1943-05-07

[Stage Direction]
On the order of motions:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to
announce the appointment of some additional parliamentary assistants, as follows:
Mr. Brooke Claxton (St. Lawrenee-St. George) to be parliamentary assistant to the President of the Privy Council.
Mr. Joseph Jean (Mercier) to be parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Justice.
Mr. Paul Martin (Essex East) to be parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Is this the complete
roster of appointments, or are there more to be made?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is seven
of the ten.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. R. LaFLECHE (Minister of National War Services) moved:
That a select committee be appointed on radio broadcasting to consider the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to review the policies and aims of the corporation and its regulations, revenues, expenditures and development, with power to examine and inquire into the matters and things herein referred to and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, and to send for
persons, papers and records; and that the said committee shall consist of the following members: Messrs. Bertrand (Prescott), Boucher, Casselman (Mrs.) (Edmonton East), Chevrier, Coldwell, Diefenbaker, Douglas (Queens), Duroeher, Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont), Hansell, Hanson (Skeena), Hazen, Isnor, La-Fleche, Laflamme, McCann, Matthews, Mullins, Rennie, Ross (St. Paul's), Telford, Tripp, Yeniot, and that the presence of at least nine members shall be a quorum of the said committee and that standing order 65 be suspended in relation thereto.
Gordon Graydon: Before this motion carries, Mr. Speaker, I desire to make some observations with respect to the matter of radio broadcasting. You will recall that last session a committee on radio broadcasting was constituted and held several sessions, during which the whole matter of radio broadcasting in the several fields was reviewed. Many important matters were dealt with, one or two of which I should like to discuss.
First, however, may I point out that at the last session of parliament no opportunity was given to discuss the committee's report. When before the Easter recess the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had something to say respecting the length of time which had been taken in setting up the committee on reconstruction and other committees of the house I took occasion to remind him, as I now remind hon. members, that one of the chief reasons why so much of the time of the house was so consumed was that at the end of the last session the opportunity to discuss matters dealt with by committees of the house was not present. The same applies to the committee on radio broadcasting, which completed its work near the end of the last session and through its chairman made its report to the house. No concurrence was moved, and no debate ensued. The only observations made- and Your Honour quite properly stipulated that they should be brief-were those I made, when I pointed out as a member of the committee that the report was not unanimous.
During the war years 1940 and 1941 voices were raised in the house supporting the constitution of a committee on radio broadcasting. A committee sat in 1938 and presented its report. Another sat in 1939, and it too made a report. In 1940 and 1941, for reasons best known to the government, parliament was refused the request made by some members that a committee be set up to investigate the policies, management and operation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Numerous explanations were given as to why the government had refused the request. Finally however in 1942, following requests made from
Radio Broadcasting

time to time, the government agreed to the setting up of a committee on radio broadcasting. It was bad enough to permit the years 1940 and 1941 to pass without having a periodic investigation into the affairs of this publicly-owned and publicly-controlled corporation; but that was not the end of the difficulty. The session of 1942 began on January 22. On March 13, fifty days after the opening of the session, the committee on radio broadcasting was constituted. On May 6, after , another fifty-three days had passed, the first committee meeting was held. I do not wish to be unduly critical in matters of this kind, but I must point out that in that instance over a hundred days of the session had passed before anything was done in the committee on radio broadcasting, with the result that a considerably shorter period remained in which it might conclude its deliberations. Having regard to the time at its disposal, the committee sat as often as possible; but at the end of the session no opportunity was afforded to discuss the report presented.
May I now proceed to a discussion of one or two matters which then engaged the attention of the committee. One of the first which came to our notice was that of obtaining the necessary information upon which we might form our judgments as to the operation and management of the corporation. I have in mind particularly the minutes of the board of governors. Throughout the whole gamut of controversy respecting the affairs of the corporation, the government-perhaps I should say the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation- refused to permit production of the minutes of the board of governors for the assistance of members of the committee. That point was the subject of a division in the committee. The whole history of the operations of the corporation, so far as decisions and results of deliberations are concerned, found their way naturally to those minutes. The best the members of the committee were able to do was to have the minutes brought to the committee room. From time to time, after some argument, some parts of the minutes were read into the record by officers of the corporation, or by those giving evidence respecting their affairs.
I now renew the suggestion I then made, that while in the deliberations of a committee it may not always be advisable or necessary to give the public full access to all the minutes, there is little or no justification for depriving the people's representatives free access to minutes so that they may know what is taking place, how money is being spent, and how efficiently the corporation is operating.

My suggestion is that when the committee sits this year those who have something to do with the production of minutes ought to give careful consideration to such production, so that nothing may be left to chance, and everything will be in the open and available for scrutiny by those interested in the matter.
There were many interesting developments in the committee. One of the chief reasons for the public's persistent demand for investigation was that from time to time they had had cause for alarm arising from newspaper reports as to the correspondence in connection with the resignation of a member of the board of governors. In 1939, after considerable criticism had been voiced within the board of governors itself, the late Alan D. Plaunt, then a member of the board of governors, accepted the obligation of making a survey of the management and affairs of the corporation, of which he was one of the severest critics. Mr. Thompson was appointed to act with Mr. Plaunt, and the two of them brought in a report to the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as it was then constituted. The report, which was dated September 23, 1939, dealt with a multitude of matters and contained a large number of recommendations. It was then placed upon the doorstep of the board of governors to be dealt with as was contemplated and premeditated by the appointment of Mr. Plaunt and Mr. Thompson to do this work. I have no intention of doing anything more to-day than simply to refer to the report, because it is a lengthy document. The consideration of this report took up considerable time of the committee itself.
There was one thing which led to some public uneasiness with respect to the affairs of the broadcasting corporation. Action upon the report was successively deferred and delayed by the board of governors. This fact was clearly set out in the letter of resignation of Mr. Plaunt a year afterwards. The board of governors, or a committee thereof, met on October 16, a little less than a month after the report was submitted; on November 17 they met again; on January 20, 1940, they met again; on April 15, 1940, they met again; and they met again on July 6 and August 19, 1940. I think most hon. members will agree that there were plenty of opportunities for a comprehensive discussion of such an important matter as the report to which I have just referred.
On August 30, 1940, following the meeting of August 19, Alan B. Plaunt resigned. His letter of resignation to the minister in charge at that time contained details of many of the things which perhaps were at the root of the trouble

Radio Broadcasting
which had occurred. Here is the situation as one finds it outlined in Mr. Plaunt's letter of August 30, 1940. I do not intend to read the whole letter, but one pertinent part reads as follows:
I feel that as a public trustee I should not continue to accept responsibility for the internal organization and executive direction of the corporation when I have long ceased to have confidence in it.
The whole letter makes most interesting reading. The evidence shows that time after time Mr. Plaunt tried to have action taken with respect to the report he had made, but the board of governors successively deferred and delayed action. If I remember correctly, those are the words which he used quite often to describe the position in which he found himself. Is it any wonder that members of the House of Commons began to ask questions from time to time and that uneasiness was spreading throughout the country? But this uneasiness had not yet approached the point of a decision on the part of the government to investigate the affairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Although Mr. Plaunt's resignation was put in on August 30, 1940, we did not have an investigating committee set up by this house until May of 1942.
I do not intend this afternoon to deal with all the matters dealt with by the committee in its various sessions, but two or three interesting things occurred to which I should like to refer. Prior to the time the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation committee was set up, I said on many occasions, I think perhaps in this house as well, that if the affairs of the corporation were ever considered there would be some interesting revelations. It was difficult to listen to the evidence which came out at certain sittings of the committee without smiling, but one realized that the matter was really serious and deserved important consideration.
In April, 1941, after the Plaunt report, the structure of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was somewhat changed. The general manager, who was the big chief of the show, was gradually elbowed out. I think I described this move in the committee by saying that the general manager had been shifted from the ground floor up to the attic, and about all he was allowed to take with him was the nameplate on which were inscribed the words "General Manager". He still retained that office, but what actually happened-business men in the house and throughout the country will appreciate the faroical situation-was that after the change took place the general manager was actually the assistant general manager, and the assistant general mrnager was actually the manager.
In April, 1940, an order in council was passed by the government giving the executive direction and management and control of the corporation to an executive committee. We then had a general manager who was not a general manager, we had an assistant general *manager who was the general manager, and we had an order in council which placed everything in the hands of an executive committee. But the strangest part of it all was the fact that the executive committee never was set up. These are some of the things which I think justified a searching investigation into the whole matter. I find that the changes left the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in a wholly chaotic condition. If ever there was a committee which drew to the attention of this house and of parliament conditions which urgently needed rectification, it was the radio broadcasting committee of last year. True, I was not able to endorse some of the recommendations contained in the committee's report, but' certainly by its investigation the committee aroused the people of Canada and the government to a position which had for too long gone on unheeded, uninvestigated and unchecked. Not only did we have all this division of authority with respect to the general manager, with more chiefs, one might say, than were ever in any Indian tribe, and with a legal set-up of one kind and a factual set-up of another, but, as someone said in the committee, the trouble with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was that it had too many bosses. Yes. it had too many bosses, but also it did not actually have a boss, which was a very difficult thing to explain.
The set-up of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with respect to the ministry was also a matter of some discussion in the committee. Two ministers of the crown had to do with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation- not merely one minister, but two-and with two ministers of the crown concerned in its affairs and with the situation with respect to the general manager such as I have described, it is not very much wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the people felt that an investigation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was amply justified.


