by the commission, and made an interim report on the fifth of May, which was read to the house this morning. It became apparent that in his opinion it was desirable to make certain amendments to the act, and I intimated the other day that I would introduce those amendments, but I do so reluctantly at this stage of the session. But inasmuch as it has been represented to me that it is absolutely imperative, if we are to save this commission, that action of this kind should be taken, I brought the measure to
the attention of the house yesterday and moved its second reading to-day.
Does this house desire to preserve the radio broadcasting business of Canada for the Canadian people? That is the first question. If that question is answered in the affirmative, then we must select the instrumentality of government by which we shall effect that purpose. It is not a department of government; it is a business, an industry. And in the same way that provinces select liquor commissions to transact their business, so in this instance the Dominion government believes, as shown by the statute that has been passed, that the instrumentality by which we can accomplish our purpose is a commission of three persons.
It will be observed that there is a great distinction between a department of government and a commission. A department of government, as the very words indicate, is responsible to this parliament in a narrow sense. A commission is an instrumentality set up by parliament itself to accomplish certain purposes and achieve certain ends. The liquor commission of Quebec makes no report to anyone except a report as .to its operations. It buys, it sells, it receives money, it pays out money. The liquor commission of Alberta buys and sells without reference to the government and turns its profits over to the province. The liquor commission of Ontario, I understand, although I am not so familiar with its operations, conducts its business in exactly the same way. Why is that so? Because being instrumentalities of government, government has clothed them with powers and holds them responsible for the discharge of the powers conferred upon them, and the government must accept the responsibility as between the people and the legislature. That is this case. Whether we like it or not, that is what we have tried to do. It is folly not to recognize the fact that a very persistent and determined effort is being made to destroy this commission. I do not think that hon. gentlemen opposite are desirous of assisting in its destruction. We know how this commission is looked upon by private interests outside of this country. We know exactly the powers in this country that were so disappointed because the radio committee did not report in favour of private interests controlling broadcasting in this dominion. The report that was read this afternoon by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) indicates clearly what was in the mind of that committee when, it dealt with this matter.
We have determined that we will not part with our broadcasting rights in Canada. We
48S8
Radio Broadcasting Act
COMMON;
have determined that at this stage of scientific development we are going to cling to those rights, but we are going to endeavour to give ,to the Canadian people some reasonable service in the way of broadcasting facilities. We have charged a license fee of two dollars. The taxpayer of this country is not responsible for the moneys expended by the radio commission.
The only persons who have an interest in that matter are those who take out their licences, and every user of a radio is supposed to have taken out a licence. That money we said last year, and we repeat this year, is money for the expenditure of which this commission should be responsible. It is money which partners in the enterprise have entrusted the commission to expend for them, and parliament has taken the necessary action to preserve this business for the Canadian people. If, Mr. Speaker, it is thought for a moment that this commission can successfully function if it has to come and report to this house in answer to a question as to whether Jane Smith was a contralto or a soprano, or whether she sang on a certain night, and what she was paid-it must be a failure inevitably and positively. There can be no doubt about it. Every thoughtful man knows it, every observer knows it; but that is the criticism made by the opposition and private interests. We may be asked, "What is the name of the announcer at station so and so; where was he bom; what size boots does he wear?" We may be asked, "Did Jane Smith, or somebody else, come from New York to sing?" If that sort of thing is to continue I say to this House of Commons this afternoon: Gentlemen, you have destroyed the thing you desired to protect. That is as certain as anything in the world, and there is no thoughtful member of the house who does not realize it.
In the face of that fact we have one great illustration, the British Broadcasting Corporation. Sir John Reith became responsible as chairman of it, and the gentleman chosen largely to direct its activities was an Ontario bom Canadian., and in him I think most of us feel a great sense of pride. May I say incidentally that if hon. members are disposed to discuss the question of salaries I advise them to consider the salary paid by the British Broadcasting Corporation to that gentleman, as compared with the salaries we pay in this country. I mention that in passing only. The British Broadcasting Corporation have had a wide experience; they have had a successful experience. They have dealt with technical problems of the first magnitude. They have dealt with the tastes, the desires and the

wishes of their clientele, those people who own licences and radios throughout the kingdom, and they have established a great reputation.
But think of our position in this country. I am bound to say the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) put it fairly, as did the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). Look at our position. We live in the northern half of the Amerioan continent. Anyone who knows anything about the theory of radio broadcasting knows that the strength and the power of a station to transmit and send through the air the human voice so that it may be collected again and be made to sound like the human voice, is a matter purely technical in its nature. So greatly has science advanced that it has become simply a question of being able to determine with great exactness the strength and power necessary to project the human voice along certain channels to a given point where it is picked up and repeated, just as we hear it over the receiving instruments in our homes.
Let us put the position fairly. There are in the United States a large number of very powerful stations. If there is no arrangement made internationally between this country and the United States it follows, inevitably, that any stations we put up of lesser power will be choked by the confusion which will result from projections by high powered stations of the vibrations of the voice through the ether, as they say,-and now they say there is no ether-we will say through space, for the purpose of having the voice collected at another point. This confusion is inevitable, unless arrangements are made between countries. We have an international agreement.
I was rather hurt when I heard one hon. member state that the Minister, of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) had had a good holiday at Madrid. Shall Canada be represented in international radio conferences? The Minister of Marine did not desire to make that long trip to Madrid at that time of year, strange as it may sound to the gentleman who made that observation in the house to-day. When he reached there, due to his mastery of both English and French, he, with his technical advisers, was able to take a very leading part in the transactions of the conference, a matter of gratification to most Canadians. He had with him a highly trained technician. I have not had the pleasure of knowing Colonel Steel for many years. I met him a couple of years ago, or more. But I do know this, that in other countries he is spoken of as one of t'he foremost technicians known. I thought we were exceedingly fortunate in getting him

Radio Broadcasting Act
for the technical position. I would not say that his training fitted him to deal with public relations, but for technical purposes he is qualified. At Madrid he was able to render great service.
In the meantime we desired to set up this commission. I desired to secure his services. He could not get away from Madrid. I cabled the minister, and although the minister found it difficult to get away, finally he came. Colonel Steel stopped in England, saw the English authorities who gave him full facilities with respect to the stations they had, and the great station they were building. The officials gave him every possible facility. I saw him myself, in December, in England. He was anxious to get back here and to obtain information as to the working of our own system. He came back to Canada.
The commission was organized under the chairmanship of Mr. Charlesworth. I have heard much criticism of Mr. Charlesworth to-day. I am not in a position to speak with any degree of authority with respect to Mr. Charlesworth, due to the fact that I did not (know him intimately. I never have known him intimately. I was advised by friends who had wide knowledge of the matter-not of one political party

but to whom I had made application for information, that Mr. Charlesworth was, first, a man of letters and of wide culture, a sound critic and would understand something of the tastes of the Canadian people, that he had travelled throughout Canada and would be able admirably to direct the operations of such a commission.
An objection has been made so often in this chamber that it does not need repeating, concerning the appointment of Mr. Maher from Quebec. But those who know anything about what he has done since he has been appointed all agree he has acquitted himself admirably, and is a first rate official in every respect. I will say this, frankly,-I said it before, and I say it now-it is one of those unfortunate circumstances that he had been actively interested in political matters before he was appointed. That may make some of my friends opposite, as the hon. member for North Waterloo said, look upon him with suspicion. But I will challenge any hon. member of this house to say or to show that in the conduct of the duties and obligations of his position he has in any sense been political in any way, Shape or form. I say that very frankly, because I think if ever a man desired earnestly to make for himself a reputation, and a reputation of which he might be proud, it is Mr. Maher.
There is your commission,

your technician, your chairman and your vice-chairman. There you have the problem, with this great country to the south with 120,000,000 people, and with all its powerful stations. You know the network of them,-the one outside of New York city, the very powerful one at Schenectady, the one at Cincinnati, then down the western coast, and as far as Texas. We have the one across the Texas boundary with strength sufficient to produce interference even in this country. There is your situation.
I say, sir, to my friends in this house that before this commission was organized, and there was no control of the national business of broadcasting, we were rapidly heading for chaos. Why? Because with the confusion of wave lengths, channels, and conditions incident to the very powerful stations just across an imaginary line, you have a situation which, unless it is taken up and dealt with firmly will mean what the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) described,-not only chaos, but a condition in which you are trying to repair your house and live in it at the same time. No one knows better than I, because I have endeavoured to follow this matter with care, being most anxious to preserve this broadcasting business for the Canadian people, the unpopularity for the moment of this commission. But I do ask the members of this house to be fair. I ask men who have had experience in business to be fair. We have been told this afternoon that there is no need of this house having experts about anything, therefore I know I am speaking to men who are experts in business as well as other matters -knowing that as I do, I ask any hon. member of this house whether he thinks it is quite fair, remembering that Colonel Steel did not get back from Madrid until the first part of this year, to launch such a campaign of attack against this commission as we have had here to-day? Would you think it fair in regard to any business that you were asked to reorganize? Which one of us asked to reorganize a business would make attacks at the end of a few months on the position in which the business then stood? I have watched this thing with care, and I propose to do so because I am tremendously interested in its success; for if it fails the whole principle of the people owning this great facility will have been destroyed. Colonel Steel assured me that undoubtedly in connection with our international agreements, in connection with working them out, in connection with the fact that we are trying to follow an orderly course prescribed by international agreement to bring

Radio Broadcasting Act

a measure of order out of chaos-and I use that word in no way offensively or critically- the discharge of that duty would take time. In the report of the committee three to five years was mentioned, but in less than that number of months we have this attack launched in the terms in which it has been made to-day against this commission. I ask, Mr. Speaker, if the members of this house will not be a little fairer in dealing with this problem-because it is a problem. We have selected an instrumentality, and having selected that instrumentality let us give it a chance.
Now I come to the first point, the question of staff and personnel. Is it the desire of this house that the broadcasting commission should be required in the first instance to go to the Civil Service Commission to ask whether or not they may employ this or that band, this or that orchestra, this or that artist? That is the very negation of the principles and purpose for which this commission came into being.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No one would suggest that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what we are trying to remove by this section.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: You are going much further than that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it does go further,
and I am coming to that. Then we come to the question of technical officials. I think it is abundantly demonstrated that when you ask the Civil Service Commission with respect to technical officials they will tell you that they have no further information than the commission has itself. We are endeavouring in the bill to provide for broadcasting throughout the nine provinces. We desire to have powerful stations-for while this country has only 10,000,000 people and our neighbours have 120,000,000 odd, we have just as much air as they have-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
M:r. BENNETT: Well, I was referring not to vacuum but to space. Leaving that for the moment I desire only to make it clear that what we are earnestly endeavouring to do is to provide that if it is thought desirable to lease a station, this organization of ours should not foe destroyed in the very beginning of its life by having to wait until parliament comes together to authorize it.
When this measure was introduced in the terms it was last year, as the right hon. leader of the opposition has properly observed, we believed that parliament should exercise con-
TMr. Bennett.]
trol in respect of capital expenditure. But in practice it is found to .be desirable that within the limits of their income the commission should be able to lease or purchase with the consent of the governor in council. What are the safeguards? First, lack of funds. All the money they have is that which they get from the sale of licences plus what they receive from advertising and .the sale of programs. What is the difference between the radio commission conducting its business in this way, with revenue derived from licence fees and the sale of programs and advertising, and the liquor commission buying and selling liquor in any province of Canada? What is the difference, as the hon. member for North AVaterloo says, between it and the Canadian National? That is an instrumentality of government at the present moment, because we own it; it is a corporation which we have created by statute of this parliament to discharge a great public service.


Eugène Fiset: Will the Prime
Minister permit a question? Why then the dual system of having part of the money voted by parliament and the other part not voted? I -have no objection if you leave the entire revenue of the radio commission in the hands of the commission to be administered, but do it either one way or the other.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman
will let me finish what I am saying now I will try to meet his difficulty at the end of my observations, because I made a note of it as he went on.
Under those circumstances we have the safeguard of the limitation of revenue. And you have the provision for the approval of the governor in council in order to be certain that the expenditures made for purchases ot leases shall not exceed .the revenue received.
The other point dealt with referred to the mere matter of the change of the word "and" to "or." But I want to make a further observation. It has been reiterated, and I cannot help but think that those who are reiterating it have not the interests of national broadcasting so much at heart, that parliament has been voting a million dollars of the taxpayers' money to the broadcasting commission. If this house earnestly desires to save this business for the Canadian people, I cannot too strongly emphasize the fact that the million dollars voted is a million dollars paid by those who take out licences. There is not a dollar of taxes in that amount; every dollar of it represents money received from a select class, namely the licensees under the statute.

Radio Broadcasting Act
There is a criticism which one hon. gentleman started to make and did not complete, namely, that prior to this commission coming into being certain work was done with respect to collecting the licences on commission, and matters of that kind. In course of time I am satisfied that these difficulties will be ironed out and the obstacles removed to which reference was to be made. It will be the earnest desire of the government that they be removed and that there be single control with respect to these matters. But it takes time; it cannot be done in a single day.
I have this point to make to the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset). I realize that last year a committee made a report to this house, which with the exception of a single member was accepted by all. It is my most earnest desire that the radio business should come back to that position where as one voice we speak our determination to maintain it as a national undertaking. I am certain we can do it only by bringing about a common understanding and an earnest desire to have success follow the efforts of those to whom we have entrusted this work. I therefore suggest that the house pass this bill; that it limit its operation to the first of July, 1934, that we then call into being at the next session a committee to which this whole matter may be referred, in order that the house once more may speak for the whole nation and not for any party with respect to a matter of this kind. I confess that I felt somewhat distressed this afternoon to find all the opposition coming from my hon. friends across the gangway. I cannot think that that is in the interests of this great national undertaking.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No words that I can use would exaggerate what I conceive to be the importance of this matter in relation to the body politic. I look upon it as one of the foremost means of education that the world has ever known, and I believe we must not permit it to be destroyed either by political differences or by the insidious efforts of private interests to destroy public ownership of this utility.
I might have said this before had I made any remarks when the motion was made for the second reading of the bill; the delay is excused only by the reasons I have given. I believe it would have been preferable to send this bill to a committee so that it might have had an opportunity of again hearing Major Gladstone Murray's explanations as to why he came to the conclusions he did 53719-3095
with respect to this matter. But this I say in no too critical sense: When any government, after much solicitation, inconveniences itself as well as its instrumentality, the British Broadcasting Corporation, to secure the loan of one of our own distinguished sons, I think it is a little lacking in the courtesy that should be extended to him to have the criticisms and statements made that we heard in this house with respect to that gentleman. I say that to my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), whose remarks were wholly unworthy of him, I think, on an occasion such as this.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the bill should be given second reading, and in reply to the suggestion of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) that it should be dropped I suggest that a clause be added providing that it shall expire on the first day of July, 1934. A committee will be appointed in due course to consider the matters here dealt with, and I cannot conceive that under those circumstances any great injury will be done to the Civil Service Commission or any other cause to which reference has been made to-day. During the interim we will provide an opportunity for those charged with the responsibility to discharge those obligations which the statute places upon them in the manner they desire, which will reflect credit upon themselves, I am sure, and give satisfaction to the Canadian people. Long before this commission came into being there were complaints with regard to radio reception in this city; it is well known that there are difficulties in the way of radio reception at particular points. All these problems are being studied, and I trust that they will be overcome. I hope we will sufficiently realize the importance of this matter not to confine our criticisms to purely political lines, but that an earnest effort will be made to promote the well being of radio broadcasting as a public utility in this dominion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With the consent of the house, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has made a certain proposal to which there is no opportunity of making any reply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That can be done in
committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then in the
meantime we shall vote against the measure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Very well; that was what we expected.
Radio Broadcasting Act


Mr. MacLEAN:: I	was paired, but I did not
know that my pair	was absent. I wish to
withdraw my vote.	
Mr. CHEYRIER	: I was paired with the
Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman).	
Had I voted, I would have voted against the	
motion for second reading.	

