1944-02-25

Mr. SPEAKER:: May I address the house
for a moment? This morning a meeting was held of the committee considering the rules of the house. We have proceeded to some considerable extent in our deliberations. It was thought however that some hon. members who are students of parliamentary procedure might wish to place their views before the committee at its meetings. With this in mind I would ask that any hon. member who wishes to place his views before the committee might forward a letter addressed either to me or to the Clerk of the House of Commons before Tuesday next, when any such letters as may be received will be considered by the committee.



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), Cold well, Diefenbaker, Douglas (Queens), Durocher, Hansell, Hanson (Skeena), Hazen, Isnor. LaFleehe, Laflamme, Macdonald (Brantford Citv), McCann, Martin, Matthews, Mullins, Picard, Rennie, Ross (St. Paul's), Tripp, Veniot,
[Stage Direction]


Radio Broadcasting Committee
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.
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Does the minister
purpose making an explanation first? Or does he expect us to go ahead and make some suggestions?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: He should speak.
Mr. LaFLECHE:	The purpose of the
motion is very well put in its present form.' It is the same as it was last year, and I have no introductory remarks to make.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this motion I wish to place before the house for the consideration. of the committee certain views and suggestions. I do this with only one thought in mind, namely, the wishes, welfare and interests of the Canadian people as a whole.
I accept the cardinal principle that radio, as an important medium of enlightenment and entertainment, should in its major aspects be national in scope, and should be and continue to be free from control by private interests. Experience over the years has shown that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has not been able to fulfil its functions without the assistance of private radio stations. I believe tome seventy-six of these stations are permitted to operate subject to certain limitations in respect to increase in number, and increase in power of those already in existence. Their facilities have been used throughout the last few years for the distribution of many of the programmes of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. There is an advantage in the national system and the privately-operated stations working in cooperation; it provides stimulated competition, mutual competition, if I may say so, in the improvement of programmes.	.
The report of the committee which sat last year was tabled but not concurred in. Page 656 of Votes and Proceedings of July 22, 1643, contains a summary of the recommendations which had been made by previous committees. With your leave I should like to run over the various recommendations, to the end that I may be able to discuss the suggestions I have in mind. In 1932 they emphasized the paramount importance of a single national authority to control all broadcasting in the public interest. There can be no argument about that recommendation, but later on I

shall submit that, since the national radio in recent years has become ever increasingly commercial in its scope and aetivities, there must be set up a new type of national authority to control broadcasting in this country. In 1932 it was recommended that the public ownership of all high-powered stations under a national system of broadcasting-


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Speaker,
I rise to a point of order. The motion before the house is to set up a committee; it is not to- discuss the report of a previous committee.
I would say that the discussion should be confined to the motion. Earlier in the week we spent two days trying to get a committee on war expenditures appointed. Time was taken up, not in discussing the merits of having such a committee appointed but in discussing a previous report. I do not think the time of the house should be further consumed in that way at this time. There will be an opportunity to discuss the whole radio broadcasting question on supply or on other occasions, but in the setting up of a committee I submit that the discussion should be limited to the motion. I hope my hon. friend will pardon me for having interrupted him. If he is permitted to discuss the report of a previous committee, others will wish to be given like latitude, and the time of the house will be taken up with a discussion altogether apart from the motion before the house.


John George Diefenbaker: On the point of order, with due deference to the Prime Minister may I say that I was not discussing the provisions of the report. I was summing up the recommendations which were set forth in last year's report to the end that I might make certain suggestions as to what the committee should take into consideration once it is convened.


Mr. GRAYDON:: The report of the last . radio broadcasting committee-I think the same applies to the previous report-was brought in during the last days of the session and there was no opportunity to discuss it. While it would facilitate the work of the house not to go into too great detail in discussing this report, I fancy the house will want some latitude shown the discussion which has now arisen. I do not think it will take very long, but there are certain points that have not been discussed and I believe the house generally would wish to have them brought out. As I understand it, that is what my hon. friend is attempting to do.

Radio Broadcasting Committee


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it the idea of the Prime Minister that hon. members who were not members of the broadcasting committee will not be permitted to suggest certain questions that the committee should study during its sittings? For instance, I have some strong views about commercial advertising over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I am sick and tired of hearing about soap and laxatives, and I just turn off those programmes. There will be no opportunity for me to discuss these matters if the report of the committee is tabled at the end of the session and concurrence is not moved. So far as I know this is the only opportunity to discuss these matters. The Prime Minister speaks about supply. At the moment I have not in mind the item he may be thinking of, but it seems t,o' me that this is a proper occasion upon which private members could intimate to the committee certain topics which they think should receive consideration,


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has asked me a question. Replying to the two leaders of the opposition may I say that my point is simply that there is a time for everything, and that time is governed by the rules of the house. The rules of the house afford ample opportunity to discuss all ques* tions relating to radio broadcasting. If one wishes to do so, he may discuss radio broadcasting on the speech from the throne, at an appropriate time on supply, and on the budget and there are other occasions. The purpose of the motion is to get a committee appointed at the earliest possible moment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: To do what?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says, "To do what?" It is 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. The committee is to be appointed for that purpose, but that certainly does not mean that this is the time to discuss a report tabled in a previous year, or matters other than those that come strictly within the terms of the resolution.
Mr. MaoINNlIS: Mr. Speaker, before you give your ruling I should like to point out that there is no way in which the debate on this motion can be limited except by arrangement between the government and the opposition. It seems to me that this motion is wide open for a debate on everything con-100-55J
nected with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. That is quite clear from a reading of the terms of reference:
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.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that every item there is a matter for discussion in this debate-that is, if the members want to carry on a debate. I am not advocating a debate on this motion. I have nothing to say on it personally, but there is no way in my opinion, under the rules of the house, in which debate can be limited on the terms of reference here set up. The question is whether the committee shall be appointed or not. What is a member to discuss if not the matters mentioned in the terms of reference?


Mr. HANSELL:: I did not quite hear what the leader of the opposition or the hon. member for York-Sunbury said, and I trust that my observations will not be repeating what they have said. They still seem to be a "still small voice crying in the wilderness."
If we are to confine our remarks to the setting up of the committee, there is nothing we can talk about. All we can do is to look over the names proposed: Messrs. Bertrand, Boucher, Mrs. Casselman, Mr. Coldwell, Mr. Diefenbaker, and the rest, and discuss the colour of their eyes and what they are wearing, and so forth. It seems to me that when a committee is being set up, hon. members of parliament have the right to express in parliament, which is supposed to be the voice of the people, what they expect of our government-owned broadcasting corporation, and of broadcasting in general in Canada, in order that the committee, when set up, may take into account the matters that have been brought before parliament by the people's representatives. I do not see how we can discuss that fully without discussing the report that was made last year.
We all know that these committee reports come down to the house in the dying hours of the session. Perhaps my hon. friends of the Progressive Conservative party were talking about that; I could not hear. But very often we have asked in the committee itself whether concurrence would be moved when the report was brought down. Sometimes concurrence is not moved on the understanding that when the committee is set up the following year we might be able to discuss further the matters

Radio Broadcasting Committee

contained in the report. That is why some of us do not insist on moving concurrence in the report in the dying hours of the session. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that on this motion a review of broadcasting in Canada is entitled to discussion.


Mr. McCANN:: Speaking to the point of order, among the other purposes for which this committee is being [DOT] set up is to review the policies and aims and development of the corporation. In the various reports which have been submitted to parliament in the last number of years, the committee on radio broadcasting has made certain recommendations which, if carried into effect, would constitute the development of the corporation. I submit that the proper place to discuss the report of last year is before this committee when it is set up, when it oan be determined whether or not the recommendations which have been made in former years have been put into operation and whether or not there has been development in any particular lines.


Gordon Graydon: I hope my hon. friend is not suggesting that the report of last year's committee is to be considered by this year's committee. That is what he seemed to intimate, and it strikes me as a strange Suggestion.


James Joseph McCann: I see nothing strange in that. So far as development goes, I think it has been the practice to review, perhaps not minutely, what has been accomplished from year to year in putting into effect the various recommendations which have been made. I know that last year in the committee many of the recommendations which had been made by the 1942 committee were reviewed, and comment was made as to the progress and development which had been made by the corporation over the past year.
So far as moving concurrence in the report goes, it is a question of just what concurrence means, whether it means merely acceptance of the report or endorsation of the report. A report such as the committee made last year or the year before, in my judgment, might be concurred in, in the sense that it would be accepted but not necessarily endorsed, because a great many of the recommendations would take a long while for implementation and the government or corporation would have to be given considerable time to put the recommendations into effect. I submit that any member of the house could appear before the committee and give his opinions there with reference to the policies and regulations and development of the corporation, and so forth, and that the time of this house would be saved by having the discussions there rather than before the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, may I add, with the consent of the house, one word to what I have already said because of the Prime Minister's reply? Under the terms of reference as incorporated in this motion it is open to any hon. member to discuss each of the substantive matters referred to, that is to say, the report of the corporation; to review the policies and aims of the corporation; its regulations, revenues-and under that I suggest I could discuss soap-expenditures and development, and so on. Surely it cannot be held under the Prime Minister's suggestion that we cannot discuss those matters. If so, we might as well fold up again. The mere setting up of the committee does not confer any opportunity for discussion that is worth while for the country. What we want to discuss are the terms of reference and the subject matters to which they refer.


Mr. SLAGHT:: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that confusion has arisen in the minds of some hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Macleod, who said that if we are to confine our remarks to the setting up of the committee some dire result-I did not catch just what it was-would follow. He seemed to think we ought not to confine our remarks to the question whether or not we should set up a committee, and I apprehend that the hon. member for Lake Centre is oursting with a magnificent speech on the problems to come before the committee. But is not this the point? This house could take unto itself by an appropriate resolution the consideration of the annual report and a review of the policies and aims and regulations of the corporation, and so on and so on, or it could follow the established procedure and refer these problems to a committee. I find on that committee the hon. member for Lake Centre, the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson)-


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I am not on it.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Pardon me. That is my
colleague who represents the distinguished constituency of Skeena.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A good
name, you know, but-


Arthur Graeme Slaght: It is. I can understand the urge in the minds of many hon. members to discuss this matter, and at the appropriate time I want to discuss it as well. But after all we are facing to-day, with reference to the problems involved in this resolution, the simple question, shall we have a committee set up? What for? To hear witnesses, receive evidence, delve into the facte regarding the

Radio Broadcasting Committee
matters which will ultimately be dealt with? Or shall we do all that in the House of Commons? Now, surely it was never intended under our rules that you should turn a resolution on the question of a committee or no committee to consider a given project like this, into a matter for a round debate on all the problems on which the committee itself will have to take evidence and ultimately report back to the house.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that your ruling should be that hon. members confine themselves to the question whether the personnel of the committee is or is not satisfactory. I understand, although I do not know definitely, that it has been usually chosen after conference with the whips; that gentlemen who have special knowledge of the subject are placed on the committees. Or are we to have a debate here and now for a day or more or less on the very problems as to which the committee is appointed to take evidence? You do not ask juries to bring in their verdicts before they have heard the evidence. I suggest to hon. members that if they stifle their appetite to talk, as the hon. member for York-East (Mr. McGregor) described it the other night-I do not agree with him-


An hon. MEMBER:: The minister did.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: -we shall have an opportunity of rendering a considered judgment after they get all the facts which the committee will seek to obtain during its operations. You can multiply debate in this house; you can discuss it now and discuss it all over again in committee and again on the report. May I point out that any hon. member has a right to move concurrence in a report. In this case the complaining members have never so moved; any of the hon. members who have spoken could have placed upon the order paper a resolution asking a review of the policies of the corporation, and so could have got a debate on them. This has not been done. I suggest the rule is plain, the situation is clear, and we should not delay the many important war measures to come before this house by an auxiliary or preliminary and supplementary debate, when the evidence and the facts can all be investigated in the committee and the matter debated at the proper time.