Mr. HOWE:: May I ask which two ministers were responsible for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


Gordon Graydon: The two ministers responsible, as my hon. friend knows, were the Minister of National War Services and my hon. friend himsBlf.
Radio Broadcasting


Clarence Decatur Howe: But only one at a time. I was responsible for it for a time, and then it was transferred to the Minister of National War Services and my responsibility with respect to the corporation ended completely.


Gordon Graydon: I do not want to question my hon. friend's word, but in the committee's investigation not only did the Minister of National War Services give evidence but my hon. friend as well.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was a former minister in charge of the corporation and I was also a member of the committee. I presume that the less vocal members of the committee were entitled to speak occasionally, and I spoke as a member of the committee after sitting quiet for a long time.


Gordon Graydon: I do not recall that the minister was very quiet, but I will take his word on that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I spoke only once.


Gordon Graydon: I think the minister had better check back on his position with respect to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, because actually he was partly responsible for the whole matter of licensing by the corporation. In that regard the corporation was actually under the minister. That statement was made many times in the committee, and criticism was offered with respect to two' ministers of the crown being responsible for the affairs of the corporation. I make that statement again now, and with respect to any changes that may have been made I say that this house and the people generally will welcome such a concentration of authority as will leave the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in a position at least where it knows to whom it is responsible, so that there will finally be some degree of certainty in its whole structure.
This brings me to another point. Speaking of the certainty of the structure of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, one finds this very interesting situation, which was the subject of some discussion in the early part of this session by myself and I think the Minister of National War Services, and perhaps also the Prime Minister. It is this, that although the newly-appointed general manager may have hit upon a new formula for describing it, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has not changed its structure legally or constitu-[DOT] tionally. I would that it had, because the corporation is not, as at present constituted, what is known as an independent public corporation. It cannot be regarded as such, even though the Minister of National WTar Services, when questions have been asked on the floor

of the house about the corporation, has said on occasion: I shall have to get the consent of this independent corporation before I can answer the question. But a former minister of the crown, giving evidence before the committee last year, made the statement that the corporation was in some respects an emanation of the crown. Evidence was also given in the committee that the properties of the corporation could not be taxed by local municipalities because it was an emanation of the crown, part and parcel of the government system and governmental structure.
When it is argued that it is an independent	corporation like the Canadian
National	Railways, why then	are the
employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation not allowed to bargain collectively with their employer? I think I have given enough instances to show that in fairness to the continuation of the policy of public ownership in Canada with respect to one of our most important assets, parliament must see to it that the committee to be appointed this session deals with some of these problems that are still unsolved, and that is one of them. There is no reason why we should have an answer such as we received from the Prime Minister in the early part of this session when he agreed that there were some reasons for suggesting that this corporation was a half-government and half-independent public corporation. I referred to the corporation not long ago as a centaur-like corporation, and I repeat that statement. We have no right as a parliament to allow the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to be half a government enterprise and half an independent corporation. It must be either one or the other, and that is one of the things which I think must be dealt with fully by the special committee.
I do not want to discuss at any length the evidence which -was given before the committee last year. Whatever responsibility the committee may have placed on various people in its report, let me say that I do not think sufficient responsibility was placed upon two responsible parts of that corporation in the way it should have been placed. One was the government itself and the other the board of governors. Let me deal for a moment with the board of governors.
So far as the board of governors is concerned I think the report did not go far enough in its censure and in its recommendations. Many points were brought out in the evidence respecting the board of governors, and although the censure of the board of governors was there in the committee's report I felt that in view of the

Radio Broadcasting
condition of affairs which was within the knowledge of the board, and continued to be within the knowledge of the board all during the difficult period of the affairs of the corporation when they were changing managers and changing their structure, the only proper thing for the committee to have done was to ask for the resignation for the entire board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. That would have given the whole structure an opportunity to be revivified, reconstructed and put upon a proper basis. Of course the board of governors had a heavy responsibility. But they had a responsibility which in my opinion they did not fully discharge, and they should have received a much greater censure and condemnation than that which the committee gave them. However, the government cannot be absolved from responsibility in this connection, because one of the difficulties which the board of governors faced was that it never had a full quota of members from the time Mr. Plaunt resigned, on August 30, 1940, until a few days before the committee was set up in 1942. For a year and a half there was at least one vacancy. Finally it was filled by the appointment of a man from Ottawa. But one of the reasons which the chairman of the board of governors gave for some of the difficulties facing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with respect to setting up an executive committee to manage its affairs as envisaged by the order in council of April, 1941, was that the government had not appointed anyone to the vacancy. It seems to me unjustifiable and inexcusable, if this corporation is as important as we think it is, that a year and a half should be allowed to go by without- filling one of the vacancies on the board. Mr. Morin, chairman of the board of governors, was asked by me the following questions and made the following answers, as appear on page 95 of the report of the special committee:
Q. The responsibility then apparently is shifted from your shoulders with respect to the executive committee and to the government? Is that the idea? Did they not appoint a successor to Mr. Plaunt?
A. It is not for me to blame the government. That is a fact everybody knows.
Q. In any event that is the reason, the failure to appoint another member to succeed Mr. Plaunt held up the appointment of the executive committee?
A. Yes.
I make passing reference to this because I think it is important that from now on appointments to the board of governors of the corporation shall not be delayed.
Then, of course, one* must also make reference to the report itself. In the report strong
emphasis was laid, as also was done by members of the committee, including a number of us who were in a minority, upon the fact that a majority of our listeners are drawn from two great sections, labour and agriculture. But when, last year, we came to examine the affaire of the board, and we looked around to find where the representative of labour was, we could not find him-; and when we looked around to discover who the representative of the farmers was, we could not find him either. The result was that the report of the radio broadcasting committee contained, rightly and properly, a recommendation that the viewpoints of labour and agriculture should be represented on the board of governors. Following the recommendation of that committee, which made its report in July, 1942, the government appointed not very long ago-I believe it was in March-a labour representative, Mr. H. B. Chase of Montreal, to the board of governors. With respect to the other appointment, which was that of a lady from British Columbia, I hesitate to criticize, because I believe that, as so many listeners belong to the fair sex, no objection should be made to the appointment of a lady to the board. I think it is an admirable step. Nevertheless agriculture still remains unrepresented. It is a crying shame that on that important board of governors there is no representative of the farming population, although by no group is more interest shown in the affairs of radio broadcasting. I say to the Prime Minister and the Minister of National War Services that some move should be made to have agriculture properly represented on the board of governors.


Mr. MacNICOL:: And a lady, too.


Gordon Graydon: I am pleased to hear the hon. member for Davenport stick up for the ladies; they have no greater champion. It is a desirable thing to have both the womanhood and the agriculture of Canada represented. If the Prime Minister wants to add his word I will listen to him too.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was going to ask my hon. friend if he knew anyone who has a wider knowledge of agricultural problems than Mrs. Sutherland, who has been appointed a member of the board.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: She has a wider knowledge of political problems.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: She has a very large knowledge of agricultural questions.


Gordon Graydon: There is no reason why the Prime Minister and I should not in a friendly way disagree on that point. I think
Radio Broadcasting

I will just leave it at that. But I say to him and to the government generally that so far as I know, organized agriculture has not had a say with respect to the appointment of any person to the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
In closing, may I observe that sufficient evidence was brought out in the committee to show that the meetings of the board were sporadic. I believe in one year only five were held, although important matters were coming up from time to time. The report called for more frequent meetings.
The whole matter of the legal status of the corporation should be dealt with by the incoming committee. Up to the present time the board of governors seems to have been powerless or disinclined to take a forward step in this respect. I should like to have gone further with respect to the evidence which was adduced from time to time before the committee but there will be another opportunity for that when the committee meets again.
May I end my remarks with this plea. The people of Canada recognize the importance and the widespread influence of radio as a means of communication in these times, not only in the domestic field but also, as we have seen in this war, in the international sphere. Without going into the question of a high-power short wave system, I would suggest that hon. members read the evidence covering the whole situation in order to see how the matter was handled by the government and by the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It will make most interesting reading; for it will show that valuable chances slip through one's hands, even if it happens to be a government or a board of governors. Having in mind the importance of radio as a channel of communication, both in the international and in the domestic field, I believe that one of the things which the Canadian people will insist upon is that the radio be freed from party or from governmental influence. If there is one single thing that the people will ask for, in connection with this new committee to be set up, it is that recommendations be brought down to divorce the Canadian .Broadcasting Corporation entirely from all possibility of partisan influence and partisan control in Canada. That is one thing which in my opinion it is most important that we should impress upon the committee when they undertake their work.
Let me say this with regard to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I think we can be justly proud of the idea and of the principle