Radio Broadcasting Act
4S93


Paul Mercier: I was paired with the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.
Mr. ST.-PERE: I was paired with the hon. member for South Hastings (Mr. Tummon). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. TAYLOR:: I was paired with the hon member for Brantford City (Mr. Ryerson). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. SHORT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SIMPSON (West Algoma):: I was paired with the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. WHITE (London) :: I was paired with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BERTRAND:: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto Northeast (Mr. Baker). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Maurice Dupré: I was paired with the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Fer-land). Had I voted L would have voted for the motion.
Mr. tLARUE (Translation): I was paired with the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Thauvette). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. FOURNIER (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for ThreeJRivers-St-Maurice (Mr. Bourgeois). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. JEAN (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Thompson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Gobeil in the chair.
On section 1-Appointment and salaries of officers and employees.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to say a word, first, as to the understanding there was yesterday, when we agreed to allow the appropriation for the radio commission to pass, namely, that when the house was in
committee on the bill hon. members would have an opportunity to discuss any phase of the radio commission's affairs. I think the Prime Minister agrees.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. I asked to have the Minister of Marine here to-day with his assistant so that any questions that might be asked could be answered.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I take it therefore that it is open to hon. members to discuss any phase of the commission's affairs. At the moment we are on section 1. The Prime Minister suggested, on the second reading, and there was no opportunity to make reply before the vote was taken, that there should be added to the bill a clause to the effect that its provisions would be applicable only until the first of July, 1934. Of course, the addition of such a clause would be a mere subterfuge, it. would simply enable the commission to go ahead and make all appointments under this section we are now discussing, without reference to the Civil Service Commission.
The Prime Minister devoted most of his speech to pointing out the absurdity-I think that is the word that might be used-of consulting the Civil Service Commission as to who should be appointed as a singer, as to her voice, the size of her shoes and in general the equipment of artists before anyone should be engaged. No one in the world would think of asking the radio commission to go before the Civil Service Commission for any such purpose. So far as artists are concerned, unquestionably the radio commission should have in its own hand the determination of selections, irrespective of the Civil Service Commission. What we are now asked to do however is not merely to give the radio commission the right to select artists independently of the Civil Service Commission but to appoint the administrative staff, officials, clerks, stenographers and employees generally who may be required, and to make such appointments regardless altogether of the Civil Service Commission. Now, the commissioners who have all been appointed by the present administration are Conservatives.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. Mr. Bland was never known to be a Conservative.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am speaking of the radio commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought the right hon.
gentleman said the Civil Service Commission.
Mr, MACKENZIE KING:	If I did T
meant the radio commission. All the appointees are Conservatives and this house is

Radio Broadcasting Act
now asked to agree to these Conservative appointees making such appointments as are necessary under the radio commission, and for all time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, until the first of
July.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, until the first of July, 1934, and that means that within that time all possible and necessary appointments will have been made. May I suggest to the Prime Minister an arrangement which I think would be fair? Let him designate the classes of persons whom one could not reasonable expect to be appointed by the Civil Service Commission and with respect to whom the radio commission should have the determining voice, and ask that these positions be exempted from the Civil Service Act. I have not had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the members of my own party, but if the right hon. gentleman is reasonable in that regard I venture to say we shall be prepared to accede to reasonable exemptions from the Civil Service Act. We cannot, however, agree to remove from the Civil Sendee Act the appointment of stenographers and clerks generally as well as others who may hold positions corresponding to those in the public service at large. Unless such an arrangement as I suggest is adopted, it will be making of the radio commission a purely political machine. The Prime Minister says that he does not wish to do that. This is an opportunity to test the sincerity of his word in that regard.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Just immediately before the vote the Prime Minister suggested that this would apply for only one year. It does not seem to me that that was a very good way in which to try to influence the vote of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not think there would be a vote at the time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I for one could not be induced to vote in favour of the bill under the circumstances. As the Prime Minister made his speech immediately preceding the vote, we had no chance to discuss the proposition he advanced. It does not seem to me that the proposal suggested of waiting one year is a good one. Once these men are appointed they will have a certain claim upon the government. We could not very well dismiss the whole staff at the end of a year and disorganize the commission, so it seems to me that now is the time to settle the principle involved. I voted against this bill because I believe the clause before us is

an infringement of the rights and privileges of the Civil Service Commission. Again and again we have seen groups of employees taken out from under this commission. The Prime Minister has suggested that it would be absurd to ask the civil service commissioners to indicate who would be the singers and other professional performers, but I do not think anyone suggests that that be done. I recall that I asked a question a few weeks ago as to how many appointments had been made under the Civil Service Commission to the radio commission. I am not quite sure of the answer, but I think it was that one stenographer had been appointed. It seems to me that the Prime Minister's difficulty is more of an excuse than anything else.
Personally, I do not like the idea of proceeding to build up a patronage system. I voted for the bill last year because I believed in the public ownership of radio. I think we all did. We believed in the building up of a nationally owned and nationally operated radio system but I am afraid that it is developing into simply a Conservative owned and a Conservative operated affair.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is just what it is.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am afraid of it. Instructions have recently been issued according to the press that manuscripts of speeches must be submitted before permission to broadcast will be given. Apparently the papers have received their information from the radio commission. These instructions state that nothing must be said derogatory to the powers that be. I cited a case the other day where a man had been actually convicted in the city of Montreal for protesting against the action of the radio commissioners. It will be a very serious thing if we are to build up an organization which will have the powers of censorship. We all agree with the Prime Minister that radio is an institution of very great importance. We believe its educational value is veiy great and we understand that there must be some regulations with regard to who shall use the radio and what shall go out over the air, but I should like to feel that this censorship will be in the hands not of a group appointed by the party in power but of one consisting of disinterested men appointed by a disinterested body. I cannot see that we will be carrying out the original idea of public ownership if we allow this amendment to go through.
The Prime Minister bemoans the fact that there is not to-day the unanimity which prevailed a year ago. If there is not it is because of the actions of the present govern-

Radio Broadcasting Act
ment. If the government had made this organization non-partisan, I think it would have made a wide appeal to the people of this country. I know as far as I am concerned, I would be ready to do everything in my power to give added strength to the commission. But one hesitates to do that under these circumstances. I am in favour of public ownership and I am also in favour of appointments being made through the civil service; I am in favour of the public having all the advantages of a publicly controlled and operated institution such as radio but I fear the development of an institution which will have the powers of censorship and which will be under the contrdl of one political party. We are talking redistribution and an election is in the air. What will happen at the next election if there is to be a censorship as to what shall be sent over the radio? The government has not yet given a clear-cut statement with regard to matters of that kind. If the papers are correct in stating that manuscripts of speeches must be first placed in the hands of the commission, I can see where we will encounter many difficulties.


Ernest Lapointe: Everybody will.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Everybody will be
getting into great difficulty.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think Mr. Maher would accept mine.
Mr. 'WOODSWORTH: I think we can all foresee that. Under these circumstances I do not think we should safeguard these matters a year hence, they should be safeguarded now when appointments to the commission are being arranged for. The Prime Minister has made an appeal to us on this side heartily to support radio. I would like to make an appeal to him that he put this matter in such shape as will enable us to support it heartily. I think the suggestion made by the right hon. the leader of the opposition that a clear distinction should be made between those who are to be appointed to manage radio affairs and the artists and the technical experts is a reasonable one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The section could be
allowed to stand and I will consult the Civil Service Commission to see if a clause cannot be drawn up to meet the situation.


Alan Webster Neill: I should like to ask one question before this section is withdrawn, and it is not in connection with this particular policy. I should like to know from the minister what his policy would be in a situation such as this; the Vancouver musicians' mutual protective union recently passed a resolution which I will
summarize briefly. They have heard that it is the intention of certain people to endeavour to influence the radio commission to appoint a national broadcasting symphony orchestra to have its headquarters in the city of Toronto. Naturally they object to that because they think that in these days of unemployment the work should be distributed throughout the country. As an evidence that the Vancouver musicians are capable of rendering work of that kind I have a cutting here from I think the Toronto Saturday Night of October 9 last, saying that "the broadcast by the Vancouver symphony orchestra proved a revelation of the musical talent available in British Columbia." So that, shows that they are competent to do work of that kind. I just want to know that it is not the intention to monopolize the whole thing by one hook-up from Toronto, but that on the other hand our local musicians in the various centres throughout the country will have an opportunity to produce themselves and display their artistic abilities.


Alfred Duranleau: I think I covered that point this morning. It is the intention of the radio commission to employ artists in almost every city in Canada in order to give our young musicians and artists an opportunity to show what they can do, and to give a chance to everybody.


Onésime Gagnon: Section stands.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: No, Mr, Chairman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have agreed to let the section stand, and I will consult with the Civil Service Commission and see if a clause can be drawn which will meet the suggestions that have been made.


The CHAIRMAN:: Section stands.


William Richard Motherwell: No. Mr. Chairman. I want to talk on it. It is bad enough to have my hearing denied without being imposed upon. I think I have a right to be heard. I haven't had a word to-day at all. I did not intend to speak to-day but I do want to say a few words on section 1.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 2-Powers of commission.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Chairman, I
do not rise to speak as one who knows very much about radio. We had one in our house on the farm until we became too poor to
Radio Broadcasting Act

keep it in batteries. It is there now just to look at. It may not be much of an ornament, but it is a reminder of better days. Maybe we will be able to get batteries for it when conditions improve. But it does not require much knowledge of radio to be able to make some observations on section 2 of this bill.
At this point I should like to be permitted to indicate the tendency of the government's activities. So far as I can discern them, they are all in the direction of getting all the national services in their own hands-for tvhat purpose, we can only conjecture. In order to amplify my remarks in regard to this particular section, may I say that it would seem that they are providing for all appointments to be made outside the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission, thereby making the radio commission a political institution, if they so desire.
I managed to hear some of the remarks of the Prime Minister and they were deeply interesting to me. Not knowing much about radio, it was news to me to learn of the ease with which powerful stations can be established in the United States and drive less powerful stations in Canada off the map. If they can be established there, powerful stations could be established in this country that would drown out everybody else.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And cost a lot of money.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, it would take a lot of power, and it would cost a lot of money, but when politics is at stake, a little power here or there does not amount to much to a millionaire government when it comes to getting a monopoly of the air. But if this can be done in the United States, if their powerful stations drown us out and jam our instruments, what is to hinder the government of Canada, with all the power it will have with this radio system, with the government appointed commission all of whom are friends of the government-what is to hinder this government establishing a powerful radio station and putting all their opponents off the map?


Mr. PORTEOUS:: We never thought of
that.


William Richard Motherwell: Perhaps I am displaying ignorance about radio, but I do not know that I am. I am not displaying any ignorance as to the capacity of governments to do this kind of thing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You should know.


William Richard Motherwell: That is exactly
what was done by the government previous to 1893 in their election act provisions; I went 
through it, and I know. I do not need to be told; it is not something I have forgotten or that I have got from somebody else; it is something I know from practical experience as having been directed against myself.
May I illustrate right now some evidence of this? May I show what is going on now? I do not wish to make any assertions concerning the redistribution bill, but may I point out by way of illustration, to give emphasis to my remarks about radio, that the government is bringing down a redistribution bill which is the most ingenious and diabolical ever conceived by either man or devil.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Richard Motherwell: That is true. If
a government will hobble me and behead me, -I am just talking about myself as an illustration-mutilate me and crucify me under one bill, for absolutely political reasons, why can they not do it-


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gobeil):: I ask the hon. member to keep in order, and to speak to the section before the committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: [DOT] The hon. member's language is wholly unparliamentary-"diabolical" and "devil" and that sort of thing.


William Richard Motherwell: "Diabolical" is quite proper and parliamentary.


Samuel Gobeil: It is
absolutely out of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: On the point of order,
Mr. Chairman, I remember that once in the house I used the word "hell" and it was not ruled out of order.


William Richard Motherwell: I could use Stronger language. I think you had better leave my language alone, for fear it gets worse.


Samuel Gobeil: The
redistribution committee has not made a final report, and no comments should be made concerning it.


William Richard Motherwell: It does not have to be reported. The last map has been drawn, and I know what it contains.


Samuel Gobeil: Order,
please.


William Richard Motherwell: Then, we come to another illustration-by t'he way, if you are going to cut out illustrations to back up my statements, I am hamstrung; that is what is happening all along the line, and my good friend the chairman is going to join that parade.
MAY 11, 1933	4S97
Radio Broadcasting Act


Jean-François Pouliot: Have you not got figures
of speech?


William Richard Motherwell: What was done the other day by one of the most modest and mildest men in the government when the Indian bill was under discussion? Nobody needs to smile me off the map with regard to the object of this government in amending that bill. Under the authority given the government, that bill oould be the means of enfranchising Indians by the wholesale just before an election even.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Respect for age is something, but this nonsense should stop..


William Richard Motherwell: The Prime Minister does not need to look cross.


Ernest Lapointe: He says it is nonsense.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a shame, that is all.


William Richard Motherwell: First there is redistribution, with our heads already in the noose; all you have to do is pull the rope. Is that not so? The axe is suspended right over our heads. I am showing the tendencies of this government to prepare all along the line for an election, so that they may hobble, hamstring and cripple their opponents as much as possible, thereby making them relatively impotent for that great battle. They are winning as many outposts as possible in advance, tha't is what they are doing. Nobody can fool me on the signs of the political times. If the government does not like my exposing them, it is not my fault. It is my business to expose them, and to warn the people of what is happening. They tried out, in a small way, the political stunt on the penitentiary bill to grab off all appointments from the Civil Service Commission. The government is getting a fine stand-in with the big fellows in the militia. I know what can be done through the police-I know, mighty well. We have not had mounted police in the west for over fifty years without our knowing that if you have a political appointee at the head, considerable political work can be done through him.


Mr. ROBINSON:: You are talking from
experience, are you?