Mr. POULIOT:: Let us come back to fundamentals. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation committee will be composed of twenty-three members. The membership of the house is 245. Is it right to say that 222 members will be prevented from expressing their views on the motion to appoint this committee in
order that the committee may have the advantage of the wisdom of the 221 members?- excluding myself; that is why I say 221 instead of 222. But I have listened carefully to what has been said. It is true that we have important war problems to discuss, but public information is one of them, and if hon. members are precluded from expressing their views at the time of an appointment of a committee which is to supervise the work of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, there is no use in' members of parliament expressing their opinions in these matters. Naturally, the report of the committee may be discussed in this chamber when it is brought up. But when is that? As a rule it is at the last stage of the session, when everything is railroaded, when hon. members are told that it is time to go home, that it is very warm in Ottawa, that everybody is sick of the session and has had enough of it. Besides that, sir, what is the use of appointing the committee without discussion when the committee's report, naturally,
[DOT]-for it cannot be done otherwise-is not discussed until after it is brought before the house?
Besides this, sir, I am a traditionalist. From time immemorial when hon. members had anything to say about the appointment of a committee they had the right to say it, and unless the rules of the house are changed I do not see how such a practice could be changed.
I ask you, sir, kindly to weigh the pro and con in your wisdom, upon which we rely, in order that the best national use shall be made of the C.B.C. No one will deny the importance of that organization to keep the home front well informed and in good spirit. For all these considerations, sir, I hope you will give a ruling which will be in accordance with the jurisprudence that you have established during your occupancy of the Chair.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Speaking to the point of order raised by the Prime Minister, I should like to refer for a moment to Hansard of 1943, pages 931-937. At that time there was before the house a similar motion, one for the setting up of a select committee to examine and report on a plan relating to social security. The Prime Minister, who moved the motion, made a speech covering six pages dealing with the speech from the throne, which we had already debated; the war effort, dominion-provincial relations, the Atlantic charter, and quite a number of other matters. I felt at the time that they did pertain to the matter of setting up a committee on social security, and did not, nor did anyone else, raise a point of order, feeling that he was perfectly in order in debating the whole subject of social security at that time. There followed a debate which

Radio Broadcasting Committee
lasted two or three days, because of the precedent set by the Prime Minister, and I feel
that the precedent he set at that time is one that we should be right in following to-daj-.


Thomas Vien: I could wish that I had
more time for deliberation on a point, which is so important, which has been raised as tc the procedure of the house. It has been the practice in the past in the setting-up of these committees that a debate ensue, in some cases with wide latitude; in others, more restricted I find in May, 13th edition, page 307, that:
On a motion for the appointment of a select committee or for determining the number of its members, the merits of the matter referred to the committee have not been allowed, to be debated.	[DOT]
In the motion before the house both the appointment of the committee and the order of reference are included. The terms of that motion almost invite discussion:
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. . . .
As I say, the terms of the motion almost invite discussion, but I do not think it would be well for the discussion to take the latitude that has been allowed in the past, in similar proceedings, especially if a report, the property of the house, tabled in a previous session, should now be made the subject of discussion. I may feel disposed later on, after further consideration, to reconsider the view I am now stating, but at the moment my inclination is to allow hon. members freedom to discuss the motion, for the purpose not of dealing with matters that belong to the past, arising out of the report of the committee of last year, but of considering exclusively the aims and objects of the committee now to be set up. I realize, of course, how difficult it will be for hon. members to make the distinction between what is actually past and what pertains to the moment; nevertheless I hope that hon. members will confine their remarks as precisely, as simply and as briefly as possible, to the purposes of the motion, which is to set up the committee. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) intimated that he was referring to the recommendations of the report of last year in order to lay the foundation for a discussion of the aims and objects of the committee that is to be formed, and on that ground I would rule that he may proceed.
[Mr. Knowles.1


John George Diefenbaker: The point I was
endeavouring to make, Mr. Speaker, is that there are certain salient principles which we all accept, irrespective of party in this house, in connection with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. One of these is the coordination of all broadcasting in Canada through the vesting of exclusive control in a nationally-owned system, and the independence of the corporation from partisan control, to be ensured by its constitution. We Hrge that the independence and flexibility of the national broadcasting authority be thus established.
I wish now to refer to these cardinal principles, to apply them to the situation as it exists to-day, and to ask whether or not the policies and aims and regulations of the corporation, to use the words of the motion, have actually been carried into effect.
First, the general manager, according to the by-laws of the corporation, is the chief executive officer, and is responsible for the carrying out of the provisions of the Canadian Broadcasting Act. For a long time this important corporation, which can contribute so much to the war effort of the nation, has had no general .manager, no executive head. In recent months, owing to failure on the part of the government to appoint a general manager and administrative head, chaos has resulted. One of the greatest dangers facing this corporation is the possibility that it may become a political football. Many are apprehensive that because of the lack of directive in the last few months, their fears regarding the corporation may be justified.
In my opinion the present board of governors as such has lost the confidence of the people. On that board there are men of ability, and I compliment the government on its recent appointments giving representation to labour and agriculture. But in order that the confidence of the people in the corporation and. in its members may be restored, all the members of the board of governors should put their resignations in the hands of the government, and the government should reappoint- such of them as it believes will carry out the great principles of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as enunciated in the reports of the committees of the house in successive years. To do otherwise at this time is to endanger the future of the corporation.
When I look at the situation that has obtained during recent months, I ask myself this question: Why has not the government acted? , President Thomson of the university of Saskatchewan has long since returned to the university. Months have passed by and

Radio Broadcasting Committee
the corporation moves without direction, without the controlling influence of a man of the calibre necessary to fill the position of chairman of the board.
I know that members in all parts of the house will demand, as they have a right to do, that this corporation shall not be permitted to become a political instrument; nor must it be permitted to get into such a position that anyone can suspect such a thing as possible. That is why it is so necessary at this time, in the midst of war, when there is no greater institution than the radio for mobilizing public opinion, that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should have directive leadership.
Radio is one of the great instruments for the mobilization of a nation; it can do'more than any other to arouse public opinion. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and other ministers often speak, and the influence of their addresses is immeasurably enhanced by the dissemination afforded by the facilities of the corporation and of private companies affiliated therewith.
A national radio system must be available to all political parties. It must not be subject in any way to governmental control in that regard. If it is, then the sources of educated public opinion are destroyed. This corporation can carry out its great responsibilities and duties only if it commands the confidence of the people, only if it is free, untrammelled and devoid of any influence exercised by the government either directly or indirectly.
I have referred to the appointment of a representative of agriculture and one of labour. The leader of the opposition, over a period of years, has advocated representation for these two great bodies, and I suggest now for the consideration of the committee, seeing that the radio and the press are complementary, that one of the appointments to be made to the board of governors should be a representative of the press of Canada. I have advocated in the past that there should be a representative of the Canadian Daily Newspapers Association on the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Because the press of Canada works so generously in cooperation with the broadcasting corporation, and because the activities of the-corporation should be correlated to bring them in line with the activities of the press, I believe such a step should be taken.
The appointment without further delay, of a general manager and a strong board of governors would restore confidence in the corporation, and the independence of this great instrument as a benefit to the Canadian people would be safeguarded.
I come now to my second point. I believe in the necessity of a government-owned national corporation. I do not need to go into the arguments in support of that. I do not believe in monopoly. The private stations, whose contribution to public and civic service is beyond praise, have also a necessary place in our set-up. When you think of the privately-owned radio stations in this country you think of community effort. In the Prime Minister's constituency of Prince Albert there is a privately-owned radio station, one that has done much, as have all the others across the country, in behalf-of the community and the welfare of the people as a whole. It has made an important contribution to the victory loan campaigns, and to charitable and patriotic drives. The private radio stations give their facilities to the broadcasting corporation for the benefit of the tastes of their own listeners. They represent the epitome of unselfish public and civic service in whatever towns and districts they happen to be located. To-day the position is that all the private radio stations are under the control of the broadcasting corporation.
May I refer to sections 21 and 22 of the Canadian Broadcasting Act in order to place before the house the power that the broadcasting corporation has over the private broadcasting companies in Canada:
21.	No private station shall operate in Canada as a part of a chain or network of stations except with the permission of, and in accordance with the regulations made by, the corporation.
22.	(1) The corporation may make regulations:
(a)	to control the establishment and operation of chains or networks of stations in Canada;
(b)	to prescribe the periods to be reserved periodically by any private station for the broadcasting of programmes of the corporation;
(c)	to control the character of any and all programmes broadcast by corporation or private stations;
(d)	to determine the proportion of time f which may be devoted to advertising in any ' programmes broadcast by the stations of the
corporation or by private stations, and to control the character of such advertising.
(6) In ease of any violation or non-observance by a private station of the regulations made by the corporation under this section, the corporation may order that the licence of such private station be suspended for a period not exceeding three months and any such order shall be forwarded to the minister who shall forthwith communicate the same to the licensee of the station and shall take such steps as may be necessary to carry out the terms of such order.
These provisions may have been fitting and proper when the Act was passed, having regard to the conditions then, in existence, but tre-
Radio Broadcasting Committee

mendous changes have since taken place. The broadcasting corporation has become strongly commercial in its offerings over the radio. There has been a pronounced change in that regard. It was originally intended that advertising should not bring in more than $500,000 a year. In 1940 the commercial revenue of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was $700,000; in 1941, it was $895,000; in 1942 it was $1,019,000; in 1943, $1,204,000. No doubt an equal or a greater amount will be taken from advertising during the current year.
In the interests of all I believe the time has come when some limitation should be placed on the extent of commercial advertising over the facilities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Altogether too much time is being devoted to the sloppy sentimentality that often characterizes some of the radio advertising. These and other things will not be controlled under the law as it now stands; because the corporation now makes the decisions that affect not only itself but the rights of the private stations. I therefore suggest that the committee should study the question with a view to preventing monopoly, with a view to protecting the rights of all parties, public and private, and in particular the rights and powers of private stations in relation to the public corporation. An independent body should be set up, a body similar in legal standing to the board of transport commissioners, or, as my hon. friend from York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) suggests, similar to the radio commission in the United States.
The situation to-day is peculiar. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is more and more becoming a commercial corporation, its board of governors enjoying almost monopolistic control over its competitors. The private stations, in competition with the broadcasting corporation, are subject to the provisions I have already mentioned. Where the private stations bring their objections to the corporation to be adjudicated they find that they are bringing them to a competitor. In other words the radio corporation exercises of itself a semi-judicial function. In determining the rights as between private and public corporation, the broadcasting corporation is in the position of being both litigant and judge, both investigator and jury. It is in the position of being, as someone has said, a cop and a competitor. Therefore I suggest that in order to restore confidence it is absolutely necessary that a body such as I have advocated be established.
I come now to the question of censorship. I should like the minister to explain one thing. To what extent is there censorship? To what extent is it applicable to the com-

mentators who use the facilities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and are in receipt of payment from the corporation for the services they render? I find considerable interest in this matter. Do those who speak as commentators submit verbatim statements of what they intend to say before they use the national facilities? Are they in any different position from political speakers, if you like, representatives of the different parties who utilize the facilities of the corporation from time to time? Must they submit manuscripts? On February 20 an outstanding commentator from Vancouver, Mr. Elmore Philpott, in a broadcast dealt with the case of the former commander in chief of the Canadian Army, Lieutenant-General McNaughton. He made certain suggestions and certain statements. I have not before me the verbatim report of what he said, and in my summary I do not wish to be unfair, but it left the impression with those who heard it that he was stating that Canada had been fighting two wars, not only one with the enemy, but another with the war office over the question of the right of the Canadian Army to operate as a unit. After the government had said it was not in the public interest to discuss the matter, parliamentary leaders refrained from doing so. Yet, after that agreement, based upon the question of public safety, this commentator over the facilities of the corporation was able to discuss matters which by reason of public interest were not considered a proper subject of discussion.
I should like the minister to explain this: Was this broadcast made with the approval of the broadcasting corporation? Was it submitted to any representative of the board? Was it subject to censorship? If it was subject to censorship, by whom was the manuscript censored, and when? These are questions which I believe must be answered by the minister on behalf of the government.
There are various other matters with which I could deal, but they can be discussed later. To sum up, I say that we, all of us, must rebuild the highest confidence in the corporation, first, by the appointment of a board of governors having the confidence of the people of Canada, with representatives as at present of agriculture, labour, the press, and others; second, by thje appointment now of a general manager; third, by the setting up of a semijudicial body to adjudicate upon the claims of the corporation and those of the private operators, and, finally, by giving the people knowledge of the basis upon which broadcasts are made and the degree of censorship applied thereto.