that lies behind it. I have had very grave doubts, I have had many objections, and many questions have arisen in my mind with respect to the carrying out of the details of the principle and the idea which we have before us in regard to the radio. Things have gone on from year to year which I think have very much lessened' the influence of the corporation in the great world of communication in which it operates. I trust therefore that in these periodic investigations by the people's representatives we shall cure some of the evils which have crept into the corporation, with the result that we may have a great independent body working, through the communication world, for the good of the state in the years that lie ahead, and that hereafter we may look back at least upon work well done, when the suggestions and the constructive criticisms which are being made have rendered the corporation a better instrument for the public good.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: 
Mr. COLD WELL:: Faith sometimes moves mountains. This time it removed a cause
of great trouble in the broadcasting corporation. I look back to the time w'hen one rising in this house to offer some criticisms of this corporation-I believe I was the first to do so-was met with a rather unfriendly reception when he suggested that things were not right with the corporation. On November 12, 1940, at page 64 of Hansard, and again on December 3, 1940, at page 622 of Hansard, I made statements which have been fully justified by the recommendations of the committee. My attention was first called to the internal affairs of the corporation by the resignation of Alan Plaunt from the board of governors in protest against the board failing to consider reports by Mr. Plaunt and the corporation's special accountant, Mr. Thompson, and their recommendations which were designed to prevent a continuance of certain conditions. As the house will remember, that was immediately followed by the resignation of Mr. E. A. Pickering and Mr. Donald Buchanan. Both these resignations were brought up in the house, but no notice was taken of the conditions which evidently lay behind them. I remember, too, that after this matter had been raised in the house on November 12 of that year, the board of governors met at the end of November and passed a resolution which misled the government, this house and the country. Of that episode the committee had this to say, in the report tabled in July:
The committee recognizes that the board of governors is charged with the responsibility of conducting the affairs of a utility of great national importance. The board failed to deal adequately with the Thompson and Plaunt reports; the resignation of one governor from the board, the resignations of the assistant to the general manager, and the supervisor of public affairs broadcasts, from the staff in the autumn of 1940 did not arouse the board to the need of taking effective action to deal with the internal condition of the corporation, which was most unfortunate. In spite of the resolution of confidence in the general manager adopted by the board of governors at its meeting on November 26, 1940, it is clear from the evidence as well as from the subsequent decisions of the board in regard to the by-laws amended March, 1941, that he had in fact already lost their confidence as a business administrator. The board of governors, therefore, cannot escape responsibility for allowing the condition of affairs disclosed by the investigation to continue.
That was a strongly worded censure, though not so strongly worded as some of us would have liked. A minority of the committee would have demanded the resignation of the board of governors, but this was about as strong a censure of a public board as has ever been tabled in this House of Commons. Shortly after the board's misleading resolution.
Radio Broadcasting

on December 3, 1940, I appealed for a second time for an early inquiry into the affairs of the corporation and quoted a new statement made by Mr. Plaunt a few days before in which he accused the board of governors of-
. . . condoning very serious internal conditions and irregularities as well as certain policies which are indefensibly partisan and harmful.
At the time the board of governors was very warmly defended in many quarters, among them in this House of Commons, by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) in his capacity as Minister of Transport. He was the channel of communication between the corporation and this house at that time. I can only conclude, as kindly as I can, that the pressure of other affairs caused him inadvertently to mislead the house; for the house and the country were misled by the Minister of Munitions and Supply at that time. Probably one of the most reprehensible features of the whole situation was the light in which it placed a man of whom Mr. L. C. Brockington said to the parliamentary committee of 1940, and I am going to put this on record-
In Ontario we have in Ottawa Mr. Alan Plaunt, who, if I may say so in his presence, has in my opinion made the greatest contribution to national radio of any individual in this country. He started the activity of the Radio League. National radio has had not only his enthusiasm but a very substantial portion of his fortune ever since it started.
Many of us know that to be true; yet I remember that that autumn I personally was approached by certain people connected with the corporation and warned against Mr. Plaunt. I was told what a dangerous man he was, and everything possible was done to prejudice me against him. But I happened to know him; therefore I paid no heed to the approaches that were made and the stories that were told to me. I recall, too, that after this report was tabled in parliament last year, those of us who had been active in the radio committee were accused of partisanship, of personal animosity toward an individual, of political intrigue. If I may say so-and I am sure my colleagues in the house will not contradict this-the men who were most active in that committee were not all drawn from one party. I would mention the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), at that time a Conservative; the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton), a Liberal who only to-day has been deservedly given a responsibile position by the Prime Minister of this country; and myself. There were others, of course, but I mention these three to show that this was not a matter of political intrigue but an endeavour on the part of a group of men interested in the broadcasting cor-
poration to get an unsavoury condition cleaned up and ended. I say that the report of the 1942 committee is a complete vindication of Mr. Plaunt's position, and of his resignation in an attempt to direct attention to a situation which he feared might eventually destroy the nationally owned radio system. Unfortunately he has not lived to witness his vindication.
Now, having said that, I want to add that since the presentation of the report to the House of Commons on July 25 of last year the board has been reorganized and a new manager appointed in the person of Doctor Thomson, a former president of the university of Saskatchewan.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
only a temporary measure.


Major James William Coldwell: It is only a temporary appointment, I agree, but so far as I have been able to observe, Doctor Thomson and his staff and the board of governors are engaged in an earnest attempt, which I hope will be successful, to restore confidence in the corporation and to make it the national instrument it was designed to be. As one of the critics of the board last year I am glad to be able to place this opinion on record, and I hope subsequent events will confirm it as being sound.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the
hon. member will allow me a question, has the general manager been able to divorce the radio corporation from the government?


Major James William Coldwell: That is a question into which the radio committee will have to inquire. As I said at the outset, in my opinion the position of this corporation must be clarified. I hope the position will be taken that it is an independent corporation, like, if you will, the Canadian National Railways, responsible to parliament through a parliamentary committee, with a channel of communication through the appropriate minister.
Our committee last year, it will be noted, reaffirmed again the principles laid down by parliamentary committees to which the problem of national radio had been referred from time to time. I should like to place them anew on the record, so that they may remain before us as a guide, not only for the corporation but for the committee which is to be appointed under the present resolution. This is a summary :
(a) The paramount importance of a single national authority to control all broadcasting in the public interest.

Radio Broadcasting
That was laid down in 1932 and, as I say, was reiterated last year.
(b) The public ownership of all high-pow'ered stations under a national system of broadcasting, with low power stations individually operated or coordinated in relation to the dominant system.
Again, this was first laid down in 1932. We have to guard well this important feature of our broadcasting system, always bearing in mind that parliamentary committee after parliamentary committee has laid this principle down as fundamental to the nationally-owned system.
. (c) The coordination of all broadcasting in Canada through exclusive control being vested in the nationally-owned system of-
(i)	the character of all programmes, political or otherwise, broadcast by all stations, and of the advertising content thereof; and
(ii)	all wire line net-works used for carrying broadcast programmes.
This was laid down in 1936, confirmed by subsequent committees, and reiterated by our committee of last year.
(d)	The independence and flexibility of administration of the national broadcasting authority to be assured by its constitution as a public corporation. Under this constitution decisions as to policy are to be made by its board of governors, while administration is to be unified under a general manager and an assistant general manager responsible to the hoard for the conduct of all business of the corporation.
This was laid down in 1934, 1936 and 1938, and again in 1942. That is the point dealt with by the leader of the opposition and one to which I too draw attention.
(e)	Members of the board of governors to be men of broad outlook, having a knowledge of the tastes and interests of the listening public, and able to make a definite contribution to the solution of the problems before the corporation.
This was laid down in 1936. As we suggested in our report of last year, these members should be widely representative.
(f)	Independence of the corporation from partisan control to be assured by its constitution. As trustee for the people of Canada, and the payers of licences, the board of governors should render an account of its stewardship regularly to parliament, and be subject to ultimate parliamentary control.
This was laid down in 1938.
(g)	The importance of establishing at as early a date as possible a high-power short-wave broadcasting station financed as a national undertaking but operated and controlled by the corporation as an integral part of its system.
Laid down in 1938, 1939 and again last year. A special report was made to parliament asking that this be undertaken immediately.
(h)	Political network broadcasting during federal and provincial election campaigns to be on a sustaining basis, and time divided equitably among the political parties.
This was laid down in 1939, and again last year. I am glad to learn that this arrangement has now been extended to provincial as well as to federal elections.
In connection with paragraph (e) the committee last year recommended that in filling vacancies the government should choose men and women of outstanding ability, and should include as far as possible persons able to represent the viewpoint of farmers and labour. As the leader of the opposition has said, and as I repeat, this is a vitally important matter. Had the board of governors resigned, as I thought they should have resigned, to enable the government to exercise a free hand in the appointment of a new board, the carrying out of this recommendation would have been more feasible than it has been since that time.
To these must now be added some new and equally important recommendations of the 1942 committee, as stated at pages 1095 and 1096 of No. 20 of the Minutes of Proceedings containing the third and final report, and particularly to the following-I shall not deal with all of them-
(a)	Neither the ownership nor the shares evidencing ownership of a station shall be transferred without the authority of the minister;
(b)	a station shall be owned and operated by the holder of the licence;
(e) except in the most unusual circumstances, no one shall hold more than one licence;
During last year's investigation we found that one organization in Ontario controlled eight licences, and that another in western Canada controlled six. I have been told-and this is a matter -which as a member of the committee I shall inquire into when the general manager is called