William Richard Motherwell: Theory, do you say? I say when you have your own or your party's hide ripped asunder by it, it is not a theory. Now we will get back to the bill. I have given some illustrations to show what is going on. After the franchise being won by our
forefathers a hundred or more years ago, partly through bloodshed, I object to hon. gentlemen opposite swiping it from me in broad daylight by any device, without a word of protest.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: You do not need to laugh. The man who laughs at that only displays his own ignorance, and he does not know anything about the political history of Canada, modern or remote.
Now, about this bill-but by the way, I have another illustration, the Canadian National Railways. What about them? We know about the legislation that has just passed-and all these things have happened in the last ten days. We know about the board of trustees, all appointees of the government. Did anybody ever hear of words being passed from the upper fellow, the man at the top, down all along the line, as to what the men at the bottom should do at election time? Anybody who has not heard of that should not be sitting in this chamber. He is too innocent to be living this side of the Jordan. There are three or four illustrations bearing directly on the political possibilities of this bill. Now my good friend the Prime Minister says it is nonsense for me to suggest-he himself put the thought in my mind-what could be done by these powerful radio stations. Did anyone in this house ever hear a more powerful, a more effective orator over the radio than my right lion, friend? I heard him in 1930 and I never heard his equal on the radio in my life. A clear, ringing voice-yes, I see he appreciates that-a clear, resonant voice, a wide vocabulary; he never needs to hesitate a moment for a word, as I have to, unfortunately. And he carried conviction because there was an element of sincerity in his voice that would deceive even the very elect. Put two or three speakers like that on a government radio system, with a powerful station that will jam off everyone else, and goodbye opponents-particularly if it is assisted by this gerrymandering bill already referred to if it is carried out; I do not know whether it will be or not. But there is only one thing lacking for a complete hamstringing and emasculating of the electors of Canada at the next general election and disfranchising them not by thousands but by hundreds of thousands, that is an election act such as we had in 1895 or that under the War Time Elections Act when every disputed ballot was put in an envelope and you had to prove at great expense that it was any particular candidate's vote. There is not one candidate in
Radio Broadcasting Act

fifty who is wealthy enough to stand the resultant expense. That is all that is lacking to make the government's election plans complete.
You will observe from my remarks that I do not know much about radio but I know a whole lot about Tories. I should know a lot about Tory tactics prior to elections; forewarned by past experience is forearmed, and I want to warn not only this house but the country at large what our good friends over there are preparing for us. What a commentary i't is on the lack of confidence they have in themselves or the electors when they have to resort to these devices to fool the people and try to ward off the verdict against them that is bound to come if things are permitted to run their natural course.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I had the misfortune of being called out of the chamber this afternoon and could not follow the speech of my right hon. friend. But fortunately I came back in time to receive his reprimand, I might even say his castigation, for having dared to say that Mr. Murray had been lecturing parliament in that interim report which was read this morning.


Alfred Duranleau: And that he should be sent home.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not remember having said that, but if I did not say it then I say it to-night. I quite agree with my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) ; my right hon. friend seems to be pleased or grateful for having had the loan of this gentleman, but I say we have too many loans of this kind. The Finance minister was saying the other day that we are still a borrowing nation; I knew that as regards finance, but I do not think we should borrow gentlemen from England o-r elsewhere to come and tell Canadians what they should do with their own national problems.
Mr. HACIvETT: He is a Canadian.


Ernest Lapointe: He is not living in Canada now.
Mr. HACIvETT: He has been absent a short time.


Ernest Lapointe: Is it lacking in courtesy to resent its being said to members of this parliament that parliament should not have control in this matter, that, according to this gentleman, parliament is not qualified for that sort of work? Is it lacking in courtesy to resent that? I think my right hon. friend
wrong; his criticism should be directed the (Mr. Motherwell.]
other way. Moreover he should defend parliament and the members of the house against the language of the chairman of his radio board, who has said somewhere that any man who thinks that the radio commission is not doing what should be done is either a liar or a fool.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the hon. gentleman
authority for that Statement?


Ernest Lapointe: I saw it in the newspapers.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have received no evidence of it, but in view of what was said here I am writing to ask what wias actually said.


Ernest Lapointe: I am pleased that my
right hon. friend will try to remedy grievances of members of the house, and not resent too much the defence we have to put up against the reflections of this gentleman and others who are borrowed from elsewhere to come and tell us how to solve the problems of Canada.
There is one matter, however, as to which I agree with my right hon. friend; it is deplorable that there is no longer unanimity in this house-and I might say elsewhere-with regard to radio affairs in Canada. But whose fault is that? I have said that I have no confidence in the present commission, and I believe that the majority of the Canadian people have no confidence in it. Who is responsible for that? I am not responsible. I think the appointments to the commission were unfortunate. I think that what has happened since the commission has been appointed also is unfortunate, and that is the real cause of the unpopularity of that board with the 'Canadian people at the present time. My hon. friends the Minister of Marine and the Solicitor General have replied to me on the basis of statements I did not make, but I wish to refer to one argument of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine. I criticized, and I still criticize, the issuing of a licence to a newspaper in Montreal for radio broadcasting a month after the appointment of the commission, and two days before they were sworn in, without the matter being submitted to the commission. The very fact that this has been done is an indication that the government did not keep faith with the house and wanted to evade the provisions of the Radio Broadcasting Act. Under that act, section 8, it is the duty of the commission to determine the number, location and power

Radio Broadcasting Act
of stations required in Canada. And by subsection (c):
The commission may make recommendations to the minister with regard to the issue, 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.
What I more particularly object to is not the issuing of the licence to that newspaper, had it been done in the regular way by the commission or upon the recommendation of the commission. What I object to is that the licence was issued between the appointment of the commission and the swearing in of its members. My horn, friend the Minister of Marine said: well, it is a Conservative newspaper and it is a good thing that both parties have their stations. Surely this house would not subscribe to such a policy, that there should be an allotment of broadcasting stations in Canada on political lines, so many for the Conservatives, so many for the Liberals. The house never contemplated that when we adopted tire Radio Broadcasting Act.


Alfred Duranleau: In your time it was
only the Liberals.


Ernest Lapointe: Never. What Liberal
station ever did that?


Onésime Gagnon: La Presse, the Toronto
Star and others.


Ernest Lapointe: I never understood La
Presse to be a Liberal newspaper. Let me say that at election times, and at other times as well, I have heard speeches delivered by hon. gentlemen opposite over the La Presse station. That never has been considered a Liberal station. From La Patrie I think almost every day we have talks by gentlemen who call themselves Labour-Conservatives or others who represent an organization called the Federation of Labour, which is merely a Tory association, as all hon. gentlemen opposite know. I still say, Mr. Chairman, that to divide the licences in Canada on political lines, so many to one party and so many to another, is a wrong principle that cannot be accepted or subscribed to by this house.
There was another thing said toy hon. gentlemen opposite in defence of this act; they say that Toronto had four broadcasting stations and it was not right that Montreal should have only two. What advantage is there in having so many broadcasting stations? It merely brings about confusion. I do not think it is of any benefit to the community that there should be several small stations; I do not think there should be a
competition as between Toronto and Montreal or Vancouver and Winnipeg as to the number of stations in each city. Rather I think good service and quality should be looked for in the organization of radio broadcasting.
My hon. friend from Dorchester, who was one of the members of the committee last year, said that committee had reported that stations of less than one hundred watts should not come under the commission. Whatever may have been contained in the report of that committee it is the law which governs in the matter, and there is nothing in the broadcasting act accepting the report of the committee in this regard; all stations come under the radio commission.
There is another point to which I should like to direct attention. Some hon. member who discussed this question to-day praised himself and the house for having had the support of the radio league in this matter, and the name of Mr. Graham Spry was mentioned in this connection. I knew the radio league had suggested that instead of a board appointed by the government and paid for its services there should be a sort of honorary board on which all sections of the country and of the community would be represented by men who would be willing to serve without expense to the country, and the real executive work should be entrusted to a general manager. That was the program suggested by the radio league. In the April 27th issue of the Weekly Sun, which is edited by Mr. Graham Spry, who was the president of the league, I see an article headed "The Radio Commission". I am not going to read it all, but here is part of what Mr. Spry says:
The Canadian Radio League proposal, first advanced in detail in the Queen's Quarterly, January, 1931, provided for a voluntary commission to which a competent and experienced general manager would be responsible for the practical details of administering broadcasting. In this way, the formulation ot policy would have been separated from its administration, as in the case of a company with its board of directors and its general manager and staff. There would have been the additional advantage that the voluntary board, selected by consultation between the three parties, would have represented different parts of Canada, would have been independent of partisan interest, and in a position to resist partisan pressure. This is the British scheme, and the British board, rather than the government, are held responsible for administration, thereby saving the government from criticism for the acts of its semi-autonomous commission.
The government of Canada, however, saw fit to establish a commission that combined the formulation of policy with its administration; then it appointed a commission, one of whose members was a former Conservative organizer. Subsequent acts and appointments of the com-
Radio Broadcasting Act

mission, rightly or wrongly, were taken by the public and the opposition parties to be partisan. The radio commission, therefore, became subject to political pressure and party criticism.
And so on. I think there was much to commend itself in the proposal of the radio league; certainly we would have avoided the situation in which we find ourselves to-day. My right hon. friend does not like it; no one likes it. We all supported the idea of nationalizing the radio, of public ownership; there was never such unanimity in the house as when the bill was made law during the last session of parliament. We were told by the right hon. gentleman that politics would not enter into appointments to the board which was to be created to administer radio affairs, but unfortunately we think faith has not been kept so far as that promise and that pledge are concerned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We say that politics has not entered into it.


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot understand my right hon. friend when he says that politics did not enter, when he has put there to represent a large section of the community a man who not only was his candidate in the last election but who has been the organizer of his party for three or four elections. So far as I am concerned I do not believe that man can administer radio affairs in my district impartially. I do not trust the radio commission, as it is now constituted, for the next general election or for any other matter in my district. It is a sad condition in which to find myself; I should prefer to have confidence in that board. I agree with my right hon. friend that confidence is necessary for the success of radio broadcasting in Canada, but if confidence is lacking we are not responsible; the government is responsible, and I am sorry to say that until that condition is corrected it will be impossible for the people of Canada to get along well with the board which is in control of radio broadcasting, and until that condition is created we shall not have success or harmony.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Mr. Chairman, the 'hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) lias no objection to an exclusively conservative or liberal station, and he is quite right; however, there are people who are in a more unfortunate position than that; some have no station. I wish to apprise the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) of what happened to me. As Coppee would say: My story, gentlemen on the bench will be brief. Once, for my good or ill fortune, I delivered a speech, at Montmagny, on the Imperial

economic agreements, and some enthusiastic person-there are always some-requested me to repeat it in Quebec. During two months, I received from station CHRC dilatory replies, followed by an absolute refusal; they gave no excuse or reason. I wish to inquire from the hon Minister of Marine, whether persons holding government licences to operate broadcasting stations have a right to refuse a private individual the use of their station, providing he does not offend public decency or order-I felt that I had offended neither the one nor the other-and providing that, in requesting the use of the station for half an hour, he gives them sufficient notice, such as a week, two weeks or even two months. My notice covered two months. I am totally at a loss to know why the gentleman refused me. I put a question on the order paper, two weeks ago, to ascertain the names of the owners of that station.


Ernest Lapointe: Was it station CHRC that refused?
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	It was
station CHRC. The hon. member for Quebec East was more fortunate than I was because I listened to a splendid speech of his, broadcasted from station CHRC. I was unable to even put in a word. I wish to inquire whether these stations are under the government's control and whether they have a right, proprio moter, to prevent a citizen or even a representative of the people, as, for instance, the hon. member for Temiseouata (Mr. Pouliot), from addressing a larger audience than the usual one. Friends of the Conservative cause had requested me to repeat that speech in Quebec. You will always come across people that are more Catholic than the Pope. Evidently, in the eyes of these gentlemen of the CHRC station, I was guilty of heresy, if not in fact at least potentially. That is, I presume, the only reason which can be advanced for this refusal. So far as the merit of the ideas expounded, my speech was delivered in Montmagny before a highly intellectual and select audience, comprising representatives of the State and Clergy. Nobody was Shocked. What I wish to know is whether these stations have a right to refuse, proprio moter, the use of their broadcasting stations, according to their whiffs and whims.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri) (Translation):: May I put a question to the hon. member? According to rumour, was not the vice-president of the Radio Commission, in the past-previous to his appointment-one of the directors of the CHRC broadcasting station?

Radio Broadcasting Act
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	I am
aware that he was. That, perhaps, may throw some light on the CHRC station's refusal to grant my request, because it is no secret, I have no reason to conceal it, I did not recommend the appointment of the present vicepresident. I considered that there were persons, such as Notary Montreuil, of Quebec, and many others eminently qualified to fill that post. The appointment having been made, I do not intend to discuss it, I have no reason to approve or champion it. I simply expressed my views, at the time.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: There is
another broadcasting station at Quebec; the CKCV station.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	I had
applied to the CHRC.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: That is, to
the "Soleil"!
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	That was
bad enough; I had, first, applied to friends of the hon. member for Quebec Montmorency (Mr. Dorion), I was certainly not going to apply to a broadcasting station belonging to gentlemen who are really no friends of the hon. member for, Quelbec-Montmorency. There must be at this station persons very broad-minded as regards the distribution of patronage, but very narrow-minded as regards individuals who are conceited enough to honour the broadcasting station with their presence.
I have put a question to the hon. Minister of Marine....


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Did you apply to -the Canadian Broadcasting Commission to obtain redress?
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	Certainly.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Did they refuse you?
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	They
replied that it was none of their business.


Alfred Duranleau: I understand that the hon. member for Mont-magny (Mr. LaVergne), wants an answer. This is the first time that I hear about the refusal of this station to broadcast my hon. friend's speech.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	I am not
criticizing the minister.


Alfred Duranleau: I am amazed at this refusal, because usually stations are delighted to broadcast the always interesting speeches of the hon. member. However, it must be noted that the station referred to, the CHRC, is owned by a private company, it is a private broadcasting station-
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Quite so.


Alfred Duranleau: -which was granted its licence for the period of twelve months, last year; and, 6, months this year, that is, since the new regulations are in force. Broadcasting stations must be operated according to the regulations of the Radio Commission. With this exception, the stations are independent of the Minister of Marine and the Radio Commission.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): That is what I wished to find out.