Radio Broadcasting Committee


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, the appointment of this committee affords one the opportunity to review, not the matters discussed by earlier committees, but those which should be considered by the committee about to be set up. For a number of years, the house has annually reiterated certain fundamental principles in relation to our broadcasting system. We have endorsed the paramount necessity of setting up a single authority which will control broadcasting in the public interest. Every year we have supported the public ownership of all high-powered stations, to be operated under that single national authority. We have endorsed also the principle that the local or community stations fulfil a useful function and serve a useful purpose in the Canadian broadcasting picture. We have approved the coordination of broadcasting in Canada through the exclusive control being vested in the nationally owned system. Control of what? Of the character of all the programmes, political or otherwise, broadcast by all stations, and of their advertising content. We have approved the national control of all wire networks used to carry broadcast programmes.
Year after year, ever since the establishment of the corporation, the house has endorsed these principles. Undoubtedly in the country to-day there is a powerful attempt to upset the very basis of the act which established* the corporation, indeed to destroy that corporation itself, a national organization which laboriously this parliament has built up. Sometimes I fear that even hon. members, perhaps unconsciously, lend themselves, to that kind of propaganda. In recent days we have heard accusations in the house that certain people in the corporation favour, we will sa3r, the C.C.F.-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Major James William Coldwell: On the other hand the C.C.F. believes that, as a matter of fact, we have been discriminated against-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Major James William Coldwell: -in the dissemination of news. Now, just a moment. The other day certain specific statements were made -in the house. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) rose in his place and made the statement, for example, that in the night bulletin of February 4 undue prominence was given the leader of the C.C.F. over the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon). So, as was my right, I sent for the script, and I am 100-50
going to place it on record. This is a copy of the official script from the broadcasting corporation.


Gordon Graydon: Did the hon. member hear the broadcast?


Major James William Coldwell: I did not hear the broadcast, but I got the official script from the broadcasting corporation.


Gordon Graydon: That might not be proof.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member knows that is not evidence of what was said.


Major James William Coldwell: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. This is the official script from which the announcer gave the news broadcast on that particular evening.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
what the hon. member is told, but it is no evidence that he used that script.


Major James William Coldwell: I am prepared to take
the statement of the responsible officials of the corporation, besides those who listened to the broadcast that evening told me the statement made in the house by the hon. member for Macleod was incorrect.


Ernest George Hansell: I heard it.


Major James William Coldwell: I am prepared to take
the statement of those who heard the broadcast, and I place the script on record as follows:
In the House of Commons to-day Prime Miuister Mackenzie King indicated that the government might have a statement to make regarding General McNaughton when the Minister of National Defence (Colonel Ralston) spoke on the war appropriation bill.
Mr. King made this suggestion after two party leaders of the opposition asked that the government make a statement on General McNaughton's resignation.
The Progressive Conservative house leader (Mr. Graydon) said he was amazed at the position taken by the government. He said the government had said that General McNaughton had left the command of the Canadian Army overseas because of ill health, but General McNaughton had been quoted in the newspapers as saying that he was in good health. Mr. Graydon said the government should explain immediately.
The C.C.F. leader (Mr. Coldwell) suggested that the whole question be discussed next Monday, but Mr. King replied that he would have to consider the length of time the debate on the speech from the throne would continue.
There is a fair and accurate statement of what actually occurred in the house that afternoon, The script simply recites the facts as a news item.
I have a much longer one, having to do with another occasion. A broadcast of the national

Radio Broadcasting Committee

news on February 9 was criticized in the house on the ground that undue prominence was given to the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas). I am not going to read that script, because it is too long. May I point out however that fifty-two lines are given to members of the government and of the opposition. To the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas)
*-and I have counted every part line I could- six lines are given. Let us try to keep a proper perspective in these matters, and see to it'that we in the House of Commons, in making criticisms without first of all having a basis for them, do not ourselves undermine the corporation in the minds of the people.
Throughout the existence of this corporation this parliament has urged support for a single national authority, and that the affairs of the corporation be conducted by a general manager and an assistant general manager responsible to the board of governors. Parliament itself-the corporation is a creature of parliament, not a department of government- has endeavoured on every occasion to enact legislation to safeguard the complete independence of the broadcasting corporation. As a trustee for the people of Canada and of those who pay licence fees, the board of governors reports to this parliament through the committee we are to set up to-day.
We have been told that the ministers of the crown are merely channels of communication between the board of governors and the government of Canada. That has been iterated and reiterated before the committee on numerous occasions. As late as last June 9 I questioned the minister closely on this point, and I have a transcript of that evidence before me. I did so because I had gome doubts as to whether the minister was carrying out the intentions of the act and not interfering in any way with the broadcasting corporation. My concluding question was whether there had been any interference, and the minister said:
There has not been any exercise of any political pressure or any attempt made to dominate the board politically and I believe the same goes for those who were in the position before I was.
Since that time there has been evidence of direct political interference with the broadcasting corporation. On November 17 last the Minister of National War Services (Mr. LaFleche) issued a statement to the press in which he indicated clearly that he had inter. fered directly with the management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. He announced that a series of broadcasts planned by the corporation had been suspended. I use the word "suspended," because while most of

the newspaper reports used the word "cancelled," subsequently it was shown that the series had been suspended. I think this is the first time on record that any minister has taken unto himself the right to interfere with the management of the broadcasting corporation. The minister's statement was:
The acting general manager of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation recently discussed with me an item of Things to Come which have been proposed for the CBC programmes.
It matters not whether hon. members were or were not in approval of that programme; the fact remains that the management of the corporation is in the hands of the board of governors; the minister had no right to issue any statement suspending a programme of the corporation, nor had the assistant general manager any right to place this matter before the minister instead of before the board of governors. The board of governors was the only authority that should have been called together if there was any doubt about this programme. As I say, the general manager should not have consulted the minister, or, if he did, the minister should have refused to give any opinion. The act is quite clear as to the functions of the minister, and, as I say, at no time has any other minister misunderstood its provisions.
This house has always recognized the danger of political interference and has endeavoured to safeguard the corporation in every way. The minister had no more right to interfere with the programmes of the C.B.C. than he had to interfere with the programmes of any private radio station. His authority is strictly limited by the broadcasting act. The government itself must to a large extent assume responsibility for the condition into which the broadcasting corporation has fallen. They retained, I think inadvisedly, the board of governors against which the committee of 1942 made very strong recommendations. I say without fear of contradiction that a great deal of the difficulty and the undermining of the corporation was due to the kind of person who was general manager up to the middle of 1942. We know now from his own written record that that gentleman admitted that in his activities in Great Britain before he came here he went to the British Broadcasting Corporation in order to safeguard the rights of what he called private enterprise, in whose employ he is to-day.
I am not going to pursue that. During the following year the gentleman who was appointed as acting general manager, Doctor Thomson of the university of Saskatchewan, did a job upon which we can well congratulate him. He raised again the standard of the

Radio Broadcasting Committee
C.B.C. and restored it considerably in the public esteem. The failure of the governors to appoint a competent general manager since he left is in my opinion responsible to a large extent for the condition in which we find the broadcasting corporation now. I am certain that the people of Canada are anxious that this parliament and this government shall safeguard this great vehicle of information, this great educational arm, against private interference of any sort.
The dangers of handing over the control of such a corporation or of its^facilities to purely private profit-making organizations are recognized even by those in the employ of some of the great private profit-making radio corporations. If hon. members will look up page 247 of appendix No. 1 of the proceedings of the special committee of last year they will find recorded a remarkable address given by Doctor James R. Angell, public service counseller of the National Broadcasting Company of the United States. I noticed in the newspapers that he was in Quebec a few days ago attending a radio convention. He said that the first concern of private broadcasting companies in the United States was that of making money, and of making as much of it as possible. If I may quote his speech in part:
Critics of the system are also disposed to raise the question as to who really owns our broadcasting. The obvious answer would be the stockholders or the individual owners and, from the legal point of view, this is undoubtedly the correct answer. But when one gets behind the scenes , and discovers what part is played by sponsors and by agencies who act as middle-men between the sponsor and the broadcasting company, this answer may be regarded as not quite telling the -whole story. If, by leasing the facilities of a broadcasting company for a given period of time, an agency or a sponsor can in fact largely determine what the public shall hear, the practical effect is much the same as though the sponsor and the agency actually owned these facilities. Naturally, the management of a company exercises final control over the programme which goes on the air. Nevertheless, there is still a measure of truth in the old adage-that he who pays the piper can call the tune.
A little later he said this:
No one can think it strange therefore that, as compared with the ringing tones of the sponsor and the advertising agency, the voices of the church and the school, to mention only these two, are often going to sound rather distant and faint in the broadcaster's ears.
In discussing the soap programmes, to which the hon. member for YorkdSunbury (Mr. Hanson) indicated some objection or dislike, and whiqh I myself have often criticized, Doctor Angell said this:
Now there are many who deplore the fact that an industry in which truly enduring and 100-56J
basic public interests are involved, one potentially capable of doing so much to educate taste, to increase understanding, to deepen and strengthen the foundations of our national life, should so often yield to the itch for money and, in consequence, should so frequently indulge in puerile forms of entertainment appealing to the very low brackets of intelligence, on the assumption that only by programmes of that kind can the goods be sold that chiefly support radio.
Just one more quotation from the same address:	He said:
I have met a great many owners and managers of American broadcasting stations in my time and found them fine upstanding business men, but I have infrequently met any whose concern for the public service they were rendering could be mentioned in the same breath with their interest in making money.
I think we should profit by the experience of this man, who has been so closely associated with the National Broadcasting Company. When I have time I listen to radio programmes, and while there is much in our national broadcasting programmes that we may criticize, I say without fear of contradiction that the absence of advertising on so many of our programmes and the attempts that are being made by the broadcasting corporation over the national network to raise the standards of tastes in music, drama and so forth, deserve favourable comment. They have done and are doing a job of which, in many respects, we may be well proud. Some programmes we can criticize, but on the whole the absence of advertising and the type of programme produced compare very favourably with the constant advertising content of the programmes of the great American broadcasting chains. Remember, the words I have quoted this afternoon are not mine but those of the public service counsellor of the greatest privately-owned broadcasting organization in the world, and it was to ensure for the people of Canada radio services that would be freed from the influences to which Doctor Angell refers, that our broadcasting corporation was established.
It is the duty of parliament to see that this corporation is not destroyed. Money-making interests are anxious to undermine it. It appears to me, as it does to many others, that the government has failed in some instances to appoint the right kind of persons to the board of governors. It has appointed persons not sufficiently interested in the subject even to attend, as we found in the broadcasting committees of former years, a sufficient number of the meetings of the board of governors.
Speaking of the board of governors and the right kind of appointments thereto, I congratulate the government upon having appointed recently to the board of governors a man of the type of Mr. Parker of the Mani-
Radio Broadcasting Committee

toba wheat pool, the head of a great cooperative farm organization. I am sure that he will bring to the corporation, the point of view of the large number of people who want to cooperate in maintaining this great and effective national service. Of course, there are others of the same type on the board; I am not saying it is true of the whole board, because it has seemed to some of us that some have not taken a sufficient interest in the corporation to do what was required of them.
There are other matters I have in mind, but since I am a member of the committee I shall not detain the house to discuss them now, they can well be brought before the committee itself. I want to say, however, to the government, that the committee of last year and the year before were anxious that Canada's voice should be heard across the air waves of the world, and that to this end a short-wave broadcasting station might be built as rapidly as possible. I do not know just at what stage it is, but in the final analysis it is a matter of money, and at this stage of the war, when we are hoping that within a measurable time we may see its end-although it may be further away than some of us hope-it would be well that Canada's voice be heard on occasion by the oppressed peoples of Europe, by the people of South America and other parts of the world. It is of vital importance that Canada, of which we can well be proud, a country which has attained first place among the smaller nations, should maintain the closest contact with other nations, particularly the small nations, and I am therefore most anxious to see our short-wave broadcasting station completed at the earliest possible moment. We make heavy contributions in mutual aid to our allies. It seems to me a relatively small thing to ask that the necessary equipment for this Canadian short-wave broadcasting station should be given special priority. Construction has been delayed now for some months. I appeal to the government to see to it that the station be completed soon.
These are some of the matters I -wished to place before the house, because I feel we have a duty not only to ourselves and to the people of to-day, but also to posterity. A former leader of'the Conservative party, Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, said on more than one occasion in this house he was quite sure that if the people of Canada had to do things over again, such as the building of great railway systems, they would never allow these railways to get away from the public control; and, he added, how much more important it is that we should not allow the air and the air waves to be alienated from the complete control of

the 'people of Canada. I concur entirely in that opinion.