that since the report was tabled another station has -been acquired in Ontario by one of these chain organizations. To continue with the recommendations of the 1942 committee:
(d) the responsible minister and the corporation shall have the power to obtain all information necessary to carry out these provisions and to ensure that private stations are operated for the benefit of the nation and of the communities in which they are located. If necessary, the revenues, profits, and expenditures of privately-owned broadcasting stations should be ascertained in order to see whether the licence fees payable by them to the government are adequate and if the public services rendered by them is commensurate with the direct and indirect profits and advantages enjoyed by them from the right to use a broadcasting channel.
That recommendation is important. When we had before us Mr. Glen Bannerman, the_ representative of private broadcasting stations, we found that the fee paid by a station to the organization of which he was either secretary or president-I have forgotten which-was
Radio Broadcasting

greater than the licence fee paid to the government. We had every reason to believe, although we were unable to get the figures- Mr. Bannerman promised to supply them, but we diid not receive them-that most of the large private stations in the country were engaged in a very lucrative business. We noted the tremendous expansion which had occurred in some of their very commodious offices, and the very fine parties they were able to throw when they opened a new addition, or a new radio station. We knew, of course, of the opening of the station at Peterborough. I understand a special train, with all the necessary equipment to make a very jolly party, opened the station at Peterborough, one of the eight controlled by the single privately-owned chain in this province.
It strikes me it will be the duty of the new committee to inquire into the steps that have been taken to ensure the consideration of these recommendations, as well as to inquire into what progress has been made in carrying out the earlier recommendation contained in the second report of the committee made to the house on July 7. That report dealt with the short-wave station.
Of the other recommendations, in my opinion local community stations owned and operated by persons identified with the localities they serve can and do perform a very useful function. That, however, does not mean that they should not be carefully supervised by the national radio authority. It is quite evident that certain privately-owned broadcasting stations have greatly increased their financial rewards without, in some instances, improving or increasing their service to the public. We had given to us an example of one station where the same programme had been in existence for a year or two-and not a very attractive programme at that, so far as we could learn. Among the services which such community stations could render is the discovery and development of local talent. The new committee should consider ways and means of encouraging local stations to carry on this form of service more effectively. As I said a moment ago, they should consider whether the licences paid by the privately-owned stations are adequate. I want to repeat that the representative of the association of private broadcasters admitted that membership in his organization cost more than the licence fees paid to the Department of Transport by the private broadcasting stations.
There is one other matter I should like to deal with briefly. I have felt that for the past few years sufficient care has not been exercised in safeguarding the principles laid

down by previous parliamentary committees. I am particularly anxious that the channels allotted to Canada under the Havana agreement for high-powered public radio shall not be alienated to private stations. There was last year, and I believe it is continuing this year, a direct drive to get control of these channels and to expand the strength of some of the already high-powered commercial radio stations. If we permit this we shall lose the use of these channels to Canada. If there is one thing that we must keep free of private control, it is the air. The earth and all that is under the earth has gone from us; let us keep the air free for the people, both in the field of broadcasting and in the field of flying. I want parliament to see that these available radio channels are safeguarded in the public interest.
Last year the committee stated most explicitly that privately-owned broadcasting stations have no vested interest in the sound waves they are allowed to use. We expressed the view that any increase of power or the use of channels made available to Canada under the Havana agreement should be granted only to stations owned by or taken over by the corporation. The committee laid down this principle last year, but already attempts are being made to circumvent the recommendations of the committee. I do not think the board of governors and the new general manager will allow this to be done, but as the guardians of the interest of the people of Canada we should keep this in mind and upon occasion reiterate our view. The committee this year should go into this matter thoroughly and! consider ways and means of utilizing for the national radio all the channels allotted to us under the Havana agreement. Otherwise we may lose them.
Nor should we ever overlook at any time the fact that this parliament decreed by statute that the corporation was to be given the exclusive right of networks. During the past few months there has been evidence in the. press that attempts are being made to establish a privately-owned and controlled network in Canada. If a second network is needed to serve the people,, and I believe the time has come when the tastes of different people should be served by two networks, we should follow the practice which has been followed: in New Zealand and some other countries-we should have two networks to cater to two different types of persons at the same time, but they should both be under the national radio authority. To allow a commercial network to be established under private control would be a violation of the

Radio Broadcasting
fundamental principle underlying national and public radio as laid down by the statute which was endorsed by various parliamentary committees and, accepted by the country and by this parliament. Even since the 1942 report was presented I understand that an application has been made by a United States chain for another outlet in, Canada. I do not know whether that is true, but perhaps the minister will tell us if the Mutual Broadcasting System in the United States has applied for another channel in Canada and, if so, with what result.
There has been, I say, considerable concentration of absentee ownership and control of private radio stations. The committee this year should press for a change in the policy of the corporation which has allowed this dangerous concentration. Steps should be taken to remedy the existing situation in accordance with the recommendations of the parliamentary committee which were presented to the house last July. I fear that in the past there was neglect to safeguard the country's interests, and I fear also that there was considerable favouritism.
Last year it was found! that there were large areas in the country which were insufficiently provided with radio facilities, although the radio sets were liable to licence. This was particularly true of the Prince Rupert region in British Columbia; but the situation there has been remedied. I have received complaints from listeners in northern Ontario that they are insufficiently provided for. It is claimed that there is a blind spot in northern Ontario, and it is suggested that this could be served by the Kenora station if its power were stepped up slightly and it were made a sustaining station. At the present time it is just a small low-powered local station. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. McKinnon) will know more about this than I do. The committee should inquire into the adequacy of the corporation's coverage in all parts of Canada.
I am glad that the committee last year placed on record its appreciation of the loyalty and devotion of the corporation's permanent staff. We realized that they were carrying on under difficult circumstances, but had done a creditable job. I should like to add my own appreciation of some of the excellent programmes that have been arranged. I have been a persistent critic of some of the programmes, particularly of the soap operas and broadcasts of that type, but I share the enjoyment of a good many people of the clean humour and comedy of programmes like Fibber McGee and Mollv and others of that sort.


An hon. MEMBER:: And Charlie.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, and Charlie
McCarthy. When I have the time I look forward to the Lux radio theatre, although that is a soap programme, and to the symphony orchestras and the Metropolitan opera. I have enjoyed more than usual the splendid discussions which were arranged under the auspices of the labour forum and the farm forum and the discussions of problems of national unity which have been carried on by various groups and commentators. I find myself in sharp disagreement from time to time with some of the views expressed, but it seems to me that the white paper of 1939, which stated as its first principle, "the importance of placing before listeners the widest variety of points of view", contained the very essence of democracy. I believe that the corporation has tried to do this, and it should be commended. This is the fundamental of a free national broadcasting system.
I hope that neither the committee nor the corporation will give any heed to the demands sometimes made that this or that otherwise excellent commentator should be removed from the air because he expresses views which are unacceptable to some listeners. On the whole I think that those responsible for the programmes of the broadcasting corporation have had the good sense to appoint a very competent group of commentators who express wide and varied views from a good stock of practical knowledge, and as long as the corporation provides for the expression of all points of view there can be no valid complaint. I say this because of express or implied criticisms of certain able commentators which have been made from time to time in the country and sometimes in this house.
One other thing I would like to say about commentaries. We have had excellent commentaries on international affairs from our own Canadian commentators. I should like to see something done to give the people of Canada the kind of service that the people of the United States get from Washington, where you have commentators expressing different viewpoints and giving a summary of the work of congress. Our people do not know of the work of parliament and I think some plan should be adopted whereby they might be brought into closer contact with the work of the House of Commons through radio broadcasting. Of course if I had my way I would have microphones installed in this parliament.


Gordon Graydon: That would not be any good, because you would have the cabinet broadcasting all the time.
Radio Broadcasting


Major James William Coldwell: I would see that the principal speeches made in this parliament were broadcast, and if that were done I think the public would demand that voices other than those of members of the cabinet be heard. I have sufficient faith in democracy in this country to believe that that w'ould be done. I should be prepared at any rate to take the chance.
I should like to discuss other phases of the corporation's work. As a member of the new committee, I hope to be able to discuss the possibility of utilizing radio, and when the time comes of television in all our schools; for radio can become a great educational medium for good. By the same token it can become a force of evil. We have seen radio in some of the European countries made a propaganda weapon for evil, but it can be made an educational medium for good. As to television from the House of Commons, if the Prime Minister suggests putting that in, I must say when I look around the house that I doubt whether that would be a good thing.
I have given some reasons, Mr. Speaker, why I believe that at every session of parliament a committee should be appointed to look into the operations of the corporation. Last year we were engaged in a most unpleasant task; I think we all realized that. This year I hope we may devote our attention to the constructive side of the nation's radio activities.