Alfred Duranleau: I hope that my hon. friend will be more fairly dealt with in the future, not only by that station but by all stations, because Canadians, as a rule, are always delighted to listen to the always very interesting remarks of the hon. member for Montmagny.
My hon. friend inquired as to the directors of the company which owned that broadcasting station. I have not yet this information. The hon. member recently put that question on the order paper and I immediately requested that this station furnish me with the facts of the case. As soon as I get a reply, I shall be pleased to get in touch with my hon. friend.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): That is what I wished to know. I have no reproach to make to the hon. Minister. I am aware that the Radio Commission is practically independent. I want to find out whether the broadcasting stations are independent of the Commission or whether they come under its jurisdiction. It seems to me extraordinary that the Radio Commission would grant a licence to a public station, which has a public franchise, and that this station would simply be the organization of one group or one party, or two parties-not of three or four. I would think that having obtained a franchise from the people, they are there to cater to the public, therefore, the Radio Commission should have over these stations a more efficient and complete control. If not, the commission would not serve the purpose for which it was created.
A broadcasting station-the hon. Minister stated-is owned by an independent corporation, and I understand, aocording to his remarks, that a station has absolute control of its program and the broadcasting hours placed at the disposal of the public.
Radio Broadcasting Act

Mr. DURANI/EAU (Translation): Absolutely, providing it observes the regulations of the commission. For instance, an advertisement must not occupy more than 5 per cent of the time allotted to the program.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): In this case, it might, perhaps, be necessary to amend the Radio Broadcasting Act, in this respect.
I am very much of the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Quebec East, because in fact, that might lead to tyranny or partiality and this would totally fall short of the aim which we had in view when creating the commission. The radio broadcasting stations are established to cater to the public, the moment they observe our constitution, our laws-


Ernest Lapointe: Peace and good order.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): -public peace, good order and decency; they are there to serve the public and to be at its disposal.
I wish to state that we have, at Montmagny, a small station owned by Mr. Marquis, a Liberal, who takes an active part against me during electoral campaigns, however, he is a loyal opponent who is always pleased to put his station at the disposal of any one, of any party, among others, ,of the member for Montmagny. The latter does not always help him, however, he understands the reason, the purpose for which he has this station and that it is the government which grants him his licence.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	Hear!
Hear!
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	I wish to
draw the attention of the minister and the commission to this fact in order that it may help him to obtain a more powerful broadcasting station, because he often broadcasts to the whole of lower Quebec, while the Quebec station is unable to reach that section of the country.
I suggest to the minister that there is ground to amend the act. The owners of broadcasting stations are public servants, because radio is almost a public utility-they hold a franchise-therefore, they are there to serve the public, and not to satisfy their petty spites, their personal views-
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	Hear!
Hear!
Mr. LaVERGNE. (Translation):	-their
preferences. I, for one, strongly criticize the CHRC station of Quebec, not because it affects me but because it affects others. I
[Mr LaVergne.]
often had the occasion of broadcasting my speeches, speaking both in front and behind the broadcasting mouthpiece. What does one speec-h more or less-I would gladly dispense making them. I think it most unfair of this station and a renewal of its licence should be refused to them. That is why I wish to find out who are the owners, because, when I have their names, I shall have quite a lot to say as regards having this intolerable state of things redressed.


Ernest Lapointe: I wish, sir, to support the attitude taken by the hon. member for Montmagny. If the government has full control of radio in Canada, then the commission, the authorities in charge must see that everybody has fair play, so far as radio service is concerned. The moment that a public man does not express subversive views against public order or peace, I think he is entitled to obtain from radio stations, holding a government licence and under the control of the commission, that his speech or utterances be broadcasted by Canadian public Stations. The reason we established government control over radio, was so that everybody would be dealt fairly and justly, and I entirely agree with the hon. member for Montmagny in his remarks to the house.


Mr. HACKETT:: The hon. member for Quebec East has told the house that the radio commission does not possess his confidence.
I think it rather unfortunate that a body occupying as important a post as that confided to this commission should, before it has really entered upon its duties, be accused by a man of the high position of the former Minister of justice of being entirely unworthy of the confidence of the country, and I think also it is extremely unfortunate that no allegation is made in support of the charge. It is true that the hon. gentleman singled out for his own personal charge the vice-president, and forsooth he said, "I cannot have any confidence in this man nor can anyone else have confidence in him because-heinous offence- he was on some occasion a Conservative candidate."


An hon. MEMBER:: The only reason.


Mr. HAOKETT:: He goes further and says that this man has added to the crime by having been a Conservative organizer. I believe that the hon. gentleman is accurate in stating as a fact that the vice-president of the commission did at some time have something to do with politics. I should hate to think however that every member of this chamber is unfitted for any honourable post

Radio Broadcasting Act
because at some time he had sought and been found worthy of the confidence of the electorate of some constituency. I consider it most unfortunate that a distinguished member of this chamber should wish to point to every man in this house and say that because he has at some time been a partisan he is unworthy of high office. If he is going to apply that rule to this and other countries, what esteem can he have for the bench, what esteem can he have for the incumbent of any office that is worth holding?-because in democratic countries positions of high trust are invariably given to those who seek, and show themselves worthy of, the confidence of the people. I reiterate therefore that to say, without substantiating the statement, without bringing forth anything to justify such a charge, that this body which has recently come into office is unworthy of public confidence, designates, I fear, a type of mind and a partisanship which detract from the value of the judgment uttered in those words of condemnation. The hon. member says that Bill Murray should go home- and I speak of Bill Murray because he was at McGill with me, a boy from British Columbia, an active, energetic lad who has made his way in the world and is welcomed not only to Canada but to other countries where expert radio advice is sought; he is called in because he is supposed to know more about the technique of radio development than anyone else. When the hon. member refers to that gentleman as a stranger, and harks back to .that cry that is sometimes heard in the back ranges, that he is a foreigner-


Ernest Lapointe: I never said that. Be fair; I never said that.


Edward Hackett: I am perfectly willing to retract.


Ernest Lapointe: You are carried away by your own eloquence.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take your medicine.


John Thomas Hackett: The hon. gentleman said that we did not require any assistance or guidance from outside.


Ernest Lapointe: That is not saying he is a foreigner.


John Thomas Hackett: If this government has fallen into that evil habit it has only fallen a victim to the bad example set by its predecessor. I will ask hon. gentlemen opposite where they went to get that lamented man who recently passed from us and who for some years headed our national railway system. Where did he come from? Then, if I remember well, there was a gentleman who came, not from Vancouver, not from
Montreal or Toronto, a gentleman who had something to do with the investigation of conditions in the maritimes and whose name I believe was Sir Andrew Rae Duncan. Where did he come from? Who summoned him here from Scotland? If I remember well, there was also a report made with regard to the Hudson Bay terminal, a vast and costly report which was made by a most skilled and able man. He did not come from Toronto or Montreal, he came from England; his name was Sir Frederick Palmer.


Ernest Lapointe: I think that was a mistake.


John Thomas Hackett: It may have been a mistake but I am willing to do the hon. gentleman and his friends justice by saying that they went where they thought they were able to get the best man they could. Now that is all that this government has done. Let us therefore be fair to the radio commission and realize that it is trying to become something of which we shall all be proud. Let us give it a fair chance.


Onésime Gagnon: I will not detain the committee very long, but I want to say a few words with respect to this small station in Quebec which seems to have incurred the displeasure of my hon. friend from Montmagny A few minutes ago my hon. friend from Quebec East, when speaking about the radio broadcasting commission, reproached me for having quoted the report which was made last year by the committee that sat on radio broadcasting matters. I shall quote not only the report of the radio committee but also the law. I refer my hon. friend to chapter 51 of the statutes of 1932. Subsection (g) of section 8 of the act reads:
The commission may, subject to the approval of the minister, assist and encourage the construction of small private stations.
But it is known that these small private stations of 100 watts and under remain the property of the owners. They may not be taken into the national scheme of radio broadcasting and will not be subject to the control of the Minister of Marine or the broadcasting commission except so far as programs and licences are concerned. It is a well known fact that the two small stations in Quebec city have not been taken over by the commission. In fact, no station in Canada has been taken over to form part of the national scheme of radio broadcasting. The commission contends that they cannot do this unless the law is changed.
I come now to the speech of the hon. member for Montmagny. He does not seem to
Radio Broadcasting Act

like station CHRC, but I do not think this station can be accused of narrow partisanship. I think that is demonstrated by the fact that the hon. member for Quebec East broadcast a speech over that station about a month ago. This was the speech which the hon. member for Montmagny referred to as being wonderful. I will call it a seditious speech. I think one is entitled to his own views in this regard. The hon. member for Montmagny may have his own views, the hon. member for Quebec East may have his and I may have mine. I think it was absolutely unfair to insinuate that that station has been unfair or unjust to any particular party. One of the small stations in Quebec is the property of Mr. Vandry, a well known Liberal, while the other is owned by a company. There happened to be some Conservatives acting as directors of this company, but I do not think that that would be sufficient to prove that the company was unfair. My hon. friend saw fit to overlook Mr. Vandry's station and broadcast over CHRC. That is his business.


Ernest Lapointe: I did not refer to any
of these stations. My hon. friend is addressing me but I did not say a word about these stations.


Onésime Gagnon: I hope my hon. friend
will not be offended if I refer to his conduct. L'heure Provinciate is not a Conservative matter. It was organized by the provincial government, which has decided to use CHRC. That is further evidence that CHRC does not play politics; although the directors are Conservatives they have the patronage of the provincial government. The hon. member for Montmagny put a question on the order paper in connection with the directors of this company. He is a very distinguished lawyer and he knows that he could obtain this information from the provincial secretary, whose duty it is to disclose the names of directors of any provincial company. CHRC is carrying on under a provincial charter. The hon. member for Montmagny may have cause to complain about CHRC but he should not complain in this house or insinuate that the Minister of Marine has been unfair. That is not the case. CHRC is a provincially owned station and if for one reason or another-perhaps for unjust * reasons-the hon. member was not treated courteously, why did he not use the station of Mr. Vandry? The latter would have been much pleased to broadcast my hon. friend's speech. I think it is absolutely unfair to insinuate that station CHRC in Quebec city has been playing politics. If the hon. member for Montmagny has not been treated courteously by CHRC, this government cannot be
IMr. Gagnon.]
blamed. It is only the directors of that station that could be blamed. When the hon. member for Montmagny insinuates that the vice-chairman of the radio commission was connected with that station, I think he was unfair. He knows very well that when taking his oath of office the vice-chairman swore he had no interest in any station, and he has no interest in any to-day.
Mr. LaVERGNE : Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of treading on the corns of the hon. member for Dorchester; I am exceedingly sorry if he thinks I have done so, because I did not want to arouse his ire. However, I thank him personally although I do not know whether he has done such a good service for the Minister of Marine. I do not know whether the hon. member for Dorchester was speaking for the government, but he forces me to again get up to say a few words. My quarrel with station CHRC was settled absolutely and I was satisfied with the explanations given by the Minister of Marine. I understand he was not to blame and I have no quarrel with him. However, I thought that I should put this matter before the committee as in my opinion the situation created was absolutely unfair. In saying that I do not refer to my own personal feeling. When the hon. member for Dorchester has been in parliament as long as I have he will know that it is more of a pleasure than a sorrow to put speeches on the shelf. Apparently the hon. member is acting as an advocate for station CHRC and I must tell him that he seems to be better informed about that station than the minister. He accuses me of having attacked the vice-president of the commission, but I did not do anything of the kind. The hon. member for Quebec East asked me if he was an owner of that station before his appointment and I simply answered "yes". Whether or not he is now an owner, I do not know, but I suppose he is not.
I may say to the hon. member for Dorchester that in this affair station CHRC acted without courtesy, without honesty and without courage. For two months they gave me dilatory answers. They were going to be paid and paid with the money of good friends of the hon. member for Dorchester. These people were anxious to have the speech which had been given in Montmagny broadcast in Quebec, and they were willing to pay the station. The action of this station constituted a slur either on the Conservative party or on myself. If it was only on myself, I am none the worse off; I can stand these things, but I think they have acted most unfairly. This is a public utility, to serve the public, and if

Radio Broadcasting Act
no one had been concerned but myself I would not have mentioned the matter. They have been granted a franchise and 1 claim that they are there to serve the public.
If they have a right to refuse to serve the public then it is time the law was changed. They are not there to gratify their affections or their hatreds. They are there to put that station to the service of the public of Canada, that and nothing else, and if the law does not give the commission those powers, the law should be amended. If the law does give the commission those powers, that station should be reprimanded immediately because certainly we should be missing the aim in nationalizing radio if we allowed it to become a tool in the hands of those with influence or money enough to buy or rent a station. I do not care how many stations there are, and I do not care whether it is Liberals or Conservatives or Tories or Grits or anybody else that runs them; that is a matter of indifference to me, but I say that the people of this country have a right to the radio when they wish to hear it, and nobody can make me believe that station CHRC did not have half an hour to give to the hon. member for Montmagny, especially when people have told me that they received permission to broadcast for a whole hour the next day on only one day's notice. I have no hatred or love for that particular station; I am quite indifferent; I do not know who owns it, but I want to know who owns it if it is going to continue to be operated in that way. I want to know who got the licence and through what influence, and I want to see that they do not get a licence next year if they do not act differently.


William Richard Motherwell: If I may presume,
Mr. Chairman, to talk a second time before the ninth hour is up on a subject I do not know a great deal about, I should like to take just five or ten minutes more-and do no.t be too harsh, Mr. Chairman, on my homely illustrations because that is the way I talk.
While I do not know much about radio I should know a lot, without presumption, about Tory-o, and that is what I am talking about, if I may; and I think the chairman is going ,to let me. I should like to give another illustration of what can be done by a government that wants to do it, and apparently this is that kind of government. I want to point out how easy it is for the government to do it, and I am going to tell the Minister that I had it worked on me once 53719-310
not by means of the radio but by monopolizing the press for advertising purposes. I will tell that story first.
When I ran a federal election campaign against a Progressive candidate for the first time in 1919 in Assiniboia in southern Saskatchewan, I found w'hen I got into the constituency that every square inch of advertising space had been taken up in advance right through the election by my enterprising friends then called the Progressives. Imagine the helplessness of one going into a contest like that! Now if our innocent friends the Progressives will do that towards a brother farmer opponent, what won't the less innocent gentlemen now occupying the treasury benches do towards an opponent by means of the radio? The hon. member for Dorchester has talked about engaging a period of time on the air over a certain radio line or wave or whatever is the technical term, but we might find that the Liberals could not get on the air for six months to come. This government will know when an election is coming on six or four or two months before the writs are issued, and .they can have every wave and everything else that goes with it engaged right through the election.