Ernest George Hansell: I am prompted to say a word or two with respect to the setting up of this committee on radio broadcasting and the matter of broadcasting generally. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has referred to a statement I made the other night in respect to a certain proportion of publicity being given his party. That has need for some comment; for since making that statement I have had numerous requests for further information. I have had letters and telephone calls asking me for an explanation; many have congratulated me on the statements I made in bringing this matter to the attention of parliament, and of course it goes without saying there were some who severely criticized me. I shall not deal with that matter at the moment. I will come to my hon. friend a little later.
I know there are views held in Canada in respect to greater control of radio, and there are views in respect to government ownership. Some people believe in government ownership because they hold that the profits that accrue to private industry should be turned back to the public. I am sure that this principle under the present economic system is very greatly misunderstood. However, even granting for argument's sake-I say, for argument's sake- that the principle has some merit, I am certain that when it is applied to national radio broadcasting it becomes only a pretext to focus public opinion on a less important principle, without recognition of the real danger, namely, that of national radio gradually becoming a huge monopoly of government propaganda. Imagine a situation in which a government has the sole right-excluding all others, the government being the only authority-to mould public thought; and may I interject that I should not like to see that day come with a socialist government in power.


Major James William Coldwell: Or any other government.
Mr. LaFLECHE: There won't be.


Ernest George Hansell: No, or any other government. I will add that, but I am making a distinction by emphasizing a socialist government, because our socialist friends do believe in control.


Major James William Coldwell: Democratic controlwhich you do not have under private enterprise.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend likes to interject, and I have no objections. In his speech this afternoon he advocated a greater measure of government control of radio broadcasting.

Radio Broadcasting Committee


Mr. COLD WELL:: Public control.


Ernest George Hansell: However, for the moment I am not dealing with that. I was talking about profits; and, since the matter of radio profits has been brought to the attention of this country by discussion at previous sittings of the radio committee, I am going to suggest that some investigation be made of that part of commercial broadcasting where profits accruing to the sponsors are involved. I do not now refer to profits which might be made by private stations, although I have no objection to investigation there also. I am not so strongly convinced that huge profits are being made by the private broadcasting stations of Canada. I refer in this respect particularly to profits of commercial sponsors in relation to advertising costs. Commercial broadcasting is essentially a business of advertising, and these advertising costs, paid for by commercial sponsors, I am told run into hundreds of thousands of dollars, or, taking the whole continent, millions upon millions of dollars a year. These advertising costs must be written into the price of products advertised, with the result that the consumer pays the shot. I know that it does not always work out that way, because I realize there is the principle that when a product has sufficient advertising to give it a sufficient volume of distribution it can be produced at a less cost than otherwise. That factor enters into the matter, but it does not make any difference in respect to some investigations which I think should be carried on in that respect. I do not know that it is the duty of the radio committee to do that. It might be the duty of the banking and commerce committee or some other committee of the kind. But I believe that such an investigation would throw quite a light on that subject.
For instance, I have a chart here which gives the talent cost of certain radio programmes. This talent cost is not the whole cost which a sponsor will have to pay. The talent cost of the Jack Benny programme is $20,000 for one programme.


Mr. MARTIN:: Jack Benny gets $25,000 a week.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not know what his ' salary may be.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Is that the Canadian cost or the international cost?


Ernest George Hansell: No, he is p-aid by the sponsors of the products, General Foods.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We all pay for it.


Ernest George Hansell: Well, you may. That is my argument. The talent costs for the Bob Hope programme are $11,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He is worth it.


Ernest George Hansell: I am sorry; I do not agree [DOT] with my hon. friend. I do not believe any man is worth $10,000 to read-I am going to say this in spite of the risk of unpopularity- a lot of silly gags which some other men behind the scenes have written up for him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about Charlie
McCarthy?


Ernest George Hansell: Well, Charlie McCarthy, the wooden-head, gets $10,000 every time he broadcasts. The Lux Theatre gets $10,000 a programme; Bing Crosby, $10,000; Abbott and Costello,.$10,000, and so forth and so on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What does Mortimer
Snerd get?


Ernest George Hansell: I would not mind being a comedian myself if I were able to get such a salary. But what I was saying is that these are the talent costs, and commercial sponsors have to pay for radio time besides that, on,
I believe, anywhere from 100 to 200 stations.
While I am talking about this talent might I make this observation, and I do it on behalf of a minority of people. There are some of us who like to regard the Sabbath as the Lord's day, and yet I find that four of the most outstanding comedians, namely, Fred Allen, Jack Benny, Bob Hope and Charlie McCarthy-perhaps I should say Edgar Bergen-come on the air on Sunday; and since the new network has been set up in Canada some of them have crowded out church services. I do not like that. I know that Sunday is a good day for broadcasting because people are at home and listen to the radio and they naturally listen to these programmes. But we are permitting the commercialization of the Sabbath.


Mr. FAIR:: The destruction of Christianity.


Ernest George Hansell: It is one instance of the thin end of the wedge to destroy our great Christian principles, and I abhor it. I am not going to say that we should make them come on the air on some other day because we have no control over that. They are United States broadcasts and there is not very much we can do about the matter. I understand, however, that representations have been made for other programmes to come over Canadian stations. For example, the Tabernacle choir of Salt Lake City is, I believe, one of the greatest on the North American continent. I have heard it. It would come in the east here about twelve noon on Sunday, but I am quite certain that people in eastern Canada do not get it. They might get it from a Buffalo station or some other station in that vicinity, but the people
Radio Broadcasting Committee

in this part of the country cannot get that programme, and yet it is one of the best, one of the highest types. I mention that in passing.
I come back to the argument with regard to the cost of broadcasting being put into the price of goods, or otherwise. There is another thing that happens. I understand that the advertising costs of a corporation are written into its cost sheets and therefore are not. subject to taxation. They are hidden. If I am not right I stand corrected.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is a limit.


Ernest George Hansell: Perhaps so. If there is it is a good thing. But I am simply saying that any taxation which might accrue to the public treasury by reason of the lowering of advertising costs would be a good thing; or conversely the public are paying by reason of a loss of revenue, a part of the advertising costs of these corporations. All these things enter into the picture.
I must spend a little time commenting on the matter my hon. friend the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cokiwell) brought up. I do not blame him for raising it because it has been mentioned. I call the attention of the house to what my hon. friend said about my remarks the other night. I said he had been given undue publicity, as I thought, on a certain night when, over the air, came the news that the leader of the opposition had asked about the McNaughton affair. Of course, when I mentioned it my hon. friend had to trot down to the office of the corporation and dig out the news broadcast to see if I was right. He claims, of course, that I was not right. There is one question I will ask him. If, when reading that news broadcast, he had found1 that I was right, would he have read it here this afternoon? However, there is one thing he did not do. He did not check the statement I made. Oh, no; he runs to the C.B.C. This is what I said:
I might make a further comment-and I am not blaming my hon. friend for this; perhaps he wanted to get a little publicity, and believe me he got it. I happened to listen in on the radio to the two programmes that night.
I did not say that the C.B.C. mentioned him twice. You see, my hon. friend was wrong again. I said further:
The leader of the opposition was mentioned once in connection with the McNaughton question and my friend the _ hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was mentioned twice.
That is what I heard when I listened to these two broadcasts and I might make this observation. This is a very minor matter perhaps, and I would not bring it up had it 
not been for the fact that this matter of the C.B.C. publicizing my good friends the C.C.F., and particularly my hon. friend the member for Rosetown-Biggar, had been brought to my attention before by many people. I went home after the last session. After driving home from the station I went down town. The first man I met put out his hand and said, "How do you do, Mr. Hansell? Glad to see you back." Then he said, "How is it that the C.B.C. are always talking about this man Coldwell?" That was man number one. I talked with this gentleman for a moment or two and when I moved on a pace another gentleman met me and, of course, shook hands, "How do you do, Mr. Hansell? Glad to see you back; been away a long time?" I said, "Yes, six months or so," and he, too, made the same comment about my hon. friend. I thought to myself, this is rather strange. However, when I went a few paces farther a third gentleman met me, and lo and behold he made the same comment. Incidentally he said, "When was this man elected?" I said, "In 1935." "Wpll," said he, "where has this man been all these years? I didn't hear very much about him until the past few months or so."


An hon. MEMBER:: He wasn't good news.


Ernest George Hansell: Maybe he was not. My friends are jibing me now. Now they say he is good news. Well, he may be, and so are the Katzenjammer Kids. I was not particularly alarmed when the third man spoke up in that way; but living in Ottawa and attending the parliamentary session I must confess I do not listen to the radio news a great deal, because it comes on at an hour when we are sitting or when we are not in our offices. When these men made this comment I recalled a certain incident that occurred during the last session of parliament. The debate in the afternoon was on the estimates of the Minister of Finance and we were discussing an appropriation of half a million dollars in respect of the woollen industry. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) is quite a student, and when he undertakes to master a subject he gets his books and he masters it. I think I can say that on that afternoon the hon. member for Lethbridge was master of the situation; when for an entire afternoon he engaged the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) in a debate on one of the most important subjects in this country, the woollen industry. That is all right. At eight o'clock that night the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) came on and during the course of the debate the hon. member for (Rosetown-Biggar walked

Radio Broadcasting Committee
in, rose and made a little speech, which recommended that medical services should be distributed a little more adequately throughout the country. It did not take any brains to figure that out.


Thomas Miller Bell: None whatever.


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member did not need a variety of books around him to figure that one out; yet he rose and spoke as others did. I recall I went up to my office at ten o'clock; I switched on my little radio unconsciously; I was not expecting to get anything in particular, and the C.B.C. news came on.
' Lo and behold, what did they report on parliament? "Mr. Coldwell"-it is always Mr. Coldwell-"the leader of the C.C.F. advocated to-night that the government make a more adequate distribution of the medical services of the country." I thought, is that news?- and I listened and listened for the name of Blackmore, but, I suppose I could still be listening; nary a sound of the name of Black-more came over the air. I will invite my hon. friend to trot down to the C.B.C. again and dig that one out.


Major James William Coldwell: That is your business.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: The world never does appreciate genius.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not want to bother about that; but I will say this, my hon. friend's speech on that occasion occupies half a column of Hansard, and the Speech and discussion of the hon. member for Lethbridge that same afternoon occupies eleven pages of Hansard.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: That should be pretty clear.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: They could not find what he was saying.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend can go down to the C.B.C. and dig out the information that was given over the air on February 22, if he wishes. On that day we were discussing the war expenditures committee. What happened that afternoon? My hon. friend did not talk at all, but the C.B.C. talked about him. He did not talk, at all except when somebody rose and irritated him. Of course, such had to be corrected. Something ought to be said. I thought the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman) made a speech in the house that threw some light at least on what took place in the committee with respect to my hon. friend's charges. In fact I gathered from reading the speech and listening to it that he attempted to show that my
hon. friend's charges were weak. I am not saying whether he proved anything or not, but I am saying that when the C.B.C. reported it, though my hon. friend had not spoken at all, they took about one-half a minute about him. Maybe I should not exaggerate; maybe it was only twenty-nine seconds. You must be exact, you know. They gave this hon. gentleman from Rosetown-Biggar a lot of mention. My hon. friend, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Chevrier) was mentioned quite a little bit as were also a few other people. While many may think they are good speakers, they just got honourable mention that night, and the hon. member for Rosedale never got a word. They never said a thing about him.
I do not want to continue in this vein; perhaps it is not worth mentioning. Perhaps these are just tiny little items in news broadcasts. It may be that I have dug out the wrong ones; but I do say it is my belief, notwithstanding what my hon. friend says, that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is giving undue prominence to our hon. friends, and to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar in particular. Sometimes I feel like saying, "Who is this superman?" He likes to rise in parliament and say he is the leader of a major political party. I do not know whether this is so or not.