Mr. J. J. McCANN (Renfrew South):: Mr. Speaker, I had the honour last year of acting in the capacity of chairman of the radio broadcasting committee and presenting its several reports. The final report, which was the most important of those presented, did not have accompanying it the usual motion for concurrence. That is easily understood from the report itself, because it contained a great number of recommendations which one could not ask the government to implement immediately or without considerable study. However, it was the privilege of any member of the committee to move a motion for concurrence at any time.
I feel sure that the action of the government in setting up a select committee on radio broadcasting' at this time will commend itself to parliament and particularly to the members who constituted the committee last year and who are to constitute the committee this year. The growing importance of radio as an instrument of public information and education as well as of entertainment makes it imperative that this great public utility should have the close scrutiny of parliament more

frequently than it has had in former years. In addition it has become an organization with a yearly budget of approximately five million dollars. It employs seven hundred people and services and caters to our entire populations through our one and a half million radio sets.
The setting up of this committee gives one an opportunity to make comments on the activities of the 1942 committee and on the report which that committee presented. The setting up of the committee at this time is the implementation of one of the recommendations of the 1942 committee. I am. firmly of the opinion that the public is convinced of the soundness of the principle of public-owned radio in Canada. The committee last year had its attention drawn to this and directed its full attention to the operations of the corporation since the last parliamentary committee on radio sat in 1939. Most of the members of this house have probably forgotten what the report of the committee of last year was and may not be conversant with the history of the setting up of radio as a national utility in this country. For their information let me say that the subject of radio broadcasting was considered by a royal commission under the chairmanship of Sir John Aird, who made a report in September, 1929. In 1932 broadcasting was examined by a special committee of the house, and the Canadian Radio Broadcasting commission was established by an act passed that year. Radio broadcasting was the subject of inquiry by parliamentary committees in 1934 and again in 1936. Following the report of the 1936 committee the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was created by the Canadian Broadcasting Act of 1936, and the operations of the corporation were examined, as hon. members have been told, by committees of the house in 1938 and 1939.
The committees which sat in these several years laid down certain fundamental principles with reference to radio broadcasting. Those principles were reaffirmed by the committee which sat last year. The outstanding principles were (1) the paramount importance of a single national authority to control all broadcasting in the public interest-that dates back to 1932; (2) the public ownership of all high-powered stations under a national system of broadcasting, wdth low-power stations individually operated or coordinated in relation to thg dominant system; (3) the coordination of all broadcasting in Canada through exclusive control being vested in the nationally owned system of: (a) the character of all programmes, political or otherwise, broadcast by all stations

Radio Broadcasting
and of the advertising content thereof, and (b) all wire-line networks used for carrying broadcast programmes.
Another principle had to do with the independence and flexibility of administration of the national broadcasting authority. That was to be assured by its constitution as a public corporation. Under its constitution decisions as to policy are to be made by its board of governors, while administration is to be unified under a general manager and an assistant general manager responsible to the board for the conduct of all business. The committees of 1934, 1936 and 1938 reaffirmed that principle.
The next, one was that members of the board of governors were to be men of broad outlook, having a knowledge of the taltes and interests of the listening public and able to make a definite contribution to the solution of the problems before the corporation; and that the independence of the corporation from partisan control was to be assured by its constitution. As trustee for the people of Canada and the payers of licences, the board of governors should render an account of its stewardship regularly to parliament.
Regarding the importance of establishing at an early day a 'high-power short wave station, this was recommended in 1938 and 1939; also that political network broadcasting during federal and provincial election campaigns should be on a self-sustaining basis. As I said, your committee of 1942 reaffirmed its belief in those principles.
There has been considerable criticism of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I do not wonder that there has been that criticism, but all comments should not be critical, because the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has a number of important accomplishments to its credit. I believe it can be fairly said that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has a splendid record of achievement, particularly in these last five years. Radio coverage has been extended from 46 to 91 per cent of the population of Canada. Four high-powered stations have been completed across Canada. Interference from United States and Mexican stations has been limited by wise agreements. Programmes have been most materially improved and extended by fostering native talent and securing the best programmes from the United States and Great Britain. A news service has been established through the generosity of the British United Press and the Canadian Press. The corporation's contribution to war publicity in every phase has been outstanding; it has formed a very valuable link between our soldiers overseas and their
relatives at home; and the mobile unit operated continuously throughout the air blitz of 1940 in Great Britain.
These are but some of the accomplishments of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and for these accomplishments credit must be given to the personnel of that corporation.
It has been suggested, especially by one section of the press, that the committee as it sat last year was on a head hunting expedition. That assertion is supported by the editorial comment of one paper in particular, which stated that the Canadian people should take calmly the committee's recommendations and devote some contemplation to its genesis and its possible consequences. Let me say that nothing could be further from the facts. The committee had no such intention or desire. We had no ulterior motives. The work of the committee was to review the policies and the aims of the organization. There was no political bias of any kind. Let me reiterate that we were investigating no persons, but we did try to dissect and diagnose the shortcomings of the institution and to offer remedies for those shortcomings.
Regarding the contention that there was some bias with reference to the investigation, let me read part of an editorial from the Montreal Gazette-a newspaper which cannot be said to be favourable to the government-of July 27, 1942:
Questions by some members at the hearing showed their belief that primary responsibility for CBC shortcomings rested with the government.
An attempt has been made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) to show that most of the blame for the shortcomings should rest upon the government or upon the board of governors. This editorial goes on to say:
The government has been shown to have set up an independent, publicly-owned corporation, to have provided it with a good, workable statutory foundation, and to have left it to the chief executive and the board of governors to run. Except in its apparent unwillingness to hold this parliamentary inquiry earlier ... it is difficult to see why the government should be blamed for the mistakes of a board deliberately designed to be free from political interference.
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, that would justify the position which the government has taken-not entirely, in not having had a parliamentary inquiry for three or four years, but that the government had sufficient confidence in the institution which it had set up, that, if given an opportunity it could carry on successfully.

liadio Broadcasting

I admit that there have been some missed opportunities in the development of this magnificent instrument of education and information, particularly in the fact that the government did not set up a short-wave broadcasting station. The recommendation that it should do so was made on several occasions. It is too bad that that recommendation was not carried out in former years, because never in the history of this country would it have been of greater advantage to our own people here in Canada, and especially to our armed services overseas, had we had that valuable instrument at our disposal. However, I am appreciative of the fact that there were a great many difficulties, especially since the war has come on, in securing the material which would be necessary.
The leader of the opposition has been somewhat critical of the method of investigation, more particularly in that the minutes of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation were not available at all times to the members of the committee. That matter received considerable discussion at the time it was brought before the committee. Let me say that as chairman I gave him assurance that the minutes of the corporation would be available at all times, and they were there at all times, especially such parts of such books of the minutes as were necessary to deal with the particular problems which would be under review from day to day. In taking that course we were but following the course which has been taken in connection with the railway committee. It has never been asked, in the hearings before the railway committee when the Canadian National Railways were under review, that the minutes of that corporation should be thrown open to all the members of the committee.


Gordon Graydon: They are not parallel cases.


James Joseph McCann: They are parallel cases.


Gordon Graydon: Oh, no.


James Joseph McCann: That is exactly my contention. You have two publicly-owned utilities, and in my view the position is comparable; if it is not done in the case of the Canadian National Railways it is not necessary that it should be done in the case of the Broadcasting Corporation. The hon. gentleman will admit that it was agreed that if the minutes with respect to any important aspect of the investigation were required to be presented before the committee they would be available at all times and that the officers of the corporation would be there to give any and all information which was requested or desired.


Gordon Graydon: But you could not see them.


James Joseph McCann: Of course I can readily understand why my hon. friend and some of the members would want to see them. They would go on certain fishing expeditions-


Gordon Graydon: That is a poor excuse.


James Joseph McCann: -and matters which probably would be found out apart entirely from the recording of the minutes or from the business which was in hand would be taken up piecemeal and made the subject of criticism. After all, minutes are not a verbatim record of what goes on at a meeting of the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or of any other institution. They are a record of decisions and of the findings of the board of governors or of the board of directors and are put there as an official record, and that official record was at all times open to the scrutiny of any of the members of the committee or, if it was not, the information contained therein was available.
My hon. friend has been critical of what took place in the years 1939, 1940 and 1941. I quite agree that there was room for considerable criticism; but after all that whole matter has been investigated and it is all more or less water under the bridge. What he might have done was to lay some stress on what has been accomplished since that report was presented in July, 1942.


Gordon Graydon: I knew you could be relied upon to do that.