Mr. SPOTTON:: They will have a wave of public opinion.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, over the left.
I know what my friends the Progressives worked on me in Assiniboia. I am not unduly suspicious when I suggest that the government might engage the radio in advance right through the election. A man would be worse than a fool who, having been burnt once, did not fight shy of fire a second time. So I say that I am not unduly suspicious. I am taking things as I find them and as 7 have found them for a half century, and they have not changed very much for the better during the last two or three years.
Here is something I cannot get over. I do not want to be too much at loggerheads with the Prime Minister, but he interjected a little time ago that what I was saying was nonsense. Well, let us see if what he was saying was not nonsense and actual bunk, and it is my business to debunk the right hon. gentleman. This radio commission had its foundations laid on party appointments. This commission is admittedly Conservative, and I am not finding fault with that as such. But good as it may be, and I know nothing about the gentlemen composing it, although I hear the chairman well spoken of-I understand that for a long number of years he was editor of Toronto Saturday Night, which I read occasionally because I rather like to

Radio Broadcasting Act

read it and find out what my opponents are saying. The foundations of the commission, then are admittedly Conservative and political; and how can you conceive that anything with a strictly Conservative foundation will be anything but Conservative? In other words, how can the superstructure be anything but political when the foundation is absolutely political? Is there a cackle over there? Did my hon. friends never hear about the principle of like begetting like? If the root be bad, what will the branches be? Unless something better is grafted on to the old root, the branches will be the same as the root; so I say that what the Prime Minister said about our criticisms was not only nonsense but it was absolutely asinine, the biggest bunk that I ever heard-to say that the foundation could be one thing and the superstructure something else absolutely opposite-neutral, non-political, with a Tory foundation. In saying that I do not want to be supercritical about the gentleman who occupies the position of chairman. The government has chosen that course, and it must not now pretend to be astonished because we expect the superstructure to be no better than the foundation. I think my conclusions are sound. I have not heard anybody get up since I spoke before and try to show that my other illustrations were not also sound. I invite anybody now to say how any government that wants to do it can be prevented from tying up the radio service in the way I have described, and just mark if it is not done.
It is only quite recently, Mr. Chairman, that the Conservative party in Canada has been noted to be friendly towards the nationalization of any utility. Everybody knows that the Canadian National was taken on by the government of that day because they did not know what else to do with it. Everybody knows that the present national radio system was taken over by this government because it was left in their lap by the preceding government. A commission had been appointed by the Liberal government to inquire into radio, headed by Sir John Aird, and the commission made a unanimous report prior to the retirement of the former government. Public sentiment was so strongly behind that report that when this government came into office it could not do otherwise than carry out the recommendations of the commission. The government made the most of it and accepted that report, and put its recommendations into operation with a magnificent speech on the general subject of nationalized air sendee by the right hon.

the Prime Minister. They did not like it particularly, because they are really only the foster parents. That is all they can claim to be of any of these great national utilities. Then why not turn the radio service to some further useful account, so that it could be used during an election? That is what they are going to do, do not make any mistake about it. They have not been slow in making use of other things, as I have ahead}"- described. The leopard, as a rule, does not change his spots, or the Ethiopian his skin, just over night. I promised to take only five minutes- six minutes, possibly-and that time has now expired. I do not believe I shall speak longer, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Expenditure of moneys.
Mr. COOTE:: Before the section carries I should like to say that I had not the privilege of being in the house during the whole discussion of this bill. I did hear part of the Prime Minister's speech and it was because of what he said that I voted for the second reading of the bill. After what the Prime Minister said I thought the bill should have second reading and be allowed to go before committee of the whole so we could find out what need there might be for section 1 of the bill. It seemed to me that the Prime Minister made a very good case, and that while we could not question him on the second reading of the bill we could do so in committee. If the broadcasting commission in Canada is to carry on properly it seems to me that at least some of the sections in the bill are necessary.
In my opinion the present unsatisfactory conditions in connection with our national radio are due largely to the personnel of the commission, and I make that statement with a great deal of regret. I do not object to the government appointing men on commissions who may have been Conservatives in the past. Of course, when picking men, they should not pick those who have been preeminently Conservative, or have taken an active part in political life. It is important that the men chosen for these positions should be chosen because of their qualifications for the job. Our Civil Service Commission does not bear the reputation it should because we have never been careful enough in choosing the commissioners. It may be that the government was careful in choosing the radio commissioners, but I do not think the personnel of the commission is what i't should be.

Radio Broadcasting Act
490V
If half the reports I hear are true, I believe they are going too far in their censorship. Since the house adjourned at six o'clock, I have been told that certain people cannot have the use of the radio dn Canada unless they first submit their manuscripts to the chairman of the commission, or some official of the commission, so that the commissioners may know exactly what is going to be said before the program is broadcast. That is going much too far. I do not believe the nationalization of radio twill ever become popular if that practice is followed.


Alfred Duranleau: Would (the hon. member allow a question? In what instance was that done?


George Gibson Coote: All I said was that since
the house adjourned at six o'clock I was told that that happened in one case. I cannot give the particulars.


Alfred Duranleau: Is that the Rutherford case?


George Gibson Coote: I understand that there was
another case. I do not believe any diplomacy has been shown in connection with the Rutherford case. Any man who is to be chairman of the radio commission in Canada should be particularly broadminded and have a bit of diplomacy in his make up. I am afraid that the experience of the present chairman of the radio commission in the position -which 'he formerly occupied did not fit him particularly for the job which be now holds. He was writing editorials for a certain publication in Toronto. I do not believe any man in this house would suggest that restraint was exercised in the criticisms contained in -the columns of that paper. He was a particularly critical editor. I have heard that remark passed very often about the gentleman in question-not that I have anything against him, but I do not think he was the ideal person to appoint to this very important position.
I hope the appointment will turn out all right, because I wish to see national radio a success. I believe that dt should be nationalized. But if it is to be autocratically controlled in what I believe to be a rather narrow minded manner-and I am willing to be corrected, if the chairman has not been as autocratic as we understand-it is not going to encourage the belief of the people of Canada in public ownership. Nationalization can be a success only if it is carried on in the proper manner. The essential thing in making a success of nationalization is to choose the right 53719-3105
type of men to control. I can only hope that because of the criticism which has been made in this house lately, much of which I believe is justified, the commission will be a little more careful in the way they conduct the business of radio in Canada.


William Daum Euler: I do not intend to make an address, but I should like to ask a question. During the rather interesting family squabble which took place on the other side of the house a few moments ago, I believe the hon. member for Dorchester made the statement that small radio stations of 100 watts or under are not subject to the control of the commission. I am quite sure that that is a mistake, and I should like the minister to confirm my opinion. I believe those stations are entirely under the control of the commission; if not, they should be.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member for Dorchester read only subsection (g) of section 8 of the act, which reads as follows:
The commission may, subject to the approval of the minister, assist and encourage the construction of small private stations.
There is no doubt that those small private stations are under the control of the commission.


Alfred Duranleau: I quite agree with what has been said by the hon. member for Quebec East. All the stations in Canada are under the control of the radio commission. They obtain their licences, and they have to comply with the regulations of the commission.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I should like to refer the minister to a question I asked him on April 28, on the orders of the day, in regard to the report of a speech that Mr. Hector Charlesworth, chairman of the radio commission, had made in Toronto on April 25. While I did not read the text of the speech, I gave in substance some of the statements the chairman was reported to have said. On that occasion the minister replied that he had no knowledge of the speech to which I had referred, but would look into the matter. I took the trouble to send across the floor of the house a copy of the Toronto Globe of that date, and the minister intimated to me by a nod of the head, at least, that he would look into the matter. I ask him now if he has read the speech, if he has taken it up with the chairman, and if he has endeavoured to discipline the chairman in regard to his utterances.
If the chairman of the committee will permit me I should like to state more fully the report to which I referred. The speech
Radio Broadcasting Act

was delivered in Toronto on April 25 in the Royal York hotel, before the advertising club. The chairman is reported to have said the following:
Vigorously defending the actions and policies of the Canadian radio commission before a meeting of the advertising and sales club in the Royal York hotel, chairman Hector Charles-worth yesterday challenged his opponents with the words of William Ernest Henley, "My head is bloody but unbowed." He declared that the commission would not deviate from the policies which it has formulated. "Anybody is a liar or a fool who says that radio in Canada is not in a better condition now than last year," he said.
"I have absolutely no apologies to make. We have a program which must be carried out. It is being carried out most economically. There is no doubt that the policies which the commission has adopted will soon be enforced in the United States," said the speaker.
I will not read any more, Mr. Chairman, but I should like to ask the minister, who I understand is in control of the commission and is the chief over the chairman of the commission; for no matter 'how eminent that chairman may be he reports or should report to the responsible minister of the department under which that commission functions-I ask the minister if he thinks that a public servant has a right to make a speech such as the chairman, of the radio commission delivered in Toronto that night? Has the minister taken up the question of that speech with the chairman of the commission, as he promised he would? Has he advised the chairman that in future he had better control what he says when he speaks in public in regard to 'the position he occupies?


Alfred Duranleau: Does my hon. friend suggest that the chairman of the radio commission should submit his manuscript to the minister before he makes a speech?


Frederick George Sanderson: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not, but I think the minister, as a responsible minister of the crown, when a public servant under him makes such a speech as Mr. Oharlesworth is reported to have made in the Royal York hotel at Toronto, should discipline him and tell him that in future he had better keep a bridle on his tongue.


Jean-François Pouliot: He should turn his tongue seven times around his whiskers before speaking.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I think
that ought to be withdrawn. There are certain amenities that should be respected. Has this parliament degenerated to that sort of

thing? I just leave it to you, sir. If a member can talk that way about a man who cannot defend himself on the floor of this house, about his whiskers, then all I can say is that this parliament has reached a low level.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, Moslems
consider the beard as sacred.


Mr. QUINN:: Sit down, you jackass!


Jean-François Pouliot: That sounds like Balaam's ass!


Ernest Lapointe: That is all right?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it is not.


Ernest Lapointe: Then you should protest.


Jean-François Pouliot: Did you hear that, Mr. Chairman?


Frederick George Sanderson: I was directing a
question to the minister-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am raising a question
of order which I desire to have dealt with. The observation made foy the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn) is equally objectionable. It is my duty to try to remember something of the traditions of this house, and the observation made by the member for Temiscouata I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to have withdrawn, likewise the observation made by the junior member for Halifax.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, on the
point of order-


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: Order. The hon. member has already spoken on the point of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is a different point
of order, a new point of order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. According to
the rules and regulations the language used by the hon. member for Temiscouata if addressing himself to a colleague would be out of order. Speaking of an outsider I do not know that I can call him to order, but I would ask the hon. member for Temiscouata and the hon. member whose constituency I did not catch-


Felix Patrick Quinn: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry
I made the remark and I gladly withdraw it. It was made in the excitement of the moment.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: -at the same time I
do not think I have authority on this point to call him to order. I would ask the hon. member for Temiscouata to remember one thing; in England the House of Commons is considered a gentleman's club, and that should apply to Canada also.

Radio Broadcasting Act


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Jean-François Pouliot: Let him shave and I will
withdraw.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Frederick George Sanderson: Now that the storm
has subsided I will come back to my question to the Minister of Marine. Has he drawn to the attention of the chairman of the radio commission the report of his speech delivered in Toronto on April 25, as it appeared in the Toronto Globe which I sent across to the minister? Has he taken it up rvith the chairman?


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Chairman, in my estimation the president of the broadcasting commission has the right to defend himself against the attacks that have been made upon him by people outside of this house. He has been attacked; the commission has been unfairly attacked by papers in this country, especially papers owned by those who are opposed to state control of radio and the chairman has the right to defend himself. That is my view. I spoke to the chairman about this speech to which my hon. friend has referred, not because I wanted to give a lesson to the chairman, but only to have the information. He told me verbally that he had been misquoted by that paper. As my hon. friend knows, it is only part of his speech which is reported. But I hold, Mr. Chairman, that the radio commissioners have the right to defend themselves.
I am surprised to hear so much criticism without any single, serious fact or matter of reproach against the commission. I challenge my hon. friends on the other side of the house to give a single fact to show that these gentlemen have not performed their duties since they have been in office. We had an illustration of the quality of those criticisms from one member of this house a minute or two ago. He had been told a few minutes ago that the radio commission ruled that the manuscript of speeches was to be submitted to the commissioners before they were broadcast.


George Gibson Coote: By some people.


Alfred Duranleau: And when my hon.
friend is asked who are those people, he does not know. Hearsay evidence is worthless. Is that fair to the commissioners? Are they not at least entitled to have specific charges? Why not give these gentlemen a fair chance? It is evident that there is no real ground for these criticisms. I am sorry that so much of the time of this house has been taken up with petty criticisms, none of them serious; and I
say that the speeches of my hon. friends today in this house are the best proof that these gentlemen have done their full duty since they have been in charge of that commission. If my hon. friends opposite have no other charge to lay against the commission. I say the commission must have done wonderfully well because nothing serious has been uttered against it. This afternoon I gave the house a full explanation of what the commissioners have done since they have been in office, of their policy for the future, and nobody objected to what I said; no one criticized their program for the future. Everyone seems to be satisfied. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that these criticisms will stop, and 1 am sure that within but a few months the commission will demonstrate that they deserve the office with which they have been entrusted. My hon. friends say, "Well, some of them were politicians." I challenge my hon. friends to show one instance since the commissioners have been in office-and I refer particularly to the vice-president of the commission-in which that gentleman has shown an3' political preference to anyone. I think he has been absolutely fair to everyone. I repeat, they are trying to do their best to serve the people of this country; why not give them a fair chance for at least a year? This is a new business, a new undertaking. They may make mistakes; they are human, but they must be granted a reasonable time to show their competence to administer this new enterprise with success. I hope, Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend will be satisfied with the answer I have given.


Frederick George Sanderson: If I understood the remarks of the minister correctly he said that he had brought to the attention of the chairman of the radio commission the report appearing in the Toronto Globe of April 28 of a speech delivered by that gentleman in the Royal York hotel, and that the chairman of the radio commission said he had been misquoted. Is that correct? Did the minister aay he had been told by the chairman of the commission that he had been misquoted in that report?


Alfred Duranleau: That is what I said.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is that what the chairman told the minister?


Alfred Duranleau: I have not entirely mastered the beautiful language of my hon. friend but I hope I made myself clear.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am sorry if I have misunderstood the minister. I should like to
Radio Broadcasting Act

know whether the chairman of the radio commission told the minister, his dhief-because the minister is or should be over the chairman of the commission-that he was misquoted in this report. If so I am quite willing to take that explanation. Did Mr. Charlesworth say he had been misquoted?