Mr. GILLIS:: You are giving him a lot of advertising now.


Ernest George Hansell: Maybe I am. I may want to join your party some day, but I do not think so. I say that because I believe it. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, the C.B.C. cannot dangle the name of Coldwell in front of the people of this country almost every day without its having some effect on them. I believe in some way or another-do not ask me to prove it because I cannot; I have only the same belief that many others have-the hidden hand,is there trying to build up the C.C.F. party.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We have news value; that is all.


Ernest George Hansell: You say you have news
value.


Mr. REID:: That is why he is in favour
of it; he is all for it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Do not be
envious.


Ernest George Hansell: To get back to the corporation itself; my hon. friend has said that he wants the C.B.C. to control all programmes in Canada; he wants a greater measure of con-
Radio Broadcasting Committee

trol placed in the hands of the C.B.C. I do not believe that would be a good thing for Canada. I do not believe we should haye a body set up to control anything that the public really wants. I do not think it will work out. I am certain it will not. The public are going to make their demands; and furthermore- it is a very dangerous thing to have such authority centralized in a body that is so powerful in- respect of propaganda.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has talked about the board of governors and has mentioned some changes that should be made here and there. I do not think he went far enough. My opinion is that the whole organizational structure of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should be revamped. That is my view. If. you want a board of governors, then let them be the governors of the C.B.C. and not the governors of all radio broadcasting in Canada. That is my firm conviction. I have nothing against the corporation; I believe it is a great asset to Canada. But I say that the C.B.C. should operate on a competitive basis with private broadcasting stations. I believe there should be a separate body, a sort of semi-judicial body-not administrative; we may call it a board, a three-man commission, or whatever we like-to which the C.B.C. would nominate one member, the private broadcasting stations another and the government the third, who would be chairman. Let that body administer radio in Canada-and I should not use the word "administer" because I have said it should not be an administrative body.
Let that body supervise, and issue rules and regulations in the best interests of broadcasting; not in the best interests of any corporation or any private station; but rather in the best interests of the Canadian people. That is what we want and what we should have. If we do not have something like1 that, what are we going to have? We shall have something the same as we have to-day. Some of us have said that if we are to have a board of governors we should have on that board someone familiar with agriculture. I agree with that principle, and I believe the government was wise in listening to our suggestions in that regard. Someone else advocates that on the board we should have a representative of labour. That is all right. The first thing we know someone will suggest that there should be a representative of the professions, and someone else will say that the janitors and office boys should be represented on the board.
Where are we to stop? Let the government name its board of governors for the broadcasting corporation, but revise the rules and
regulations so that the supervision of all broadcasting will be placed in the hands of an entirely separate body composed of men with some knowledge of radio, some knowledge of business, some knowledge of art, and some knowledge of what the people want.
This is what I advocate. I do not believe broadcasting in Canada will be satisfactory until something along this line is done. In my view broadcasting in our country under the rules and regulations set out under the present act is not suitable even to the government. They may say it is, but I do not believe that is so. It is a sort of sore spot or irritation, so far as the government is concerned. Let us revise those rules and regulations; let us have a new broadcasting act, and put broadcasting where it belongs.
That is what I ask, and what I would advocate when I sit as a member of the committee.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, after all is said and done, if the programmes had a little more of the humour of the hon. member who has just taken his seat it would not be such a headache to turn on the radio and listen to those programmes broadcast across Canada. The people of Canada are humorous; they understand humour. The corporation, however, seems to be under the impression that the humour of Charlie McCarthy is all that is worth transmitting across the international boundary line.
Many of the United States programmes carry out the policy of those who were in control between 1936 and 1939, and who have been in control since the beginning of the war in 1939. That was a policy of surrender-' ing too much political, economic, social, financial and military initiation to Washington.
After all is said and done, we must look at the constitution of the board. We have before us the original act of 1936. Before that, committees met in 1934 and 1935. The formation of the board was supported by a former prime minister, Lord Bennett, who was leader of the party to which I belong. It was under him that the commission of 1934 was created, and through him that investigations by a royal commission were made in Japan and many other places, before the report was presented. It was never intended that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should be outside the control of parliament, "ither as to policy, name, regulations, expenditures, revenue or development. It was never intended it should be a law unto itself, or that it should operate over the heads of the high court of parliament.

Radio Broadcasting Commiltee
In my opinion the mistake made was that we should ever have had a board. We should have had one chief administrative officer who, with the help of his assistants, would administer the affairs of the board. What are these boards? Undoubtedly any board appointed by the government is a political board. The government of the day appoints the members of the board. Former governments have done the same thing, and the government after this one will probably do the same. Under the act why should clergymen sit on the board?
I say the whole administration of the C.B.C. should be administered from the commercial aspect. Why should sectional interests be considered in making appointments? Why should the policy of the board be sectional, rather than national in scope? Why should certain people be appointed only because they represent certain localities, or because they represent a church or some, other society?
Should not a commission be a public body administering public funds, and should it not be operated under public ownership, and alone from the commercial aspect? Should it not be free from any of the errors I have mentioned? One section in the report of the committee says:
Members of the board of governors to be persons of broad outlook, having knowledge of the tastes and the interests of the listening public, and able to make a definite contribution to the solution of the problems before the corporation.
If one looks over the list of those who have been appointed through the corporation can it be said, even by the widest stretch of the imagination, that those who have been appointed have received their appointments for the reasons of efficiency set out in that section?
In addition to that, I believe that nominations to the board should be abolished, and that a chief executive officer should be appointed, who alone will administer the C.B.C., and we would get better results from radio, this mysterious instrument of modern society, than are being obtained from radio operated in the present way. The executive, however, should be completely under parliamentary control.
Another principle laid down by the committee which considered radio broadcasting was this:
The independence of the corporation from partisan control to be assured by its constitution. As a 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.
In my opinion we have had too many managers and temporary managers; we have not had a long-term policy of administration, and politics in the C.B.C. have been rampant. The policy has been one of drift, particularly in the last two or three years. I believe that those who are paying $2.50 for licences would receive better results and better programmes and would have more confidence in the system if we had one chief executive.
The political provision was violated in connection with the Winnipeg convention, when Mr. Meighen was not allowed to speak. Again at Hamilton Mr. Bracken was not allowed to speak. If there is no humour in the corporation, there should be some sportsmanship and those who are leading parties should be allowed to give their views on the political situation. The hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) should be allowed to give his views, and also the leader of the Bloc Populaire (Mr. Raymond). There are other leaders of groups in the house; in fact there is a noble seven at the other end of the chamber. Why should not they all be given equal rights? Some of them may provide some humour. The other day the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains provided considerable humour when he was discussing another matter and his remarks were taken up by the humourists all over the country. He might entertain certain views on some of these public questions.
From 1936 to 1939 when disarmament was taking place, when we were losing our friends and when the causes of the present world conflict were shaping up, this corporation seemed to misjudge the whole situation. Since 1939 they have continued to misjudge things. For these reasons I think the board should be reconstituted and made up of those who have some knowledge of present day matters.
There is a kindred body which seems to be quite a favourite of this board. I refer to the Gallup poll. As I said last year, it is all gallop and no poll. This is one of the most mischievous institutions there is in the country and the Canadian Broadcasting Cor-portation seems to have a particular fondness for it. The Gallup poll endeavoured to obtain an opinion as to what different countries had done toward winning the war. No one gave any credit to Germany, but the returns showed the following percentages:
Per cent
Russia	*		 50
Great Britain	 42
China	 5
United States	 3
Radio Broadcasting Committee

The same question was asked in the United States with the following results:
Per cent
United	States	 55
Russia		 32
Great Britain	 9
China	 i
I cannot understand why this mischievous organization should have so much influence by radio special speakers with the board of governors. This is shown by the announcements that are made. Mr. Gallup, the founder, is a United States citizen and his work seems to be a repetition of Mr. Al. Smith's celebrated "straw vote". Announcements are made which in my opinion should not be allowed during the war. This is just political propaganda, and there should be some censorship or control over this corporation to prevent their sending out political propaganda of this or other description.
The public of Canada are beginning to lose faith in this corporation, not only because of their programmes but because of their failure to do what they were supposed to do. The board of governors, the general manager and the acting general manager have never properly or efficiently taken up the question of education as applied to public broadcasting. This corporation could be a great instrument for furthering education and national unity as well as providing entertainment. They could not draw ten people into a theatre with the humour and entertainment they send out over the radio. On Sunday nights at eight forty-five o'clock the speakers who are to talk on public questions give at times only half truths to the public. More use should be made of the radio as an instrument of education.
The time has come when there should be a reorganization of the whole system. Those who pay licence fees should be given value for their money. Certain sections of the act and of the regulations have not been enforced. Toronto seems to be a dumping ground for officials from all over Canada, and some of the programmes they put out are certainly not up to date. I hope this house in the year to come will see to it that we get a permanent organization with a continuity of policy as intended by the founders of the system. The system we have to-day does not commend itself to the wisdom and judgment of the country. There is wide dissatisfaction throughout Canada, not only with regard to the programmes but with regard to the administration.


Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthern):: I should like to draw attention to something which I think is of importance to this parliament. We are in a time of war, and it seems to me that the administration of this country and the activities of this parliament should be of greater interest to the people than anything else that happens at any other place within Canada. I am told that the news of what happens in this parliament is edited by a board in Toronto, the members of which do not observe what occurs. They are attempting to interpret to the people of Canada something which they have not seen, something which they can judge only by what is sent to them from Ottawa.
Perhaps this is one reason why at night the ten o'clock news broadcast sent out from Toronto does not seem to us who have been here to portray accurately what has taken place. I most urgently suggest that the doings of this house are important enough to warrant their being edited by people who observe the house in session.
Just to give an example of what this leads to I should like' to refer to the news broadcast sent out at ten o'clock on February 21. Before I go on with this may I say that I have been and still am a believer in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation operating as a nationally owned and controlled public institution. I have been a believer in that ever since radio came into existence. The reason why I speak is that the people I come in contact with claim that there is a shading of the news in favour of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. The leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) is continually being held up as the leader of the future, as the man who is to lead us into the promised land and all that sort of thing. They claim that, to the extent the radio can do so, it is tending to build up a feeling throughout the country that the leader of the C.C.F. is a man of destiny. There is a widespread belief that the C.B.C. is continually shading the news in that way.
If the C.B.C. is to be used as a political instrument of that kind, then something must be done. People who believe in the C.B.C. just as much as anyone in this house have said that to me. If that opinion exists all over the country, then there must be something wrong and it is not for me or anyone else to prove it by going deeply into the matter. To come to this broadcast of February 21, it outlines in full the charges of the leader of the C.C.F. party in regard to the aluminum eomract, and he is given about twenty-five lines. I will now read from the transcript of the broadcast and leave it to the judgment of