James Joseph McCann: That is precisely what I propose to do. We made about [DOT] thirty recommendations. It is not my intention to go into these recommendations in detail but there are several very important ones to which the government have given heed and which they have implemented to the satisfaction of the people of the country. I will go over a few of them hurriedly.
One of the recommendations was that the amendments to the by-laws with regard to division of authority be reviewed. The bylaws have been cancelled and new by-laws have been made. The second recommendation was that the board of governors should consider using the services of Mr. Murray for a purpose other than that of general manager. That is a situation which with a little patience has cured itself, and while I do not want to be critical of the gentleman who held the position, I would say to the government that in the selection of a man for the position of general manager of a great public utility of this type they should be careful to get the type of man who has administrative

Radio Broadcasting
ability. I do not think there was a man of *more artistic ability than Mr. Gladstone Murray. He had the imagination and the artistry that goes with the particular position he held, but I believe that on his own admission he did not have, and I think he cared less whether he did have, the business acumen which a man should have to direct a great business organization. So that in seeking a permanent general manager for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation I would ask the government to exercise particular care in the selection of the type of man for the post. A temporary selection has been made. Doctor Thomson has so far filled the position with distinction. Whether or not he can live up to what the committee thought should be the requirements of a general manager I do not know. Probably after a trial of a year the government will be in a better position to determine that. So far he has done well. One of the things on which we did lay stress was that that man should be a Canadian. I will not dilate upon that particular aspect of the recommendation, but I do say that we have sufficient talent in this country, even in the business of radio, which is in its infancy, and that it should be given an opportunity and should be used, and that our own Canadian men should have the first opportunity over those who come from another country.
Another recommendation had to do with the meetings of the board. It was recommended that they be held more frequently. They are now held approximately every two months instead of three or more as before. Another recommendation was that programme planning should take into account the need of counteracting the influence of any enemy broadcasting. Many special programmes have been developed. There is now close cooperation between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Wartime Information Board. The seventh recommendation was that there should be closer integration of programme planning between the French and English network, and that has been attended to. It was recommended that the principles laid down in the white paper should be extended to provincial elections. That also has been done. There was a recommendation that greater attention be paid to the discovery and development of Canadian talent, and that is being proceeded with. It was recommended that greater care should be exercised in future in the payment of retaining fees and other similar fees to persons not on the corporation staff. That has been dealt with. It was recommended that the corporation institute a superannuation or
pension scheme for its employees on a contributory basis. A pension scheme was approved by the board of governors at its meetings on February 8 and 9, 1942, and the final contract is being drafted for submission to the governor in council.
The next recommendation was that the board should continue to consider the question of the location of the various departments of the corporation. That is a matter which is constantly before the board. The business office of the corporation is situated in the capital where there is easy contact between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the minister in control, but the chief broadcasting offices are situated, in this district at least, in Toronto and Montreal. It was recommended that a high-power short-wave station be established. That has been authorized by the government and is being proceeded with as rapidly as possible and as rapidly as the material is available. I believe that in that connection there is an opportunity for Canada which should not be missed. As soon as it is possible, whether it will be during the period of the war or after the war, certainly the people of this country should build a short-wave broadcasting station. It has become the means of easy and rapid communication. We should enhance our trade with South America, we should advertise our country to other countries, both in this and in the other hemispheres, we should improve our tourist trade; and I believe it will be one of the best investments that Canada could possibly, make. True, it would not be a revenue producing instrument of government. Not directly, but indirectly, in the increase we would get in being advertised to the other countries of the world, and the increased trade which it would bring to Canada indirectly, we would receive very great benefits.
Other recommendations were that the corporation should extend its service so as to give complete national coverage, if necessary by taking over privately-owned stations; that the corporation endeavour to work out in cooperation with the private stations means to increase the services of private stations to the national cause as well as to their local communities; to providing and distributing programmes and developing and making use of local talent. It was brought out before the committee that there were large numbers of privately-owned stations of which several, in one instance seven and in another instance eleven, were owned by the same people. If we are to continue the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as a nationally-owned and operated organization we must be continually on guard to see that the private organizations do not
2494
Radio Broadcasting

become of such strength and magnitude as to be keen competitors with the nationally-owned institution. They may become too powerful; and after all the meagre licence fees which they pay do not compensate in any measure for the service given them by the people of the country and by the government.
All in all I believe the government has taken seriously the report of the committee and has made splendid progress in putting into effect a great many of the recommendations that were made. The recommendation in regard to the filling of vacancies has been carried out by the appointment of Mr. Chase and Mrs. Sutherland. While this may not meet the demands of the leader of the opposition, who appears to be particularly solicitous in behalf of labour, agriculture and the ladies, I am sure those appointments will meet with general approval.


Gordon Graydon: I am trying to be a good example.


James Joseph McCann: I am sure the hon. gentleman. is anxious to have these particular classes of the community represented on the board of governors, but I suggest that his desire to be the champion of labour, agriculture and even of the ladies is not entirely without some political significance. However, as time goes on and vacancies occur I am sure agriculture and labour will have their representatives on the board.
Radio in this country is entirely different from radio in the United1 States, and because of the great differences that exist we must be particularly jealous of the position we take and of the conduct of the organization. Privately-owned radio in the United States is a great money-making organization; I have been told that the income of the National Broadcasting Corporation is $80,000,000 a year, which, as we all know, comes from commercial organizations. With an unlimited amount of money at its disposal and a large private field to draw upon in order to secure talent of all types, naturally radio programmes originating in the United States present a competition which exercises the utmost ingenuity of those operating the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Having that competition in mind, I think the radio corporation has done excellent work and is providing the people of Canada with splendid service for the money they pay. It is true that some fees accrue to the corporation from its commercial business, but that is not its main source of revenue.
As I see it there is a great future for radio in this country; as yet it is only in its infancy. I hope the government will1 continue to maintain it as a strong public utility and a great

national instrument for information, education and entertainment. I hope the committee which is to be set up this year will give the affairs of the corporation their earnest and sincere consideration and will make, without fear or favour, such recommendations as they consider to be in the interests of this utility and of the Canadian people in general.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that the government has seen fit again this year to bring in a motion calling for the setting up of a special committee on radio broadcasting. I agree with the hope expressed by previous speakers that the time is not far distant when this will become one of the standing committees of this house. A government institution such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to which the public of Canada contributes some $3,500,000 a year in radio licence fees, should come under the scrutiny of parliament at least once a year.
In the committee last year a good deal of time was spent in a discussion of the particular organizational set-up of the broadcasting corporation. In my opinion there should be some further discussion along that line, with a view to considerable revamping of the organization. Much has been said of late in favour of having certain industries in Canada represented on the board of governors. I have no particular objection to that; in fact I am inclined to believe that agriculture and labour should have places on that board. At the same time I believe that the chief qualification which should be possessed by a member of the board of governors is that such an individual should know something about radio. If I had any criticism to offer-and I am sure this is not very harsh-it would be that I fail to see that the present governors have any particular or outstanding qualities in this respect. They are well qualified along many lines. I think some of thpm are particularly good business men and from the point of view of business management are doing a good job as members of the board. But a board of governors which has practically complete control of broadcasting in Canada should know something about broadcasting. It should know something about public psychology. To my mind broadcasting is a delicate type of work. It cannot be operated in the same manner as one would operate a machine. It is sensitive. When dealing with broadcasting we are dealing with people's feelings, and with human nature. Demands come from the public, and in meeting them we must safeguard the interests of the entire country.
Propaganda has its place in radio. We might talk about entertainment, but even entertain-

Radio Broadcasting
ment becomes a type of propaganda. In spite of what may be said in opposition to my proposal, I believe that a properly constituted radio commission, operating apart from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a commission constituted for the purpose of controlling all radio in Canada, including both the privately-owned stations and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, should be set up.
I have in mind a commission such as the board of railway commissioners. It will be urged that in the early days of radio in Canada we. had a radio commission. But let it be noted that that was indeed in the early days. We have learned much since then, from the point of view not only of administration but of technique. Radio has advanced so far and so tremendously that I believe a separately constituted body of commissioners should be set up for the purpose of controlling all radio, and letting the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, even though, it be a government institution, run side by side with privately-owned broadcasting stations.
To-day we have a board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation who, in effect, control private broadcasting. I do not believe that is the best plan. Let us, as an illustration, imagine that the Canadian National Railways, a government-owned organization, the Canadian Pacific Railway, a privately-owned company, and some smaller railways, are working together. We will imagine that the government railway makes a regulation, and will say to the Canadian Pacific, "Now, this is what we have decided. Although you may be a privately-owned organization, you must accept this regulation." I am certain something would be done about that., because of course the Canadian Pacific Railway is a powerful institution. In principle, however, that is exactly what happens in connection with radio broadcasting. We have a board of governors whose function it is to govern the government-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but which makes rules, having the effect of hard and fast laws, for all broadcasting in Canada. Surely that is not the best type of situation.
If we had a properly constituted radio commission, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation could then work with the private stations. It would enjoy the advantage it now has of pursuing its own experiments, but, while it was working side by side with privately-owned stations there would be an element of competition. I am not adverse to proper competition. I dio not believe in that sort of competition in which we find the slashing of prices, or where business is
operated in a sort of throat-cutting manner. But I do believe in a competition of services and of quality, and I believe we could get the best out of radio in Canada if that fair amount of competition existed. It should exist, as it does between the railways, and in connection with other lines of business.
I do not know that I am in entire agreement with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) in this connection. While he spoke I imagined-perhaps I should not have done so-that he was driving toward a sort of state control of all radio in Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: National control, yes.