Alfred Duranleau: I have given my answer; it was very plain.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Chairman, I frankly deplore the suggestion of the hon. member for South Perth that this commission should be under the direction or control of any minister of this or any other government. Technically, of course, I know he is not subject to that control, nor does the act give the minister any power of direction or discipline other than tihe authority vested in the governor in council to dismiss the commissioners for cause.
As a result of the castigation the commission has been getting to-night-a castigation which very frankly I think was coming to it *-I trust it will develop some tact and some character of administration in connection with broadcasting that will endear it to the people of this country, and make them have some respect for and confidence in it. I should like to see radio broadcasting so controlled by such a commission that, as in Great Britain, a debate of this kind could not and would not take place. I hope that day comes, but remember that after all the commission has succeeded in creating widespread distrust and dissatisfaction, and certainly it must mend its ways if the nationalization of radio is to be a success. I think all our comments should be confined, so far as possible, to facts; I agree with the minister in that regard. Personally I have heard all sorts of rumours. Some I have discovered to be quite untrue while others have had sufficient foundation to justify the attacks that have been made on the commission, as I said a little earlier in the evening. I do feel that hon. members of this house would be well advised to give tins converted journalist, this excellent technician and this third person, whose character and qualifications have been eloquently discussed in this house by others who know him better than I do, time to get their breath, to sense public feeling in the matter and to develop a publicly owned broadcasting system along .the lines sincerely desired by the committee last year.
I do think a mistake was made-I am free to admit it at this stage-in combining the administrative and policy-creating powers in one commission. It seemed almost impossible

to avoid doing that, though I agree that it would have been better if we had been able to accept the suggestion advanced by the president of the Canadian Radio League, which was quoted earlier this evening by the hon. member for Quebec East. In my opinion the commission failed seriously in one respect; that was in not making it perfectly clear to the public from the beginning, and not after the trouble had arisen, that the million dollars in the estimates were not and never had been taxes and were not coming out of the pockets of the taxpayers as taxes. From the commencement radio licences have been a charge on users of radio receiving sets in order that they may secure certain services in the way of a check-up on interference, closing down interruptions caused by high frequency currents, telegraph stations, leaky transformers and so on. I could testify personally to the efficiency of the Department of Marine in that aspect of their work, but during the years when the Department of Marine was carrying on that work a large surplus of money was accumulating that should have been credited directly to radio broadcasting and radio users. I understand that it went into the consolidated revenue fund and was used for general purposes. I am of the opinion that sooner or later this or some subsequent government will have to see that this money does not go into the consolidated revenue fund but is kept separate for the use of the commission and is used freely by the commission, as it is in Great Britain. Again I direct attention to that illustration. The commission should be allowed to build up its capital plant and to develop along the lines that I am sure every Canadian wants to see. Unfortunately the commission let the newspapers get away with gross misrepresentation in this connection, and I should like to direct attention particularly to the Toronto Globe. Even after that newspaper had been informed of the actual facts in connection with this sum of $1,000,000 it persisted in carrying on, in its editorial columns, a bitter and vicious attack on the ground that this was an expenditure of public money dragged out of the public by taxes. This principle should have been recognized in the very beginning.
Now for a moment or two I come to the bill itself. Section 1 is distasteful; I do not think the elimination of the operation of the Civil Service Act in the matter of appointments is wise or proper. I am willing to concede that a difficulty exists in this case, however. For example, Mr. Chairman, when the commission decides to take

Radio Broadcasting Act
over an existing radio station they will find there the general manager, the radio experts and technical men and others, probably forming a most efficient unit. I grant at once, it is unthinkable that these men should have to go back to the commission to receive what one might call eligibility as the result of an examination, and I submit that if a compromise could be reached in the matter it would be the wisest step from the point of view of all interests concerned.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that in the consideration of this aspect of the matter, the radio commission be permitted to retain those persons who are sufficiently desirable and are now employed on the staffs of any broadcasting agenicy that may be taken over by the commission, but that all new appointments of any kind, from technical men down [DOT]to stenographers, shall be made through the medium of the Civil Service Act. It is not fair to say that the Civil Service Commission is incapable of undertaking the necessary tests in connection with appointees to the radio commission. It has done it most successfully in connection with the experts of the Marine department who have been administering the Radiotelegraph Act and who were in that sendee before this commission was ever thought of. I have never heard any complaint against these technical men, and it is just a slight step from radio-telegraphy to radio broadcasting; the general principles underlying both are the same. So that I do not think it can be contended successfully that there are technical reasons Why the Civil Service Commission should not function in this case. I am satisfied that with the cooperation of the Marine department and the commission it can be made to discharge its responsibilities.
With that one criticism I have nothing further to say against the bill, but I do suggest that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Marine would be well advised to consider seriously making the Whole commission more like the British broadcasting system.
I disagree with the criticism launched at Mr. Gladstone Murray. It was my pleasure to hear him last year and I had 'the pleasure also of examining him on the committee. I met him this year again, and I think that as Canadians we can foe very proud of a fellow Canadian who has raised himself to such a high peak of efficiency in the mother country. Personally I sincerely congratulate the government on having secured the services of Mr. Murray if only for a short time. I do not think they could have secured a
better man for the work he had to do, and if his letter may have a tinge of the lecture about it, it is perhaps as well. There are many of us who need lectures on many matters.


Mr. MacINNIS:: The Labour members present in the house when the vote was taken on the second reading voted against that motion, and they did so not because they were opposed to the bill in its entirety but solely because they were opposed to the amendment in section 1. The hon. member for Bow River has put our case so well that it is not necessary for me to say anything further in that connection. I agree with everything he has said, and with this part of the question disposed of we should certainly have no objection to the rest of the bill.
May I say that neither in the house nor outside have I ever uttered a word of criticism of the commission. I think we should give the commission an opportunity to organize radio broadcasting in this country. In the short time they have been operating they have done some very good work, though possibly they have also made some mistakes. Personally I am quite willing at the moment to give them credit for the good work they have done and to overlook the mistakes they have made so far. It may be that the discussion that has taken place in this house to-day will not be lost on the commission, but in saying this I must add another word. There is another commission in this country, the Civil Service Commission, and we should also give that body an opportunity to carry on its work, which is to provide staffs for these various organizations. As a matter of fact, we are every day robbing the Civil Service Commission of any dignity it may have had, and it is not to be wondered at if it does not function as efficiently as it is supposed to do.
We are not opposed to this bill in its entirety but only to the amendment proposed in section 1, the amendment to section 4 of the aot. If some modifications were made in that regard, which would leave the bulk of the staff under the Civil Service Commission, we should have no objection to the amendment.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: During his speech this morning the Minister of Marine mentioned the fact that an agreement had been reached with the United States in regard to the division of wave lengths. The agreement was made in 1932, and he said it was very profitable to Canada. Would he favour the committee with a copy of it.	.


Alfred Duranleau: A statement was made last session to the house by the Prime Min-
Radio Broadcasting Act

ister, giving the agreement in detail. It appears in Hansard. However, I will look into the matter and if what appears in Hansard is not altogether satisfactory to my hon. friend I will try to supply the necessary information.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think it will be generally agreed that the entire discussion on this bill has been political. On one side we hear it said that if the Liberals were entitled to stations so were the Conservatives. In my judgment that is absolutely opposed to the best interests of broadcasting in this dominion in its widest sense. If the allotment of stations is to be put on the basis of political parties, then why not go to the logical conclusion and throw the thing wide open and have complete chaos? I believe that anyone has the right to broadcast provided that in his material he keeps within the confines of the statutes of the country, because it must be remembered that radio is essentially different from any other medium of disseminating information or political agitation. It is comparatively easy to keep up a newspaper, or to rent a hall or, like the Labour party, to speak under the canopy of heaven; but broadcasting channels are naturally 'limited, and in my judgment the quickest way to destroy this great educational facility is to have it made a football of party politics. Frankly, I believe that the discussion in this house to-day has been a good thing for the nationalization of our broadcasting facilities in Canada if it has done nothing else than to clear the air and to teach members of the house and the people of the country that this institution must not be turned into a political football.
I would like to say a word or two in connection with the civil service aspect of the employees of the commission. This afternoon the Prime Minister made reference to the liquor control boards in the various provinces. I do not intend to discuss the boards in the provinces outside of my own. After all is said and done, the manner in which they approach any problem is influenced by the practical experience which we have had in relation thereto. Never since the inception of the liquor control board in Ontario have I heard of anyone but a 'Conservative being employed by that body.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Why pick on Ontario?


Humphrey Mitchell: I live in Ontario and I do not know anything about the boards in the rest of the provinces. I am afraid that if power is given to this radio commission to have complete jurisdiction over the technical and clerical staffs, in the very nature of things the same condition will exist. Man being . what he is, this will be the natural course. If

the same policies which have been pursued in other provinces with respect to commissions absolutely divorced from government are followed by this government, there will be only one result. This question should stand far above the conflict of political parties. I believe that radio will exert an enormous force in the control of the destinies of this country. Its powers of education should be treated as almost sacred. There are many practical problems which will confront this commission and in my opinion the broadcasting of political information is one. Absolute fairness should govern in this regard and the rights and privileges of every political party, irrespective of colour or complexion, should be respected, provided its doctrine fits in with the framework, the constitution and- the laws of this country. I would not like to see happen in the next elections that which has happened in the past in my province when those who had the most money got the best facilities and naturally had the best audiences. Now that radio is being nationalized, each political party irrespective of its financial standing should have ample opportunity to make its views known to the people of this dominion.


An hon. MEMBER:: We will not get it.


Humphrey Mitchell: Someone says, "we will not get it," but in my judgment the people are entitled to that and they should demand it.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Will the hon. gentleman tell me what constitutes a party?


Humphrey Mitchell: You should know as you belong to one. You had better ask that question of yourself.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: You do not belong to one.


Humphrey Mitchell: You do not know, you are just guessing. I shall support the third reading of this bill provided adequate consideration is given to the civil service aspect of the matter. I think it is within the intelligence of the government to so amend this section as to prevent the intrusion of politics into the permanent staffs of the broadcasting stations and the commission itself. There has been nothing but chaos in this country and the one to the south ever since the inception of radio, and I believe that this commission should be given ample opportunity to work out channels and wave lengths so that radio may be enjoyed by the people in every part of this dominion, not only by those in the larger centres.


Ernest Lapointe: There is a provision in
the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act which

Radio Broadcasting Act
had much to do with the unanimity which prevailed last year when the bill became law. Apart from providing for the appointment of a commission, the act provides that the governor in council after consultation with the provincial authorities shall appoint nine assistant commissioners, I believe one for each province. It would be the duty of these assistant commissioners to organize advisory committees in the various provinces and to act in conjunction with the private Stations. There would then be a general council convened from time to time which would be composed of the members of the central commission, the assistant commissioners and representatives of the advisory committees. This council would formulate the policies of the Commission and deal with such other matters as concerned radio broadcasting. I should like to know whether any steps have been taken towards the appointment of these assistant commissioners and the organization of these advisory committees. I believe it would be in the interests of good administration of the few if this provision was put into operation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I explained to the committee that the technical member of the commission, because of his being detained in Madrid, was not able to carry on here until January. I explained that the commission had been endeavouring effectively to organize and to discharge its functions; that Major Murray came to this country at the request of the commission made through the government. I stated that he had made a trip through Canada unaccompanied by any member of the commission in order that it might not be said that he had formed any view which was in any sense influenced by the commission. The commission has been desirous of inspecting all radio facilities in Canada by visiting every province of the dominion but because of parliament being in session and the very unjust and unfair observations which have been made throughout Canada with respect to the million dollar appropriation, it has not been able to carry into effect its original plans. As soon as it is possible to do so, it is proposed to put the provisions of 'the statute into effect. I introduced this legislation believing as I did that the best interests of national radio would be served by the appointment of assistant commissioners. These men- would not be paid officers of the commission, and they would surround themselves with those who would give a proper bent and direction to what I might call a high national policy with respect
to radio-education, improvement in art, and all that goes with a more liberal appreciation of the outside world. I believe that that can best be effected through the methods tihat we have provided in the legislation itself, and that is why t'he provisions are there.
So far as the debate this afternoon is concerned it has to every possible extent that you can measure endeavoured to discredit the commission. The bill was taken up this morning; it is now ten o'clock, and I say that whoever looks at the record of to-day's proceedings with respect to this bill and reads what has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite with respect to this commission and its efforts to discharge its duties, will certainly not believe that those proceedings have been such as to promote the interests of national broadcasting in Canada. To criticize a commission is one thing, but to give it an opportunity t.o work is another. Some hon. members may be under the impression that the members of this commission are office boys sent out by a minister. The minister has no control over the commission, neither the Minister of Marine nor the Prime Minister. In that sense they are not errand boys or office boys nor yet servants or agents. They are a commission appointed for a purpose, and I indicated what that purpose was. The -commission present their report to the Minister of Marine and the Minister of Marine presents it to parliament, but to suggest that the commission must be called in and be -told, "You naughty boys, you must not do so and so," is to do violence to the whole underlying principle of the legislation. There has been nothing in this debate to-day to suggest what I conceived a year ago to be an earnest effort on behalf of the Canadian people to launch a great enterprise, free-shall I say?-from the carping criticism arising out of acute political differences that apparently would destroy tire commission. It is too bad. The whole debate this afternoon and all day has been sharp and acute, indicating divisions upon political party lines. Certainly every effort that a government could make was -made last year for the purpose of avoiding that very thing.
As to the observation that was made by the former Minister of Justice and by another member this afternoon, that the chairman of the commission said that any man who thought so and so was either a fool or a liar, I have not yet received any evidence of his having said i-t, but if he said it I am prepared by a minute in council to indicate in the firmest terms that that sort of talk is not worthy of members of the commission. I am ready to do that in the strongest possible
Radio Broadcasting Act

terms because I realize that the public have no right to have said to them by anyone who occupies a position in connection with a public commission words of that character.
The way in which this discussion has been carried on to-day will certainly militate against the usefulness of the commission. Its task is difficult. Why? Because, I repeat, there is opposed to it at every point the powerful private interests of the American continent who do not wish to see it succeed, and who see here the greatest experiment that ever has been, made because, in emulation of the British broadcasting system, we are endeavouring to free ourselves from all the difficulties and dangers that have followed upon private ownership. When I hear the hon. member for Melville make the attack that he did, and he was the only one, I want to say that the genesis of the whole idea of public ownership of these utilities came from Sir Adam Beck who was a member of the Conservative administration in the province of Ontario, and to-day the great hydroelectric system that has grown up in that province is the target for abuse and attack by every private interest on this continent that is connected with electrical energy and power. And, this radio is being made the butt for the same kind of attack, inspired and influenced by the same private interests on this continent.
If we are going to succeed we can succeed in only one way. Appreciating our responsibilities, we must realize what the stake is. Failure would be one more mark against public enterprise, one more failure on the part of the people to do collectively what the individual can do in private life, one more vindication of the claims of private ownership against public ownership. I am convinced beyond peradventure that if the Canadian people are to derive any benefit from radio they must continue their ownership of it as they now have it, and they can only do that not by sharply dividing the House of Commons on questions of pure partyism, by thinking in terms of Liberal or Conservative or Progressive, as I pointed out this afternoon, but by supporting the commission in its task.
I cannot conceive it possible that the former Minister of Justice was sincere in what he said this evening. I do not usually question his sincerity as he so often does mine, but I put this to him:	When a member of the
House of Commons is appointed to the bench and takes his oath of office, do I say I have no confidence in him because he opposed me in the House of Commons? I could give illustration after illustration of 
appointments to the bench from the ranks of that party during the nine years they were :n office. There was one case of a leading organizer of a great party in one province appointed to the bench, fresh from his seat in the legislature, and another case of a member of the House of Commons appointed to the bench. But would I stand in my place and say I have no confidence in the ability of that man to write honest judgments? He took the oath of office. And Mr. Maher took the oath of office that is the only oath of office you will find in the statutes because it made express provision for negativing those very faults that in practice we found had arisen. I have not lost confidence, for instance, in gentlemen that I have seen promoted to the bench in the country in which I practised law simply because they happened to belong to the Liberal party. During the years in which I was most active in the practice of my profession, from 1897 onwards, all the appointments to the bench in that country up until 1911 were made by a Liberal government, and made mostly from either defeated candidates or Liberal members of the legislature or of parliament, and I cannot conceive it possible that I could ever stand in the legislature or parliament and say publicly that I had no confidence in the bench because of them.
A et here is a gentleman who was a professional man, and not only a professional man but trained in that profession which usually gives men a wide vision and a large outlook. Those who live in the great outdoors and carry on surveys and have to do with the natural resources of a country, the forest and the stream-no small insular views influence their judgment in the main. They are men accustomed to seeing the wide horizons, the deep forests, the great lakes and rivers, and they usually have wide and large views of the country and of their responsibilities as citizens. That gentleman was appointed to this position. It is true he had been the candidate of the Conservative party and an organizer in a small way in the district in which he lived. He was appointed and took the oath of office, and there stands the challenge that was made by the Minister of Marine and which has not been answered. There is yet to arise any living man who has said that since he took that oath of office he has acted in any way as a partisan. Think of the effect, not of an ordinary member of this house, but of a gentleman who for years was a minister of the crown, with all the authority that attaches to an exMinister of Justice, standing in his place and making the condemnation he did of this gen-