Radio Broadcasting Committee
the house whether it gives a true picture of what actually happened. The transcript goes on to say:
The Minister of Munitions-Mr. Howe-said that some of the statements which Mr. Coldwell had quoted as having been given in evidence appeared incredible. He thought that the evidence should be tabled in the house.
Then it goes on to speak of the Progressive Conservative member for Danforth , (Mr. Harris) and says:
The Progressive Conservative member for Toronto Danforth-Joseph Harris-suggested an amendment to Mr. Cleaver's motion for approval of the committee's report. The amendment would require all evidence to be tabled, and discussion of the motion postponed until it had been studied.
As the Speaker was about to put a motion by Mr. Harris, Mr. King said there were the best of reasons for having the committee sit in camera. He added that the government would welcome full discussion, but that the committee could not fulfil its function if the evidence were made public. Mr. Howe said he was aware it would be a breach of confidence if the evidence were disclosed.
In other words, it starts off with the charges of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and deals with them seriatim and at great length, and as the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) has stated, the next night the broadcast repeated the charges he had made, apparently to make quite sure that the people would know what the charges were.
Then it creates the impression that just as Your Honour was about to put the motion, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) stepped into the breach and saved the motion from being put to the house, and it makes out that the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) then changed his mind after the Prime Minister had stepped in. But we who were here in the house know that it was made plain, taking all his remarks together, that the Minister of Munitions and Supply never had any intention that the evidence should be tabled. Here is just one statement of others which should have made it plain. At page 711 of Hansard, he is reported as saying:
I am quite aware that it would be a breach of confidence, and particularly a breach against myself, if that evidence were tabled.
Can anybody who sat in the house say that the Minister of Munitions and Supply seriously intended that the evidence should be tabled when he had said that it would be a breach of confidence against the government of the United Kingdom and particularly against himself to table it? It was obvious to all that he had no such intention; but here in this broadcast it is held out to the country that the Minister of Munitions
and Supply had the idea that the evidence should all be tabled and that then the Prime Minister stepped into the breach, the Minister of Munitions and Supply then, fell in line. That is the way it struck me when I heard it. It was held uip to the people that the Prime Minister stepped in and stopped him. The fact is it was quite clear that the whole house felt that the evidence should not and could not be tabled. It was not a matter at all of the Prime .Minister suddenly stepping in and .stopping the evidence being tabled. It was a matter of confidence., trust and good faith toward others, particularly the government. of the United Kingdom.
There are people throughout this country, thousands of them in the armed services, who are too busy to follow the daily newspapers carefully, and there are thousands of farmers who take only a weekly newspaper. But they do follow very carefully what comes over the C.B.C. They feel that that is one thing they can rely' on to be absolutely unbiased and fair. The reason why I am speaking this afternoon is that it is the duty of this house to see to it that these people's trust is not betrayed and that we do not permit some unknown persons in Toronto, who are not following the proceedings of this house, to shade their reports in such a way as not to give a true picture of its proceedings, and particularly they should not convey to the listeners a wrong impression of what happened in this house. Therefore, I urge that these news broadcasts be absolutely fair and impartial. If they are not; if the idea gets around that these reports are being shaded, what is to become of the people's confidence in national broadcasting? What is to become of their confidence in the nationally owned and controlled radio institution? We had better see to it, if we want to maintain the people's confidence in the national radio system, that such items as this are not repeated and that what happens in this House of Commons is portrayed to the people, not in such a light as this report from which I have quoted, but in the true light, reflecting faithfully the deliberative proceedings of this legislative body of a great nation conducting its business in parliament in a dignified manner worthy of the great nation that Canada, is.


Mr. G. RUSSELL BOUCHER (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) and the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) make their accusations against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, it does seem to me that we should not let this occasion go by before
Radio Broadcasting Committee

we in this house give the national radio system our fair consideration and look upon the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and radio broadcasting generally, from the point of view of what it should mean in our national life. I do not think the man on the street, the average Canadian, has any opinions about radio other than it is one of the greatest organizations for improving human welfare and one of the worst organizations for destruction, if it is used in that way, that this country could ever produce. Taking that into consideration, I think that in setting up the radio committee this year we should try to appreciate the immeasurable importance to Canada of the necessits' of national control of radio, having due regard to the importance and efficiency of private radio stations as well. We should take a long-sighted and broad-minded view of radio, realizing the leadership it can give'in culture and education, in action, and in insight into future development, instead of being merely the interpreter of the views of any one man or any one party. It is abhorrent to me to think the Canadian government has allowed a regulation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to ban political discussions over the air. What is political? What is not political, I ask? Surely the banning of political discussions by the foster child of the government of Canada casts a slur upon that which is political, a slur which we members of the House of Commons should not stand for. Surely things political should not be represented as being some sort of scurvy generated here which the government cannot allow to be cast out over the air. to the people of Canada through the national .radio system.


Mr. CRERAR:: If the hon. gentleman will allow a question, without agreeing or disagreeing with his point of view, do I understand him to take the position that the government should have issued an instruction to the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on the matter of broadcasts?


George Russell Boucher: I am very glad to answer that question. Here we have the government of Canada and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation still without a head; it has an incomplete, inefficient and incompetent board of governors, and the government takes no steps to amend that situation at the earliest possible date. Surely that responsibility rests on the government.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is not answering my question.


George Russell Boucher: I answered it very clearly,
I think.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No; there is a point of principle involved in it. Does my hon. friend take the position that the government should on occasion, when it thinks it advisable, instruct the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as to their duty?


George Russell Boucher: My answer is certainly no. But I also say this, that the government cannot shirk its responsibility by having as its nominees men who cannot reflect its opinions to the people of Canada.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend earlier in his remarks criticized the government because it had not given an instruction to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


George Russell Boucher: Because the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have carried out a policy that was not consistent with Canadian thought and Canadian desires. As a matter of fact, what has happened to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the past year? I do not think there is anybody in Canada who would not say that the policy of the board of governors, and indirectly of the government, has been a policy of drift. I do not think the leadership has been shown by the C.B.C. in the national, cultural and educational life of the country which the people expected of it. As I see it, cultural and educational matters, as well as music and entertainment, should have priority over commercial or partisan subjects.
We learned last year that the board of governors were pleased over the fact that their income was supporting their programme, so that the C.B.C. was not involving the government in any expense. It does not seem to me that that is to the credit of the corporation. We all realize that in Europe the radio has been used as one of the greatest propaganda machines on the fact of the earth, and that in some places it has had a very evil influence. It is true that in many private stations, particularly to the south of us, where commercial interests preponderate over the radio, another undesirable extreme is reached. Canada set up the C.B.C. with a national network to give an example and to provide leadership to the people, but that leadership has not been forthcoming.
I agree with the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) that some board should be set up which would coordinate and adjudicate in an impartial manner .upon the multifarious problems of radio, not in the roles of judge, jury, prosecutor and accused, but as an impartial body. I believe the board of

Radio Broadcasting Committee
transport im its dealings with the railways is performing an important function in an impartial way, permitting public ownership and private enterprise to run side by side to the benefit of the people of Canada. In the C.B.C. a similar rule could be applied, but that is not possible while control is confined to one power with a national station, operating at once as judge and jury, as accused and prosecutor.
I am sure the average Canadian citizen is anxious to see the tone of radio broadcasting much higher than it is. He would like to be able to look upon the board of governors of radio as men not only inspired by the national viewpoint and beyond partisan, local or community influences, but having a far-sighted national and international vision, men ready to give leadership and encouragement, men. not afraid to delve into the problematical or to engage the best authorities on current problems to broadcast their views, even though those views might savour of something political ; for, after all, politics is in our very being, and we must keep our eye on the political ball and the factors of political progress. It is not enough that the C.B.C. has a policy of propagandizing accepted1 ideas more or less confined to one group or one community. It is my contention that the public are not represented as they should be on the board of governors. Why cannot we have a board unhampered by political, sectional and other prepossessions, prepared to deal with matters on a basis which will give a proper place to commercial, cultural and educational matters, while dealing adequately with news and amusements? Will anybody say that our present board of governors has done that? Can anyone feel that parliament has enabled the board to perform these services, when there has been for so long no governor, no managing director, and a shortage on the board itself?
I do not believe that the C.B.C. has risen to its opportunities. Canadians have not the respect or admiration for the corporation or for the board of governors that such bodies should be able to command. Surely, in relation to matters of current interest, the C.B.C. could broadcast the leads which are given, instead of merely repeating their version of these events. As a member of the house, I refleet the viewpoint of the men I meet when I say that if government enterprise, as exemplified by the present management of the C.B.C. has done the best it can, -we want no more of such a board of governors. The time has come, with the war at so critical a stage, with conditions in Canada as they are, to raise the standards of the C.B.C. to a much higher level and to make much greater use of it.
Mr. BERT H. SOPER (Lanark):	Mr. Speaker, \ye have heard a good deal of criticism this afternoon, some favourable and some unfavourable, of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The hon. 'member for Broadview (Mr. Church) raised the old complaint that Mr. Bracken was not allowed to speak over the radio. I should like to ask you and this house why Mr. Bracken should be allowed time on the radio of Canada. Whom does he represent? He does not represent this house; he does not represent anybody; he is neither a member of the House of Commons nor a member of any provincial legislature. It seems to me that any member of this house has more right to ask for time over the C.B.C. than Mr. Bracken has. If anybody is to be granted time to express his political views, let those who are privileged to represent the people of this country come first. If Mr. Bracken wants to "sell" himself to the Dominion of Canada, let him get elected to this house. This is where he should b.e. He should not be going up and down the country criticizing and trying to defeat every piece of constructive legislation which is put before us. It is easy to go out and criticize; let him come here and take an interest in what is going on and show the people of Canada what he can do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I feel it is only common courtesy that some member of this group should rise to express a word of sincere thanks to the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) and the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) for the opportunity they have given to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to-night to mention the name of Coldwell. I suggest to Your Honour that a radio might be brought into the chamber this evening at ten o'clock in order that too many hon. members may not yield to their curiosity to go and find just what is reported on the news.
Before I deal with the one specific point which I wish to mention, I think I should correct the hon. member for Rosthern when he tried to create the impression that the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) did not actually change his mind the other evening on the matter of tabling the evidence which we were discussing at that time. The hon. member quoted from the remarks of the minister after, as we feel, he had changed his mind. But the hon. member did not quote the earlier statement when, in response to the question of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon)
Radio Broadcasting Committee

whether he felt the evidence should be tabled, the minister said quite clearly, as reported in Hansard at page 704:
Yes, I think so; and I would suggest to the chairman of the committee that he move to have the evidence in this particular case tabled in the house.
A little later the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) came into the chamber end spoke to the matter, as reported on pages 709-711. The Minister of Munitions and Supply then rose again to explain his position, and it was at that time that he gave the opposite view which the hon. member for Rosthern has already quoted.
However, I rose for only a moment or two to refer to one matter in connection with the work of the committee which is to be set up under the terms of this motion. It is my privilege in the city from which I come to have fairly extensive contact with trades union organizations and to be at many meetings of trades union bodies. These organizations naturally - discuss matters mainly relating lo labour conditions, matters closely affecting their own work. But there are many occasions when these bodies discuss other matters of public interest. I know of no matter of public interest which has caused so much discussion in trades union circles over a long period of time, apart from actual labour questions, as the alleged interference by the Minister of National War Services (Mr. LaFleche) in connection with the programme "Of Things To Come," which took place last November. As many hon. members know, many protests have been made by labour bodies as well as by others; and I urge, not only on my own,' behalf, but on behalf of organizations such as those to which I have referred, that this committee, when set up, go into the matter thoroughly. A full investigation should be made to determine what actually happened at that time, and responsibility for any interference should be definitely fixed. One reason for this inquiry and for fixing the responsibility should be to make sure that this kind of thing will not occur again.


Mr. G. B. ISNOR (Halifax):: As a member of the committee for several years I had intended to inquire of the last speaker (Mr. Knowles), the moment he stopped speaking, whether he was making the charge that the Minister of National War Services (Mr. LaFleche) interfered in connection with the broadcast of a programme known as "Of Things To Come." Was that his charge?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the hon. member wishes to check the record he will find that I insisted that the committee should make an inquiry into the "alleged" interference.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Why don't you be plain about it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If he checks the record he will find the word "alleged" there.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Back-door stuff.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I am willing to accept the correction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is no correction.


Thomas Miller Bell: Somebody interfered and we want to know who.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: This debate has taken a rather different turn from that which I expected it would in the discussion of a motion of this kind to set up a committee to inquire into and report upon the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in respect of its regulations, revenues and expenditures and all matters coming within the scope of the committee.
In following the several gentlemen who have spoken I was greatly impressed with the remarks of some and not so much impressed with the remarks of others. Perhaps it was a good thing that this debate was brought on instead of having the whole matter referred to the committee without such a discussion, because the public will be able to judge of the attitude of certain speakers. The public will know what their stand is concerning public ownership and private ownership. I have particularly in mind the words used by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) in which he said: We have every year endorsed a single broadcasting system, and no effort should be made to destroy our present system. Then he went on to refer to the one single public broadcasting system, indicating in other words that, as far as he was concerned, he was simply saying what he had said in public, that he stood wholly for public ownership.