Ernest George Hansell: National control of all radio in Canada. The terms are a little confusing to me, but perhaps that is because I do not understand them. I fear lest the day should come when a government-owned radio corporation might control all radio in Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: How about privately-owned corporations?


Ernest George Hansell: I do not believe they should control it either, certainly not.


Major James William Coldwell: Give them an inch and they will take an ell.


Ernest George Hansell: My position is that a government monopoly of anything is just as dangerous, and in some respects perhaps more dangerous than a private monopoly.


Mr. MacINNIS:: What about the post office?


Ernest George Hansell: I shall come to that later on. I contend that a government-owned monopoly of broadcasting in Canada would be one of the most dangerous things that could happen. Mr. Priestley has something to say on that point. I find it in a little pamphlet of his entitled "If I ran the B.B.C." In this instance, of course, he speaks about the British Broadcasting Corporation. I understand that excerpts from the pamphlet were read into the record of the committee which sat last year. This was published originally in the London Sunday Dispatch, and reprinted, through special arrangement with the distinguished author, by the National Association of Broadcasters, Washington, D.C.


Major James William Coldwell: A private broadcasting organization.


Ernest George Hansell: It might be, but I do not think that affects the material embodied in the pamphlet. Mr. Priestley said:
What is really wrong with the B.B.C. is that it represents a monopoly. No other broadcasting system is allowed. Competition is barred.
Radio Broadcasting

There is only one runner in the race. So that the listener here in England is told to like it or lump it. . . . Supposing there was only one firm of publishers, one great book shop, and all the theatres were controlled by one man?
The very idea chills me. I should loathe such a situation. One bad quarrel, and I might find myself thrown clean out of work.
Of course that is Mr. Priestley's style of writing. He goes on to say:
But the man who lives by broadcasting in England must please the B.B.C. or starve. He cannot say, "I'll walk across to your competitors". There are no real competitors. The B.B.C. stands alone.
For some kinds of service, competition is wasteful and absurd. You do not want two post-
I suppose he means post offices.
-telegraph or telephone systems in a country. I doubt if there is very much gain even in having competing railway systems.
But the B.B.C. is in another category of service, where, in my opinion, a monopoly is wrong. For it sets out now to be an entertainer, and nobody wants entertainment on a "take it or leave it" basis.
There is a world of difference between a variety show and a penny stamp. You do not want to pick and choose a penny stamp. One new one is as good as another. But you do want to pick and choose your entertainment.
In this connection may I say something right along this line. I fear lest the day should come when the government-owned radio corporation will have a monopoly on broadcasting in Canada. One reason for this is the value of propaganda. No one will deny that radio' is a powerful medium of propaganda, but may I say that propaganda is not the exclusive right of any set of minds or of any school of thought. Nor should it be the exclusive right of those who can afford to pay for it. The solution of this last problem presents some difficulty. I would be loathe to see the day when this powerful medium of propaganda is in the hands of a monopoly, whether it be privately or government owned.
I should like to read from a clipping taken from the'Ottawa Citizen of February 16, 1943, reporting an address by Doctor James S. Thomson given in Toronto. The press dispatch reads:
Dr. James S. Thomson, general manager of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to-day told members of the Canadian association of broadcasters that "we must beware that we don't sell our medium to any political party or power."
I agree with that, but I imagine that Doctor Thomson is using the word "political" in its, shall I say, vulgar sense. Used in its true sense, "political" simply means the science of government. Someone has said
I Mr. Hansell.]
that a word is known by the company it keeps, and I am afraid that in the past this word has not kept very good company. The article continues:
"Radio doesn't belong to anyone," he said before a meeting of the association's three day annual convention. "It belongs to the people and with them it should remain. I can say, so far as the CBC is concerned, that wre don't propose to sell out to anyone. But we have to recognize the need of the political leaders to use this medium in a democratic country and we have got to strike some common means for that use."


Richard Burpee Hanson: What does he mean by political leaders?


Ernest George Hansell: I do not know what he means. The article continues:
Doctor Thomson said that the radio men of Canada had to "fight for the freedom of religion, education and entertainment."
I should like to comment here that radio broadcasting in Canada does not maintain freedom of religion over the air. I know of one religious organization in particular-and there may be others-which is not permitted to broadcast. The last sentence of this press dispatch is very important in my opinion, and it deserves considerable criticism. It reads:
He described polities and economics as "dangerous" fields for radio, adding: "And no one is more aware of that danger than I am."
It will be noted that he puts politics and economics in the same basket and describes these two as being dangerous fields for radio. I should like to ask, who are to be the judges of what is dangerous in politics and economics? Who is to be the judge of what is right and what is wrong? We must discover the right and the wrong of both politics and economics. Are these judges to be trained in all the arts and sciences, in economics and political economy? If so, in what school of political science and economics are they to be trained? I imagine that when many people talk of what is dangerous, they are not so much concerned with what is dangerous for the country as they are with what is dangerous for the status quo which has proved long since to have failed.
I come again to this matter of propaganda. Somebody is to judge what is right and what is wrong, and I contend that in a democracy the most competent to judge what is right and what is wrong are the people. If we are to have some sort of governing body, self-imposed judges, who perhaps are servants of bygone days, to say what is right and what is wrong, then the propaganda machine of Canada in the hands of such men is indeed tremendously dangerous. This country still

Radio Broadcasting
believes in free speech, and if there is one institution in the world that should guard this priceless heritage of liberty it is a government-controlled body. Any attempt whatsoever to stifle free speech would not be well received by a democratic people. Propaganda, let me say, is largely concerned with ideas, and it is impossible to kill a new idea. You may deny it a channel of expression; you may deny your particular propaganda machine to this idea; but the idea, if right, remains, and sooner or later will find its expression even though it be through sheer force of circumstances.
I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that rules and regulations are necessary in broadcasting. I recognize that there must be some ruling concerning the kind of language that shall be used and that there should be regulations to do away with abuses. The governors or the management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have perhaps done a good piece of work along that line. But we have the defence of Canada regulations and the criminal code, which I think will take care pretty well of everything that is or may be dangerous to the country. Absolutely free course should be given to the discussion of subjects, no matter how controversial they may be.
I do not wish to be misunderstood in what I am about to say. There are people in Canada who believe that the only way in which real change can come both politically and economically is by force. I think the government has had some little trouble in days gone by with people who hold that view and who contend that the powers that be are so entrenched that they will not permit of change. But for a government-controlled radio to stifle or refuse the expression of new ideas would tend only to confirm such a contention. The best way to give the lie to such a contention is for the various mediums of propaganda-I refer here particularly to radio-to encourage, and not stifle, the fullest and widest possible discussion of all subjects. As I said, I do not wish to be misunderstood. In the illustration that I have given I am not arguing a case for that group \yho may believe in the overthrow of the status quo by force. I am suggesting that I am arguing a case for the proper functioning of democracy. Mr. Priestley has something to say about that too. Here is a quotation from his book, "Out of the People". He is talking about the old financial system being scrapped and so forth, and asks why it has not been scrapped. This is what he says:
Because too many influential persons, in a position to sway government and control public
opinion, were directly interested in keeping the rotten old thing going; and unless this supreme racket is smashed, we shall be plunged again into the same whirlpool of overproduction, underconsumption, crazy competition, poverty and unemployment, revolution and war.
I know that Mr. Priestley does not agree with the idea of overthrowing government by force. My argument here is that under a proper functioning of democracy the people themselves should have free course to the mediums of propaganda that are in their midst. What would happen if there should be a government monopoly of radio in Canada? We would have a government monopoly of propaganda, and that is a most dangerous thing to anticipate. Speaking of propaganda,
I think we have come to a place in our thinking and in our history w'hen we do not know what to believe. I am quite certain that somebody lied a few years ago, or else they are lying now, because a few years ago the old propaganda machine got busy and pictured Russia and the political regime there as something terrible. It might be; Ido not know; I am not arguing pro or con. But that is what we were told a few years ago. And now what happens? The old propaganda machine begins to grind again and the picture changes. Instead of the political regime in Russia being a hideous thing we are now told it is a glorious thing, and the idea is catching on. I say that somebody must have lied then, or somebody is lying now. You cannot have it both ways. That is propaganda. I do not think there has been any change. The alignment of nations has changed. Force of circumstances may have brought about change. And so I say, Mr. Speaker, that if the channels of propaganda are closed to the people by self-imposed judges who attempt to say what is right and what is wrong, that is a most dangerous thing for democracy.
I would suggest that no powerful group of propagandists have the right to propagate that which is untrue, while a less powerful group or a more insignificant group are stifled and stopped from propagating that which is right. The only way in which that can be overcome is to give access to the mediums of propaganda to the people for free discussion, unhindered, and let the people judge for themselves.
There are just one or two other observations I should like to make in closing. I am not a harsh critic of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Personally I am fairly well satisfied with it, but I believe that in days to come this organization can be improved. In this connection we must safeguard the people's rights. As my leader has said, we must be assured of freedom of expression.
Radio Broadcasting

I commend the work of the corporation along many lines. The hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar has referred to one or two programmes which I myself like, such as Fibber McGee and Molly, which is a clean and humorous feature. Not everything which is spoken of as humorous is humorous to me, and I do not admit to being backward as a judge of humour. Some things which are called humorous are tremendously "corny" to me.