Radio Broadcasting Act
tleman. I say that that strikes at the very foundation of confidence. Then we have the magnificent spectacle to-night of a member of the opposition standing in his place and saying that his confidence in the commission was shaken because the chairman was not shaved, and deriding his whiskers. That is what parliament has fallen to. Now, one can ask oneself the question, in all seriousness, whether under those circumstances it might not be fair to look at the merits of this bill, just as it was presented to this house, with no ulterior object or motive. The letter dated May 5 which was read by the minister this morning suggested

I say suggested, because there was no endeavour to lecture this parliament-with a frankness which I thought did credit to the gentleman, means by which he believed certain purposes could be achieved.
I said this afternoon what I desire to repeat to-night, that in as far as section 1 is concerned I proposed to ask the Civil Service Commission if they have any suggestion to make as to how that situation could be met. For I say, in all frankness, that those who are charged with the responsibility should be able to select the instruments to effect their purposes, and if they cannot do it as to technical men, if they cannot get a broadcasting program without the assistance of the Civil Service Commission, what is going to happen? Do they have to have the approval of the Civil Service Commission before they may employ a singer, or a pianist, or a flute player?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The same old story.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly what this means. It is all very well for the hon. member for East Hamilton to shake his head. But I say to him, as I said this afternoon, that what we are endeavouring to do is to remove that incongruity and make it clear that this commission may employ the persons it desires without having, for instance, what has happened in this house-


Humphrey Mitchell: Why not do that with the Post Office Department?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does anybody suggest that in this house it would be the proper thing to ask who are the directors of a company which has a licence?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Why not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why so? It is not the business of the minister to write letters and to discover that fact. That is not his job.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is our job to find out everything that concerns the public welfare.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member's conception of public welfare is so well known that I shall not discuss it. He knows exactly what I mean,-just $100 per annum. Now, let us go one step farther: I just wish to say one thing more, and it is this, that just as sure as you are going to ask in this House of Commons, "Who was the announcer? Where was he born, and why-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If you are going to ask all these questions you are going to have a complete failure. Can anybody imagine in the British House of Commons questions of that kind being asked with respect to their broadcasting corporation? There is a pattern to follow. We are endeavouring at least to make our institution worthy of it. I say in all seriousness, that I cannot conceive it possible that there could be in the British House of Commons a discussion such as has taken place this afternoon and evening with respect to our broadcasting legislation. It will be recalled that recently, in December, they did appoint new commissioners. Lady Snowden was appointed, and she was replaced by a Mrs. Hamilton. I forget who the other appointee happened to be, but I remember seeing it in the press. A letter was written to the press saying that this was not the fair thing to do, that the government had acted improperly. A dignified protest was made on behalf of Lady Snowden, and that was the end of it. That is the position. Anyone who follows the press of that country knows it.
I suggest that if we are going to give the radio commission a start, let us at least give it a chance. That is all I have asked this afternoon; that is all I have said. The protests which have been made by hon. members opposite would indicate that their love for it was so great they were willing to destroy it. They indulged in such violent criticisms of the commission as to arouse lack of confidence in and public suspicion as to the motives behind the operations of the commission in regard to this property. Not a tittle of evidence has been adduced in this committee by any person-I repeat, by any person

that in doing their work they were actuated by political motives.
So far as this section is concerned, I asked before dinner that it should stand in order that an opportunity might be afforded to consult with the 'Civil Service Commission to prepare a clause that would protect the commission on the one hand, and ensure that this body which we have set up might be able successfully to function and discharge the duties of a national broadcasting organization.
Radio Broadcasting Act


Ernest Lapointe: After those very nice,
mild words of my right hon. friend perhaps he wild answer a very simple question I asked him as to whether or not the government has taken any steps to appoint assistant commissioners in the various provinces to help the work of the commissioners, men who would organize advisory committees and would see that the object of the bill or of the law which was enacted last year is achieved.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said they had not been appointed.


Ernest Lapointe: Instead of replying to
this very simple question -my right hon. friend has complained about the violence of our criticism. We are used to the mild words of my right hon. friend and the suavity of the objections he usually makes against arguments or suggestions from -this side of the house. Let me repeat that we believe in the nationalization- of radio broadcasting. The work of the committee last year came as the result of an investigation made by a commission appointed by the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin), the then Minister of Marine. It was the work of that investigating commission which brought about the report of the -committee last year, and -the legislation for which my right hon. friend is modestly taking the credit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Pardon me; a committee of this house sat and made a report, and upon that the government produced legislation.


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend
said, "I did it."


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Ernest Lapointe: I have the judgment of Hansard for it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You can see what it says.


Ernest Lapointe: However, we supported
that legislation, and if the situation exists which the right hon. gentleman deplores, we are not responsible for it. I repeat, it is b' cause of -the work, first, of the govemmen* in -the appointments which have -been made and, second, -because of what has taken plar-" since.
My right hon. friend has said that as a former Minister of Justice I must know that judges have been appointed to the bench who were active in their respective political parties before their appointments, and that they are good judges. Of course, Mr. Chairman, but you will remember that last year we discussed the bill, and were all intent on having an impartial body. We wanted to have something 
in which the whole country would have confidence. It was suggested to the right hon. gentleman that the appointment of the members of the board might be made after consultation among the leaders of the different groups in the house. My right hon. friend said he would consider that suggestion, but if it were not accepted at least we could rely upon his statement that the appointments would be absolutely non-political. The members of that commission have to deal with something which is very important to every Canadian citizen. The broadcasting business has become part of the very life of all citizens of Canada. We all want to have a fair, square and impartial deal about it. It was the duty of the government to have on the commission men in whom everyone would have confidence. I still say that the appointment to the commission, as -representing an important part of the citizenship of Canada, of a gentleman against whom I say nothing, but who was an active politician, who had not only been a candidate but had been organizer for his party in my own district for many years, for many successive elections, whose words I have myself heard on the radio abusing the party of which I am a member- I say that appointment was not keeping faith with what was said in the house last year when the house voted unanimously to enact the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act. I have nothing to withdraw of what I have said in that respect. I only hope that circumstances will be such that the confidence of the country in the radio board can be restored.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: What do you want? My hon. friend from North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam) seldom speaks, but he shouts interruptions.
I hope he will not do so when I speak.


Mr. COTNAM:: Mr. Chairman, I ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that statement, as the member for North Renfrew did not happen to be saying anything at the time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am sure the hon. member fo-r Quebec East will accept the word of the hon. member.


Ernest Lapointe: I will certainly withdraw the remark; I am sorry my eyes and ears deceived me.
I hope my right hon. friend will be able to amend section 1 in the manner suggested; it would improve the bill to some extent. But

Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
as my last word I repeat that I have nothing to withdraw of what I have said to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report progress.


William Richard Motherwell: No, Mr. Chairman,
I want to make a remark or two.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


William Richard Motherwell: The Prime Minister got off something a while ago and I want to correct it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. There is a motion before the committee which is not debatable.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, that is the
way they get out of it-take to the tall timber!
Progress reported.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it will please the hon. gentleman, I may tell him that I have to leave for the hospital, if that is what he wishes to know. I have put it off as long as I could, but I was asked to go and that is why I am leaving the chamber now.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergpe in the chair.
Post Office-Outside Service-Salaries and allowances, $15,381,845.
Mail service, including mail service by air, $14,161,500.	.
Miscellaneous, including $5,000 to provide for payment of compassionate allowance to employees injured while in the performance of their duties or to other persons injured while performing duties in any way connected with the postal service or in protecting His Majesty's mails, or to the dependents of such employees or other persons who may be killed while so engaged, payments to be made only on the specific authority of the governor in council, and payment of $205 to S. R, Kirk, $1,076,030.
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, in 1928 prorogation was delayed several hours on account of a remark of the then leader of the opposition on the Lord Nelson and Nova Scotia hotels in Halifax. The Conservative party held up Mr. Veniot's estimates for over two weeks one year. I do not intend to do that, but what I intend to do, sir, is to have some satisfactory explanation from the Postmaster General. Yesterday evening he gave a statement about his accomplishments during the past year. I have only a few words to say. He said he did not accept my figures-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. I ask the members of the committee not to listen quite so loudly.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is their enthusiasm.
(Translation):	As this quotation is in
French, I shall continue my remarks in that language:
First, the member for Temiscouata stated that 662 postmasters had been notified that complaints of political partisanship had been lodged against them. Nineteen had sent in their resignation.
Were they cases of political partisanship? I put the question to the Postmaster General.


Mr. SAUVE (Translation):: Will the hon.
member repeat his question?


Jean-François Pouliot: With pleasure. So long as I am not obliged to repeat all my questions. Does the hon. minister recall that 662 postmasters were notified that complaints of political partisanship had been lodged against them?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes, so far as
I can recall.


Jean-François Pouliot: And that 19 had resigned? Did they lose their positions because of political partisanship?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes. The 19
that resigned were postmasters that confessed to political partisanship. They admitted their guilt.


Jean-François Pouliot: Very well! Thank you! Now, 606 post offices were closed and 321 new post offices were opened. Does the hon. Postmaster General admit that the 606 post offices that were closed were kept by postmasters appointed by Liberals or a different government than the present one.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon.
member for Temiscouata will agree that it is impossible to answer on the spur of the moment his question.


Jean-François Pouliot: I can understand that the hon. Postmaster General is unable to state whether these officials were appointed by the Liberal or Conservative party; however, on the other hand, were the 321 new post offices handed over to friends of this government. Were they recommended iby members who sit on the government benches or by persons who are in charge of patronage in each county?


Arthur Sauvé: By various
persons. I suppose that they are friends of thi3 government. There is nothing wrong in that-as they are numerous.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then, sir, will the Postmaster General deny that he closed post offices kept by postmasters appointed by other governments than his? I am not only

Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
referring to Liberal governments because postmasters appointed by Sir John A. Macdonald were dismissed. Does the minister admit that the post offices which were closed were kept by persons appointed by other governments than the present one?


Arthur Sauvé: I have not
all the information in this connection. I could not give a complete answer. As to the new postmasters appointed under my administration, there are some who are not considered as friends of our party. For instance, there are returned soldiers, as in the Shelburne case -Mr. Kennedy-and others. I might also mention the Rimouski case, that of the returned soldier Couillard.


Eugène Fiset: Quite so.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would the hon. Postmaster General inform the house, whether the change of site of a post office is equivalent to the dismissal of the postmaster?


Arthur Sauvé: That all
depends.


Jean-François Pouliot: The answer has the same meaning as "certainly and probably." I should like to receive an answer from the minister in this respect. When a postmaster is in charge of a post office and the latter is transferred across the street, without the postmaster previously being notified, I wonder if that is equivalent to a dismissal?


Arthur Sauvé: That means
that the site has not been considered as convenient and, therefore, a change is requested.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I wish to quote to the hon. Postmaster General a letter which he, himself, wrote to Mr. Foran, the secretary to the Civil Service Commission, with reference to the post office of St. Arsene. It is in connection with changing the site of the post office.
As regards the absence of an order in council, I need only mention that, under section 7 of the Post Office Act, the Postmaster General has power to remove or suspend any postmaster and that this prerogative is not affected by section 52 of the Civil Service Act. This is a point on which the Department of Justice gave a ruling to the Civil Service Commission on the 24th of^ August. 1921, at their own request. Mr. Rioux's dismissal was, therefore, quite regular.
May I draw your attention, sir, to the fact that the hon. Postmaster General refers to dismissals of postmasters. I shall not insist further on the subject.
fMr. Pouliot.l
There is, however, another matter which has amazed me, it is the statement which the hon. postmaster made yesterday. He said that 770 postmasters had been dismissed under Conservative governments-in the plural. He made that statement yesterday, May 10. Yet, on November 16, he stated that 814 employees had been dismissed in his department. He contends that they were dismissed because of political partisanship, bad administration, unsuitable site or other reasons, but this did not refer to post offices closed. It is a question, at present, that affects all the employees of the department, I recognize the fact.
I shall repeat the figures I gave the other day-it will be very brief: "Dismissals following threatening letters, 19; post offices closed, 606; change of site, 96; dismissals for political partisanship, 522; total of persons beheaded since August, 1930, 1,243.
The hon. Postmaster General stated yesterday, with reference to Sully, page 4849 of Hansard:
Mr. Sauce: The case of Mr. Jean has been settled to his satisfaction. He accepted $100.
Mr. Pouliot: W7hen was the case settled?
Mr. Sauve: Recently.
Air. Pouliot: What exact date?
Air. Sauve: Last week. The order in council was signed and the case is settled.
I wish to inquire from the minister on what date was the order in council signed.


Arthur Sauvé: The order in
council has been signed and it is before the council. The memo to pay the sum is before the council.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does the
hon. Postmaster General consider that there is a difference between a memo of a minister and an order in council?


Arthur Sauvé: Sometimes, yes, there is a difference. I meant recommendation.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is it not a
fact that a memo is signed by the minister and an order in council by the clerk of the privy council?


Arthur Sauvé: Always. The
recommendation is made by the minister.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is the minister certain that it will be sanctioned by the council? I understand the minister sent in his memo?


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member knows the routine and is perfectly aware of what I meant. What I state is the truth.

Supply-Post Office-Outside Service


Jean-François Pouliot: That is not an answer, sir. The hon. Postmaster General may be sincere, however, I wish to show that he does not know his business and that the answer he gave me yesterday was entirely inaccurate. The following is what he stated: "The case of Jean is settled." That is an assertion; it is not "certainly," "probably," "assuredly."
Mr. Sauve: The case of Mr. Jean has been settled to his satisfaction. He accepted $100.
Mr. Pouliot: When did this settlement take place?
Mr. Sauve: Recently.
Mr. Pouliot: On what exact date?
Mr. Sauve: Last week. The order in council was signed and we have settled the claim.
There was no order in council signed. I understand the hon. Postmaster General prepared a memo to submit to the council. I wrote to him on April 25 that the question of Sully would be discussed in the house; I requested him to bring the file to the house, and if he had brought this file, he would have been in a position to give a more reliable answer, when the question was discussed. Does the Postmaster General contend that Jean has been paid? He has not been paid.