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a point of order. I happen to have before me a copy of my speech for correction and the hon. member is not quoting it accurately.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I can only trust to my memory. If the hon. member says I am not quoting correctly-


Major James William Coldwell: I have the script.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: -I would not wish to do anything that was not right in that respect. I was under the impression, and the great majority are under the impression, that the

Radio Broadcasting Committee
hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has repeatedly stated that he stood for public ownership and was more or less against private ownership.


Major James William Coldwell: That was not involved. As a matter of fact, I was quoting the report of last year's committee when I said that every year we have endorsed public ownership of all high-power stations to be operated under a single national policy.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I bring the matter to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because of the stand which the hon. member for Rosetowm-Biggar has taken. As a member of the committee of last year he took a very active part in making known his views. He was a good member of the committee and he made it quite clear that he recognized that there was a place for private enterprise and private broadcasting.


Major James William Coldwell: I did to-day.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Not as clearly as in this perhaps:
I think we should put this with our record. It is a very interesting criticism of private broadcasting. Now, I am not opposed to private broadcasting. I believe, as I said this morning, that the community station performs a real function.


Major James William Coldwell: I said that to-day.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I think we should have that on the record because of the feeling throughout the country, which the hon. member this afternoon has created in the minds of the great majority, that he and his party are for public ownership entirely and against private ownership. For my part, I take the stand that we have a good organization in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I cannot agree with those who criticize it on the ground that there is no head. It is true that at the present time the position of general manager is not occupied, but it must be remembered that this organization has existed for twelve years. We have always had a head, a board of governors, a general manager, and an assistant general manager. In private life, in a commercial business or in any other organization, when there is a vacancy the duties of the vacant office are discharged for the time being by the next in charge, and in this [DOT] case that happens to be the vice-chairman or assistant general manager, who, I may say, is an exceptionally efficient operator, whose ability I believe is recognized throughout the country. He has done very good work in carrying out the duties of assistant general manager. I refer to Doctor Frigon. I say, therefore, that it is
hardly fair for hon. members to rise in their places and say that we have no head, as did the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). He said that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has moved ahead without direction and without a head. We have the same control as though we had a geneul manager to-day. I believe that on the whole the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has shown business ability, as reflected in its financial reports each year. It is true there has been some criticism in regard to the revenue derived from commercial advertising. At one time we thought that $500,000 would, be the limit. It has grown to $700,000, $895,000, and over a million dollars in 1942. There might be criticism that that is altogether too much, because it reflects a lot of time devoted to advertising and not sufficient time, as the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) said, devoted to other programmes -which would be of a nature that would perhaps be more helpful to our morale.
If there is one criticism that could be offered I believe it should be directed toward the manner in which the news is placed before the public. I do not wish to deal with the matter in a partisan manner. If the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has bden able, by some method or system or organization either within or without the ranks of the employees of the C.B.C., to bring about the result which has been mentioned to-day, the receiving of greater prominence than other hon. members-[DOT]


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a point of order or privilege, I am not sure which. If the hon. member is suggesting that by some means of organization or otherwise, without or within the corporation, we have special privileges I wish to deny it emphatically and conclusively. I believe that such a statement reflects on the organization I represent and on the corporation. For my part, I wish to deny it explicitly. These unsupported charges against individual members ought not to be made without proof.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I said I did not wish to make any charge. I say I give my hon. friend a certain amount of credit if he has been able to bring about an organization t<j>
supply the news and to have it broadcast in such a way as to receive headlines. I say that because that has been possible during the past month or so it may lead one to think-and perhaps I join with the group-there is a weakness
Radio Broadcasting Committee

somewhere in the C.B.C. I think that is a matter which could very well be looked into by the committee on radio broadcasting.


Major James William Coldwell: Hear, hear.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I feel it should be dealt with if for no other reason that to clear the name of the hon. member in the feeling-[DOT]


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I object to this. The hon. member suggests that my name needs to be cleared before this committee. I should like to know what you think of that? I rise to a point of privilege. I am not under a cloud; as far as I know no charge has been made against me. I want that withdrawn.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I do not know what the hon. member wishes withdrawn. I did say that if there were such an impression existing in . the minds of a great many-and apparently there is because of the remarks made by the various hon. members who have taken part in this debate-then in fairness to the hon. member perhaps it might be well for the committee to look into the matter, investigate and clear up the whole thing.


Major James William Coldwell: That is a very different matter. .


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I am pleased-


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member does not need to have his name cleared anyway.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I am pleased to reword the thought I had in my mind to meet with the approval of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. The fact still remains, Mr. Speaker, that I believe a large number of people in the country are not entirely satisfied that impartial reports were made in connection with the proceedings of this house during the past several months, shall I say?
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar quoted at some length from an address given by Doctor Angell. If I interpreted his remarks correctly, he wished to place before us the views of Doctor Angell as applied to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I believe the situation existing in the United States is altogether different from that which exists in Canada. We have a broadcasting corporation, publicly owned so-called, paid for by the country, in competition with privately owned broadcasting stations. I do not think the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar carry much weight.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say that when I placed Doctor Angell's views before the house
LMr. Isnor.]
I referred to him as being the public service counsellor of the National Broadcasting Company of the United States.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I was not quoting the hon. member. I pointed out that the reference he made might apply to the system under which they operate in the United States, but it does not apply in the same way to the system under which we operate in Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: I tried to make that clear.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Mr. Speaker, when the house
rose at six o'clock we were dealing with the resolution moved by the Minister of National War Services (Mr. LaFleche) in respect of the appointment of a special committee on radio broadcasting. During my remarks I made reference to statements made by hon. members who had preceded me in the debate. I referred particularly to the observations of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) who, in a brilliant, legal manner, and making the most of a poor case, endeavoured to show that at the present time the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was moving forward without any real direction. He made reference to the fact that it has no general manager, owing to the Reverend Mr. Thomson having resigned from that position.
I then endeavoured to point -out that, notwithstanding the resignation of the Reverend Mr. Thomson as general manager, the corporation was still able to carry on in its usual manner. It has an assistant general manager whose duties have been defined and laid down in the by-laws of the corporation, a man who perhaps had a more thorough knowledge of the organization than did the general manager. Possibly the assistant understood the broadcasting system better than any other one person in Canada. Not only has he technical knowledge, but he is known for his judgment, his ability to organize and his thorough knowledge of financial affairs. Therefore I say to the hon. member for Lake Centre, and to others who have voiced similar thoughts, that their contentions in that connection are not well founded.
The hon. member also' referred to the appointment of a board of governors who would have the confidence of the people of Canada. In this connection the hon. member for

Radio Broadcasting Committee
Carleton (Mr. Boucher), who blew hot and cold when referring to the efficiency of the administration, expressed similar views, and he was supported by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). The hon. member for Broadview said that the public was beginning to lose faith in the C.B.C. Those remarks) as applied to the individual members comprising the board of governors, or as applied to the board as a whole are uncalled for and ill-timed. We know those men as having sound business ability and judgment.
I hold no brief for them, and I know very few of them personally. However, they have appeared from time to time before the committee and have shown by their judgment, their actions and their interest in the affairs of the corporation, that they are well versed in those matters which relate to the corporation's business.
I have in mind particularly the able report presented from time to time by the chairman of that board. Hon. members know he is an outstanding businessman from Montreal. He, in a public-spirited manner, along with the other governors, has shown a willingness to give up his time to work for something he believes to be of real benefit to Canada. The same observations would apply to all the members of the board. I do not believe the people of Canada will welcome the criticism to which we have listened this afternoon.
Just before six o'clock I was interrupted by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). Apparently I had misunderstood his remarks in one or two instances. I was pleased to be able to correct any impressions I may have gathered from his speech. However, during the evening recess someone said to me, "Apparently the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is not very consistent. In one instance he and his followers make a strong plea for public ownership of practically everything affecting the Canadian economy. Then he takes an altogether different stand, when occasion arises, by stating that he has no objection whatsoever to private enterprise." It is difficult for the average person to understand the position taken by the leader of a political group who on one day leans over backwards to proclaim his strong belief in public ownership, and the next day, seeking to make his position clear in respect of public ownership, as far as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is concerned, states, "I like competition, and we can have it only through privately owned stations." He and I are in accord in that thought. I believe in competition and in free enterprise. I believe firmly that that is the only way in which we can build up the best possible system and bring
about the greatest possible good. We can do that only by having and using private enterprise in a way which will help our Canadian economy.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar quoted a United States authority in reference to certain matters. I stated just before the evening recess that I did not believe his references would apply to Canadian broadcasters in the same way that they would apply to the systems operating in the United States. It must be remembered that two distinct systems are involved. One is a so-called public ownership system, and the other private ownership. One is largely subsidized by fees from the Canadian public which, in 1942, amounted to $3,485,331.92. That is the size of the subsidy which is being passed on to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to use against the private companies, which are obliged to carry all their overhead expenses and do their broadcasting without any outside assistance whatsoever. That is a real handicap.
We are reminded that the commercial broadcasting revenue or income of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation amounts to over a million dollars, with miscellaneous income of about $19,000. We see from this that the corporation had about $4,500,000 with which to carry on its work in the year ending March 31, 1942. Its total expenditures, which I shall not detail, amounted to about $4,000,000. leaving an operating net surplus of $299,321.36. I have placed this net operating surplus on record to show that the corporation was able to carry on in a successful manner. Therefore, once again I return to the remarks of hon. members sitting in opposition who have said that this was not an efficient administration, and that the corporation's affairs were not carried on in a manner befitting an organization of that kind.
The balance sheet of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation demonstrates its business abilities. I do not wish to take up the time to go into all the details, but the balance sheet shows that there are assets of $2,478,518.45 which have been created during the period of their operations. It is true that there are liabilities, but the operating surplus is shown as $1,725,000.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar quoted a United States authority. I want to repeat that I think there is a place for private broadcasting in Canada. If we are to get the best out of our publicly owned system it will be achieved through the competition given by private broadcasting. I should like to refer to a statement made by Mr. Joseph Sedgewick, K.C., in which he states that there is a place for both publicly and privately owned broad-

Radio Broadcasting Committee
casting facilities. He said that the private station has a vital place in Canadian broadcasting which would suffer severely if it were driven out of existence. For some years Mr. Sedge-wick has been general counsel for the Canadian broadcasters' association. He goes on to refer to their usefulness. For years the democracies have prided themselves upon having free speech, free broadcasting facilities and so on, and I contend that nothing should be done to hamper the private stations in fulfilling their duties and carrying out their functions. I question if there has not been too much restriction placed upon private broadcasting.
I am inclined to agree with hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), who have suggested that a small commission should be set up. I believe I would support such a system. The corporation could carry on with its board of governors, but their duties would be directed more particularly to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. There would be another small board or commission having jurisdiction over all broadcasting in Canada. This board would be similar to the board of transport commissioners. The Canadian National Railways, a publicly owned system, and the Canadian Pacific, a privately owned line, both come under the jurisdiction of the transport commissioners and their rates are fixed and other matters attended to by that body.
I would direct the attention of the committee to the manner in which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has expended certain moneys during the past year, and especially to what it has written off in the way of depreciation. I should like to draw this to the attention of the minister under whose department the C.B.C. operates. While the policy of the government has been to restrict expenditures they have allowed the C.B.C. to make some rathet large expenditures. I have in mind particularly the new secondary network which has been established. I realize that there may be a need for such a network, but I think it would have been as well to hold up any such expansion until the close of the war.
In the eyes of the average business man the write-off for depreciation by the corporation appears to be altogether too large. In ordinary business we are allowed to write off two and a half per cent or five per cent on property and ten per cent on fixtures, but the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have, I understand, written off as much as fifty per cent. These are matters which could very well be considered by the committee being set up.
I believe the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is doing a good work in Canada. It has done much to advertise our victory 
loans. Without its work the public would not have known of the benefits to be derived from subscribing to these loans, and the loans might not have been as heavily subscribed. It has made it possible for outstanding speakers from different parts of the world to make known to our people what other countries are doing. At times these speakers have complimented Canada upon the excellent work done during the present war. This committee has an important job to do. Having worked with the members in previous years, I am satisfied that they will carry out the duties entrusted to them in a very able manner.	%
Mr. WILFRID LaCROIX (Quebec-Mont-morency): Mr. Speaker, in reading over this motion I * see that one of the objects of appointing this committee is to have them review the policies and aims of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as well as its regulations. There is one point I wish to emphasize in particular. This committee should lay stress on the necessity of more control over the broadcasting of lectures through the private stations. As an example of what I mean I should like to give particulars of a case which has been submitted to me in connection with lectures broadcast over station CHRC in Quebec by two individuals, Jean Bourget and Jean Duval, organizers of the Progressive Workingmen's party.
It may be said that the Progressive Workingmen's party is a political party, it having a representative here in the house in the person of the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Rose), but everyone is aware that this party is the communist party and is recognized as such by its leader Tim Buck. To permit people to lecture over the radio and insult the religious feelings of the larger part of the population of Quebec is working against the unity of Canada. These two cases have been submitted to the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), but he has replied that he has no power to stop this.
May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that- in framing future regulations the committee should see to that point and emphasize the necessity of not permitting any lectures that may be an insult to a large portion of the people and their respected traditions. I have every confidence that the Minister of National War Services (Mr. LaFleche), who is also a member of the proposed committee, will see to that very important point.