Mr. FULFORD:: What does "corny" mean?


Ernest George Hansell: If my hon. friend asks me what is the meaning of "corny", I assume he has not been running with the people who can tell him what it means, for if he had he would have heard the word a good many times. It is one of those words which fit a situation without being explained.
I commend the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for some of its Sunday programmes. I suppose that, being in the profession I am in, I pay some little attention to that. The Church of the Air is, I think, commendable; it gives the people an opportunity to hear some of the country's outstanding clergymen. I would also compliment the corporation upon their Bible dramas which come over the air on Sunday mornings. I have listened to many of them; they are well dramatized and exceptionally well written. But, as I remarked in the committee last year, speaking for a tremendous minority, I do not relish the comedian programmes coming on the air on Sundays. Perhaps it is my background; perhaps it is my training, but I believe we should be better off were we to "remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." I know that some of these Sunday evening programmes, in particular Charlie McCarthy and Fred Allen, are immensely popular, but I wish they were transferred to some other night in the week. Out west a favourite programme comes on at a time which is not the best for those who desire 1 to attend some place of worship in the evening.
With these comments, I find that my time is gone. May I repeat that I hope the organizational set-up of broadcasting in Canada will be such that a responsible body, not the present board of governors-which may continue to function, if so desired, to govern the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-but a body which might be known as the board of radio commissioners, shall be appointed to govern all radio in Canada, the government-owned corporation as well as the privately-owned interests.


Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I agree with the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, in his remarks as to the board of governors being in a dual position, in that they control not 
only the broadcasting corporation but all radio in Canada. It is to some extent the same situation as though the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways were in control of all railway activities in the country. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) that something should be done in this regard; it is definitely a difficulty in connection with broadcasting.
The hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann) in the course of his remarks indicated that there was some political significance in the request of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) for representation of labour and agriculture on* the board of governors. Well, all one has to do is to pick up a list of the board in order to decide if there is any political significance in the appointments. I venture to say that eveiy one of them is a dyed-ind-he-wool Grit.


Richard Burpee Hanson: True.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That is true.
Another observation which I think is called for is, what kind of corporation* have we in the present board? Is it an emanation of the crown; is it a separate organization, or what is it? Certainly it is in control of all broadcasting in Canada. In view of that fact, have we not the right to examine the minutes of the corporation? What rights have we as a committee as far as they are concerned?
For years we have been very jealous to preserve the freedom of the press. Now we have a government-owned radio existing alongside private radio. I agree in this regard with the hon. member who has just spoken, that a government monopoly is just as bad as a private monopoly. We should not allow radio to get to that stage. Unfortunately to-day the radio is in the hands of the government. It is not free with respect to all classes of people; it is in the hands of the government, and it is certainly used for Liberal political propaganda. There is no doubt about that.
The report of the committee shows very plainly what the committee felt. They held the governors of the broadcasting corporation responsible for the things which were found existing at that time which were not right. They said:
The board of governors, therefore, cannot escape responsibility for allowing the condition of affairs disclosed by the investigation to continue.
The report castigating the board for their actions was very strong. Naturally one would have thought that when the board received that report they would have resigned in a body.

Radio Broadcasting


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not a
chance.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: But the board of
governors did not resign in a body. They did something else; they appointed one of their own members, who is just as responsible as the rest of them for the state of affairs which the committee found to be at fault, to be temporary general manager. What a spectacle! All these things had been found to be going on all these years under the administration of the board, and they take one of their own men and appoint him general manager of the corporation. It does not seem to me that this was the right thing to do.
The new general manager then proceeds to make a speech, or, as a matter of fact, two speeches. I should like to know why he should make such a speech. In the speech he made in Halifax on January 22, 1943, he is reported as saying:
"Among my chief distinctions," Doctor Thomson said, without naming the person to whom he was referring, ". . . has been that of providing the theme for the 'swan song' of an elder Canadian statesman, who spent the greater proportion of his last public address as leader of a great political party in demonstrating the wickedness of the CBC in general, and of its general manager in particular."
Everyone knows who the gentleman was to whom reference was made. The speech which he delivered was a statesmanlike address, and it was certainly correct in what it stated. Why, then, should the general manager of this corporation take it upon himself to sneer at a man in public life? I think it was, to say the least, quite uncalled for. In his speech Doctor . Thomson goes on to say:
It was alleged that we were simply a creation of the government, providing opportunities for political leaders to ingratiate themselves with the Canadian people through the medium of radio.
Well, as far as the government is concerned, that is perfectly true. The ministers of the crown and the Prime Minister have the radio at their command at any time, and! their speeches are not censored. They can say what they like; yet when a great statesman who is retiring from public life, a great statesman so far as Canada is concerned, wishes to use the air, and when his supporters wish him to use it, he is deprived of that right. But the government can use the air. Is it only the ministers of the crown who are Simon pure and can, therefore, speak over the air without attacking or abusing or doing anything like that? Could not the leader of a great party do the same?
Let me come to something else. Our leader was refused the air because there could not be anything controversial on the radio; yet one
of our commentators, "Professor" Watson Thompson in the west, in a speech which he delivered, certainly stated many things that were controversial. In one part of his speech he said that Great Britain was in the position of an exploiter and oppressor of India and that Canada should set Britain right by taking her place in the ranks of those who would show Britain the right way to deal with India. In other words, according to him, Great Britain has been the oppressor all these years. He goes on to say that Great Britain betrayed Czechoslovakia, Spain and China. So far as India is concerned, I wonder if this gentleman knows what he is talking about. Some of our members of parliament connected with the empire parliamentary association know a little about the situation, and they are aware of the difficulties that Great Britain has had to cope with for so many years; and yet a "professor" from the west comes along and makes such a speech over the radio without having anything said to him, having it paid for by the government of this country.
There are many other observations I should like to make, but I will conclude with this remark. What we want is fair play in connection with the radio. We want equal rights. As members of the House of Commons we have some rights in connection with the radio. Why should certain national figures be chosen to make speeches over the radio, while other men in political life are not allowed to speak; that is, except members of the government? I repeat, we want fair play. Are we to understand that only those people are national heroes who are either in the government or not in politics at all? I shall have more to say about this later on.
Hon. L. R. LaFLECHE (Minister of National War Services): Mr. Speaker, at this very late hour, may I crave the indulgence of the house and ask that I be given just two or three minutes in which to make one or two statements. I have heard with much interest what has been said this afternoon by hon. gentlemen, and I appreciate their points of view. The purpose of my motion is to have this committee set up, and I shall not burden the house with any lengthy statement. I desire, however, to make two observations. To the best of my knowledge and belief there is no reason for anyone in this house to say that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is dominated or influenced in any degree by the government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask a question? Is there not intelligent anticipation of the government's wishes on the part-of the governors?

Radio Broadcasting

Mr. LaFLECHE: I think I can give a very-fair answer to that question. Sometimes I think their anticipation has not been intelligent. To the best of my knowledge, I repeat, there has been no political interference with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and the new general manager has been so kind as to take it upon himself to say on several occasions, in one part of Canada or mother, that there is no such interference.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has he
rcer said it to the minister? That is more -,o the point.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Yes, he has, after his speeches, because on one or two occasions I questioned him as to why he had made such statements, and he said it was true and it pleased him to say so.
Another point is with respect to the composition of the board of governors. I take friendly issue with the hon. leader of the opposition when he questions the appointment of a lady to the board of governors.


Gordon Graydon: Not as a lady.
Mr. LaFLECHE: The lady named recently to the board of governors replaced another lady who had resigned on account of ill health. I would not be a party to allowing the board of governors to continue without at least one member being a lady.


Gordon Graydon: I was just sorry she was not a farmer; that was all.
Mr. LaFLECHE: May I say this, that this lady was reported to me to be eminently qualified in all matters relating to farm problems, life on a farm, and the requirements of the farming population.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion is to set up the committee; not, as -far as I can see, to discuss the merits of the broadcasting corporation here. There is another place for that, namely, before the committee. By reason of that fact, and because at the very beginning of this session the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made the statement to the house that there would be a select committee on radio broadcasting, which I, like all others, am anxious to see created, I shall not detain the house any longer, but will close, having in mind the opportunity that will be mine later on to speak on the matter in the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 6.05 p.m.

Monday, May 10, 1943