Arthur Sauvé: I did not contend that he had been paid.


Jean-François Pouliot: He cannot
be paid before the order in council is passed.


Arthur Sauvé: I contend that the department recommended the payment of $100 to Jean and that the latter accepted this sum.


Jean-François Pouliot: But he has
not yet been paid, because I received a telegram to-day, sent from Sully, at 4.20 p.m.
Jean-Francois Pouliot,
Ottawa.
I have not yet received anything.
Isidore Jean.
Then if Jean has not received anything, the case is not yet settled.


Mr.   SALTVE@Translation: The case can
be settled without Jean receiving payment. It is an understood thing that he will be paid.


Jean-François Pouliot: Has the hon. Postmaster General any guarantee that the amount will be passed by the council? Was the matter discussed in council; did the council state: we shall pay Jean $100?


Arthur Sauvé: I cannot answer that question and the hon. member has sufficient knowledge of the duties incumbent to a minister, and the discretion he
must show, not to persist in his question, whatever may be the advices he receives.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not
persisting in any way.


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I have a similar case to submit. In the parish of Ste. Rose, a returned soldier was appointed postmaster, two years ago. He was put to considerable expense but never got the post office. He was never reimbursed. I am wondering if his case were submitted to the council, whether he would receive the same treatment as was meted out in the case quoted by the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Arthur Sauvé: If Mr. Jean
is not paid before the next session, I authorize the hon. member for Temiscouata to then reproach me of it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have no
need to be authorized by the hon. Postmaster General, I can do this on my own responsibility. The minister is not my tutor. I shall ask him but one question with reference to Sully: Why did he not submit this case to the Civil Service Commission?


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member takes me so much by surprise that I cannot answer the question on the spur of the moment. At all events, if he will be patient, I shall give him the reason later on.


Jean-François Pouliot: Was the box of Amedee Lesieur patented when the order in council to purchase 10,000 rural mail boxes was passed.


Arthur Sauvé: Yes, I think
so.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then I shall prove to the Postmaster General that he is wrong and, moreover, that he deceived the House on two occasions, on March 22, 1933. and on May 10, 1933. He stated on March 22, in answer to a question.
(Text):
Patented equipment submitted found satisfactory and suited to the needs of the department.
On May 10, 1933, that is, yesterday, at page 5203 of Hansard, he states that he did not call for tenders because they were new boxes, recently patented. The order in council was passed on December 12, 1931; however, the hon. Postmaster General's memo was prior to that date, namely, November 5, 1931. He then stated that the quantity of available rural mail boxes in the maritime provinces and Quebec were exhausted.
This box is a greatly improved one, is patented and cannot be purchased elsewhere,
4920	COMMONS
Supply-Pont Office-Outside Service
and is particularly adapted to use in the postal service.
The minister states that the price of $2.75 per box is considered fair and reasonable.
The memo presented by the minister is dated November 5, 1931. Will the hon. Postmaster General state whether this is exact? The order in council No. 2799 was passed on December 12, 1931, and the patent 319,598 was granted in February, 1932. Now, sir, under whose name was the patent registered? Was it under the name of Amedee Lesieur or that of the Government of Canada?


Arthur Sauvé: I beg your
pardon?


Jean-François Pouliot: Was the
patent for the beautiful casket, we have here, registered under the name of Amedee Lesieur or that of the Government of Canada which purchased 10,000 samples?


Mr.   SATJVE@Translation: It was registered under the name of another gentleman whose name I cannot recall; the sale was made to Mr. Lesieur regularly and legally.


Jean-François Pouliot: If it were
registered under the name of another person whose name the hon. Postmaster General cannot recall, then, I must insist that I be furnished with all the facts.


Arthur Sauvé: I shall furnish
them.


Jean-François Pouliot: I think that the officials who are at his side should know these facts.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: Order!
The hon. member should remember that we are not in committee of public accounts.


Jean-François Pouliot: No. Mr. Chairman, we are not in committee of public accounts; however, we are in committee to discuss the estimates of the Post Office Department. The case is similar to that of this morning, when it was asserted in the House -when the Radio bill was discussed-that the representatives of the people must control the moneys expended by the various departments. I know that the Chairman of the Committee holds those views.
I do not wish to be disagreeable to the minister. I am doing this to save him from trouble, annoyance and embarrassment. It is with this aim in view that I ask these questions.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: Questions should be more to the point.


Arthur Sauvé: I shall give
the hon. member the name of the person, to-morrow; I had it this afternoon, and, I think, I sent it over to him.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall send over to the hon. Postmaster General the first page (4206) of the Hansard of April 12, 1933, where Gilbert Viau is mentioned. There is a return, No. 292, S.P. 367. I would request the hon. Postmaster General to inform the house whether Gilbert Viau, final sorter into lock boxes, city delivery branch, Montreal postoffice, referred to in a question and in this return is the same person.


Arthur Sauvé: Has the hon.
member not got his photograph?


Jean-François Pouliot: This is not
a joke; I request the hon. Postmaster General to answer me properly.


Arthur Sauvé: I cannot answer such a question.


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister cannot answer?


Arthur Sauvé: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wonder why the hon. Postmaster General cannot answer. In fact, I know he is the same man. I put the same question in both cases with reference to Gilbert Viau, final sorter into lock boxes, city delivery branch, Montreal postoffice. There is something very extraordinary, in both returns, I should like some explanation as I cannot understand them. In one, we find that Viau was born at St. Martin on December 21, 1884; age: 34. That is in return S.P. 367.


Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: He remains young 1


Jean-François Pouliot: He was born on December 21, 1884. I wondered whether the minister would notice that fact, and I find that the hon. member for St. John's Iberville (Mr. Rheaume) is sharper than the Postmaster General. On October 24, 1918, Gilbert Viau was 34 years old. On April 12, 1933, according to the statement of the hon. Postmaster General, Gilbert Viau was 50 on December 21, 1932. On October 24, 1918, he was 34 years old, being born on December 21, 1884. On April 12, 1933, he was 50, he was supposed to have been born on December 21, 1882. This gentleman makes use of "Jouvence" water. This reminds me of a very brilliant child known as Pic de la Mirandole. He was two years old; some one asked him his name and age:	What is your name? Zan! What is

Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
your age? Two Zan! When Gilbert Yiau was born, he was two years old! Now, sir, is Mr. Moffat still the owner of the Montreal postoffice cafeteria?


Arthur Sauvé: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: Who is the
owner of the cafeteria now?


Arthur Sauvé: Mr. Loiselle.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is he the
hon. Postmaster General's chauffeur?


Arthur Sauvé: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is he employed in the Post Office Department?


Arthur Sauvé: No. He is
stoker (chauffeur), he stokes his stove!


Jean-François Pouliot: Is he employed by a person named Laurent, who has a contract for the delivery of parcel posts?


Arthur Sauvé: No, not (to my knowledge.


Jean-François Pouliot: What is his
Christian name?


Arthur Sauvé: Guillaume or William.


Jean-François Pouliot: What is his
family name?


Arthur Sauvé: Loiselle.


Jean-François Pouliot: Why did
Mr. Moffait lose his contract?


Arthur Sauvé: We decided, at the time, to make a change.


Jean-François Pouliot: I think, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. Postmaster General could rise in his seat to answer my questions.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order!


Arthur Sauvé: If the hon.
member will resume his seat-It was because we had decided to make a change.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member for Temiscouata is aware that a member cannot rise when another member has the floor, it is contrary to the rules.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wanted to see whether the minister would rise, I would have resumed my seat immediately; I wish to observe the rules.
An hon. MEMBER (Text): Why not put the whole thing on Hansard, at once.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Macdougall) could 53719-311
speak French he might, take part in the discussion. Meanwhile, it is better for him to keep quiet and when he does speak let it be with reference to the discussion.
Who delivers the postal parcels in Montreal?


Arthur Sauvé: A person by the name of Ernest Laurent.


Jean-François Pouliot: Since when has he been delivering them?


Arthur Sauvé: For over a year.


Jean-François Pouliot: How much more than a year?


Arthur Sauvé: A few months.


Jean-François Pouliot: One year and a few months?


Arthur Sauvé: Over a year, yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: who recommended Mr. Laurent to the hon. minister?


Arthur Sauvé: He is a well known man.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the member knows him well, I think he should give the house his name.


Arthur Sauvé: Ernest Laurent. He is the more so known, that he had this position, this contract, years ago. He lost it when your friends came into power.


Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation):: He will lose it again next time.


Jean-François Pouliot: How many vehicles has he to deliver the parcels?


Arthur Sauvé: I know that he has enough to do the service well.


Jean-François Pouliot: How many has he?


Arthur Sauvé: I cannot give the number. That is not my business.


Jean-François Pouliot: How much has been paid to Laurent by the Post Office Department since he has been on the payroll?


Arthur Sauvé: I have not the vouchers with me. The hon. member will admit that I cannot possibly have the public accounts with me. I was not notified that this question would come up.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is it a permanent contract-


Arthur Sauvé: Temporary.


Jean-François Pouliot: 
Arthur Sauvé: It is a temporary contract, by tender.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is it not a temporary contract, since October 28, 1930?


Arthur Sauvé: That is possible, yes, in that month.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: At the minister's good pleasure?


Jean-François Pouliot: Is it not a fact that Laurent receives 70 cents per hour, according to his contract?


Arthur Sauvé: He now receives 80 cents per hour.


Jean-François Pouliot: 80 cents?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Has the hon. Postmaster General increased Laurent's salary by 10 cents per hour, since March 17?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member is not observing the rules of the house. We are not in committee of public accounts. We cannot spend the time of the house in questions and cross-questions of that kind. The hon. member fully knows the rules of the house. He may put questions and he certainly has a right to criticize all the expenditure of the department and its administration; however, it is not the spirit of the committee of the whole, of the finance committee to put cross-questions of that kind; the place for that is the public accounts committee. Let the hon. member criticize, let him request certain information, but I cannot allow such a cross-examination.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have but one observation to make to the chairman: The minister who has his estimates voted with the least difficulty is the Minister of Public Works. We follow the same routine when he brings down his estimates; we put questions to him and he always answers.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am not the Minister of Public Works, I am the chairman of the committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would you kindly inform me, sir, under what rule I am debarred from questioning the minister when he submits his estimates? Am I obliged to make a 40-minute speech or am I free to question him on matters relating to his department?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member has been long enough in the house to know that a cross-examination like he has just made cannot be directed against ministers. He may criticize; however, the examination of accounts is discussed in the public accounts committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not
criticizing the minister.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Whether the hon. member has any ground of quarrel or not with the minister has no bearing on the matter; but the observance of the rules of the house has.


Jean-François Pouliot: What rule,
sir, prevents me from putting questions to the minister?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I have
no objection to the hon. member putting questions to the minister.


Jean-François Pouliot: You have no objection that I ask questions to the minister?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: This
questioning might be quite proper in the public accounts' committee. In my opinion, it is discourteous and not in order in this committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, will you quote the rule of the house on which you base your decision?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is the rule which governs general discussion. I quoted it the other day in the house. I have given my decision. The hon. member has had the whole session to look up the rule.


Jean-François Pouliot: If you wish me to deliver a speech on the subject, the Postmaster General will get nowhere.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That
does not concern me.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member may proceed and show that he is better disposed.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Yes, he could show a better observance of the rules.


Arthur Sauvé: I would request, sir, that you make allowance for his future good intentions.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I base
my decision on rule 41, "decorum during debate."


Jean-François Pouliot: What, decorum! In court, it is the practice followed by every lawyer.

Supply-Post Office-Outside Service


Armand Renaud La Vergne: We are not in court.


Jean-François Pouliot: We are in
the highest court of the country.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member is mistaken. The inquiiy he is making should take place in the public accounts' committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: The public
accounts' committee is but a subcommittee of the house.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am
not seeking a lesson in parliamentary procedure from the hon. member, I state that he is out of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not
trying to teach the hon. chairman a lesson any more than he himself does to the judges when he pleads before them. At present, I am expressing my viewpoint and I contend that, as representative of a constituency in Canada, I am entitled to put any question to the hon. minister.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member is not entitled to put any question to the hon. minister nor is the minister obliged to answer it.


Jean-François Pouliot: In court,
we cannot ask suggestive questions.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: We are not in court.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am, at
present, discussing a point of law. The minister does not figure in this, it is just as if he did not exist, moreover, it is the usual practice, the minister does not figure at present-I am simply discussing a point of law, a question of principle.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I must call the hon. member to order. I gave my decision, he has but one thing to do if he is not satisfied: appeal from my decision.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I put
two questions to the hon. Postmaster General, in this respect?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am
unable to judge. The hon. member is too old a parliamentarian, he knows that he cannot proceed in that manner.


Jean-François Pouliot: Quite the
contrary, it is because I know that I can proceed in that manner that I am doing so. However, if you insist-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That is not my opinion.
53719-311*


Jean-François Pouliot: I respect
your opinion, sir, however, I think you are wrong.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: If the
hon. member is not satisfied, he may appeal from my decision.


Jean-François Pouliot: Very well,
sir, I appeal from your decision.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Very well.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not wish to be disagreeable to the chairman. As it is almost 11 o'clock-I have too much esteem for the chairman-he is aware of it also-to say things which would be unpleasant to him.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is not a question of esteem,- it is a question of duty.


Jean-François Pouliot: If he performs his duty, I carry out mine, in my own way. We are both sincere; however, we do not agree on this subject.
I shall ask the hon. Postmaster General why Laurent was awarded a temporary contract since October, 1930, and why tenders were not asked for such an important contract?


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member knows that this is often the practice. The Laurent contract is renewable at the minister's good pleasure; I think it is a fair one and that Mr. Laurent has greatly improved that service; and, thereby proved a saving to the department. For instance, in the changes connected with our garage, at Montreal, we saved more than S6,000.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I inquire from the minister whether it was not to keep Laurent in suspense that no tender Was called for and that the contract is temporary, instead of being for a specified period?


Arthur Sauvé: I have just stated it is because he gives a good service, I have no further knowledge of the matter.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then, sir, I am not joking, I shall request the right hon. Prime Minister to continue this inquiry in the Court House, in Montreal, with the files that are there.


Arthur Sauvé: Will the hon. member explain his insinuation?


Jean-François Pouliot: It is not an insinuation, but an advice which I am giving to the Prime Minister. If he wishes to look into the matter, he can verify the facts in the files of the Montreal Court House. And should he not wish to go there, he had best send a judge or lawyer and he will be given all the details. As I am not allowed
New Zealand Butter

[DOT]to question the hon. Postmaster General, I shall drop the matter.


Arthur Sauvé: I request the hon. member for Temiscouata to further explain and not leave the house under the impression of his insinuation. Does the hon. member contend that Mr. Laurent is involved in certain court cases which renders him unworthy of occupying a position in the department, and, thereby, unworthy of having a contract? I wish to know.
Mr. POUI/IOT (Translation): I stated what I had to say. It is my turn to leave matters take their course.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member has already been before the court.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, and I won my cases. Thank heaven! Come with me and you will see!
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 12, 1933.