Radio Broadcasting Committee


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to compliment the hon. senior member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) upon his able defence of this great publicly owned enterprise notwithstanding his declaration of faith in private enterprise.
There has been much criticism of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation during the course of this debate. That criticism is, I think, good for the C.B.C. It is a safeguard against that eventuality which some hon. members visualize, the growth of a powerful publicly owned system becoming an instrument of political propaganda. But so long as the C.B.C. and other government-owned enterprises are subject to criticism and control by this parliament, elected by the people, I think we are on safe ground. Those who are afraid of that situation are in reality expressing their fear of democracy in action. They are afraid of putting democracy into action. They are afraid of leaving in the control of a parliament elected by the people an institution such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
The corporation has been criticized on account of its earnings, because it has been a commercial success. I am confident that if the corporation had not shown a favourable balance some of these same critics would have criticized the corporation for being inefficient. Actually most of the criticism this afternoon boils down to this, that Mr. Bracken and the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) did not get enough publicity over C.B.C. and that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) got too much. One hon. member has already questioned before the house just why Mr. Bracken should be entitled to so much publicity. Let me remind the house that Mr. Bracken has not yet a single Progressive Conservative elected to this house; there has not yet been elected to this parliament any member as a Progressive Conservative. Every member of that party sitting in this house was elected as a member of another party or a party that went by another name. I have no objection to the hon. member for Lethbridge getting more publicity. Actually I think the country could profit if the C.B.C. did carry some of the things that the hon. member has told us in this house.
I do not see why the C.B.C. should be criticized for giving publicity to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. The C.B.C. is not alone in giving publicity to the C.C.F. I recall being in New Brunswick last summer, a province which had scarcely heard of the C.C.F., and yet one of the papers of that
province carried the name of a provincial leader of the C.C.F. on its front page for nearly two weeks.


Gordon Graydon: Who is he?


Joseph William Noseworthy: As a matter of fact, during several months last summer the press of this country gave more publicity to the provincial leader of the C.C.F. in British Columbia than to either Mr. Bracken or to the premier of that province. Actually it will be found that the press of this country is constantly keeping the C.C.F. before the public. Look over the reoords of Hansard for this session and you will find that the same hon. gentlemen who have criticized the CH.C. for publicizing the C.C.F. have done very little else during this session but publicize the C.C.F. You will find pages and pages of Hansard devoted to nothing but to publicizing the C.C.F. party. So that you cannot blame the C.B.C. for publicizing a party that is so much in the news to-day.
I should like. to compliment the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, not upon the publicity they have given to the C.C.F., but upon the good work they have done in helping the Canadian people to appreciate the finer things of life. During this war the C.B.C. have struggled against numerous obstacles and the difficulty of securing good talent in war time. I think they have done a remarkable job in maintaining the morale of the people and giving us an opportunity of appreciating some of the best in literature, art and music and in the discussion of public and social affairs. I compliment the corporation upon that good work.
There are one or two points I should like to call to the attention of the committee before I take my seat. They are not serious. I found last summer, while in New Brunswick, considerable criticism of the, fact that a great many people there 'who were paying licence fees to the broadcasting corporation were unable to get the broadcasting station at Sackville. My information, gathered from radio engineers, some of them employed at that station, is that because of the land area of the maritimes it is practically impossible for one high-powered station to cover that territory adequately, and consequently there are a great many people living in parts of New Brunswick who find it difficult to get that station.
My attention has been called by a number of correspondents to the fact that some of the privately owned stations which have been changing hands during the past few years have in reality been coming under the ownership of private chains contrary to the act. Theoretically these stations are supposed to be
Radio Broadcasting Committee

privately owned; actually, I am told, a considerable number of them are in reality owned by the same interests. I am quite confident that the committee will look into this matter.


James Joseph McCann: The setting up of this committee to-day for the purpose of inquiring into the activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is but an implementation of recommendations which were made by the committee last year and the year before. I am sure that, in taking the course which they have, the government are taking a course which will renew the confidence which the people of Canada have, and which the parliament of this country should have, in this great public utility.
The criticism which we have heard this afternoon and this evening with reference to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been mostly of a destructive nature. Criticism, we all agree, can be of two kinds; it can be either constructive or destructive. So far I have not heard from those who would criticize the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation many suggestions which, if put into operation, would tend to make that body better or to have more of the confidence of the Canadian people.
I am not disturbed about the place of prominence which appears to have been given to the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) in some of the news broadcasts Which are made, because I fully realize that the more prominence which is given to the hon. member and his party and the policies of that party, the more clearly will the people realize what they would come [DOT]to if that party should by chance ever come into power.
He complains of the "soap programmes". What will happen if his party should come into power? Not only would the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation become publicly owned and publicly operated, but all the private chains and stations in this country would be taken over, and not only the soap advertising but the "baloney" advertising as well would be paid for by the people of this country through the licence fees which they pay. Let me say to him that our people are not so gullible as all that. So that the more prominence tlhat is given to Mr. Coldwell and the policies of the party he represents, the more it will work to their detriment and to the advantage of the system' which is in vogue in this dominion at the present time.
I am sure that all realize that radio is a vital organ in Canada's national life, and the people are convinced of the soundness of the policy of publicly owned radio as an instrument of education, information and entertain-

ment. Above all, in war time no greater instrument of building up and sustaining public morale exists.
It is very easy to criticize. While we are making that criticism, would it not be well if we had some knowledge of the accomplishments of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? I think it can be fairly said that the corporation has a fine record of accomplishments in the last six or eight years. Radio coverage has been extended from 46 to 92-4 per cent of the population. 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. Since we last met, a new type of news service has been inaugurated. The C.B.C. subscribes and pays for a news service which is supplied by the Canadian Press and the British United Press. That has given greater coverage. More particularly, the corporation's contribution to war publicity in every phase has been outstanding and has formed a valuable link between the soldiers, overseas and their relatives at home. In addition, we have with the armed forces at the present time in Italy, as we had in Africa, a mobile unit -which has operated continuously throughout the different theatres of war.
In addition to these achievements, since the last report was given to parliament there has been started the building of a short-wave station. Also another network, known as the Canadian network, has been established.
These, Mr. Speaker, are achievements which the Canadian people ought to know of, and I am sure that they have accrued to the benefit of the listening public throughout Canada.
Criticism has been made with reference to the directorate. That directorate has been considerably strengthened. The directors who have been added are Mr. Chase, Mr. Parker and Mr. Crawford. These men are outstanding in their particular lines of endeavour or of business; they are men who enjoy the confidence of the people who know them, and who bring to the directorate years of experience and good judgment.
It is true that the position of general manager has been vacant, as such, for a number of months. There cannot be any great criticism in that particular regard. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) says that that has brought about chaos in the direction of the management. There is nothing at all, in my judgment, which would

Radio Broadcasting Committee
indicate that there has been chaos of any kind with reference to the management of the C.B.C. The assistant general manager, Doctor Frigon, stepped up to the position-temporarily-as general manager of the corporation. There is not a man on the North American continent who has greater technical knowledge of radio than has Doctor Frigon. I submit that the direction of the management of the corporation has actually been bettered by stepping up Doctor Frigon to that position than if a new man had been appointed to it.
With reference to the managerial set-up, I believe the time has come when it would be advisable to have a full-time, well-paid general manager of the corporation, a man who would have the same rank as a deputy minister and would have under him a general manager who would be his executive head. In that event it would probably be possible to have a much smaller directorate. I realize very well the difficulties there are in this country with reference to a directorate of such an organization as the C.B.C. Canada's geographical position, the various national aspects and, if you wish, religious aspects of the undertaking, and other considerations make it extremely difficult to secure a directorate which will work in harmony all the time. Since the last report of the committee, the directorate have been meeting much more frequently than they formerly did. Meetings are held every two months, but I would suggest that if there were a smaller board of governors it might be well to have regional advisers for the four different sections of the country, the mari-times, Quebec, Ontario and western Canada. We could easily have managerial or regional advisers in these four sections who would give the benefit of their experience, and they would probably be much more conversant with the problems that confront radio management in their own particular sections.
Let us, however, face the facts. There will never be a radio set-up in this country which will entirely satisfy all sections. In the very nature of things that is not possible, because there is such a diversified interest in the public. One part of the public wants sports; another part wants music; another part wants some kind of intellectual lectures, and when they turn on the radio and do not get the particular programme which they like they think the radio is to be condemned for that reason. We have to cater to a great population with a diversified interest, and as long as the national system is making an attempt to cater to that diversified population, with its various tastes, we cannot please all at the same time. That might just as well be borne in mind when there is criticism of the corporation.
Some mention has been made of the amount of commercial work which is carried on by the organization; I mean the fees which are collected from industry for advertising purposes. It was never contended, as has been stated in some of the newspapers of the country, that the C.B.C. could carry on entirely on licence fees collected from the public. It was always thought there would have to be some revenue from commercial advertising. It has been said that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was originally constituted on the altruistic basis recommended by the Aird commission, that all revenues which the publicly-owned corporation required were to be provided by the licence fees. Mr. Morin, chairman of the board of governors, answering a criticism by a newspaper in this country in that regard, has this to say:
This statement, though completely erroneous, has been circulated so assiduously and continuously by critics of the corporation and especially among the newspapers, that many who have never consulted the record have come to believe it. The Aird report says definitely: "It is rather difficult to estimate what revenue would be collected for the rental of time, but we think that an amount of approximately $700,000 annually could be expcted at the beginning." Note, the Aird commission says "at the beginning", which indicates clearly that the commissioners expected this sum to increase from year to year.
The second error has to do with the revenues of the C.B.C. from advertising. It was stated as $1,800,000 a year in 1943. As a matter of fact, that is exactly $500,000 or nearly forty per cent more than the estimated revenue for 1943-44, which is $1,300,000. Then Mr. Morin goes on:
Even this revenue, however, is not net. There are numerous items which must be deducted from it to obtain a net figure to the corporation. Moreover, it includes a very substantial volume of governmental war advertising which is obligatory and transitory.
That is to say, when the C.B.C. do a certain amount of advertising for the government they are paid for it and that is business which they cannot loolj to continuously from year to year, so that it is of a transitory type which the organization cannot count on.
If all these are considered it will be- found that C.B.C. revenues from commercial broadcasting even after several years of operation do not greatly exceed the figures originally set in 1928 by the Aird commission. There is no enormous jump in advertising revenues as suggested.
I see no harm in the C.B.C. getting a certain amount of revenue from advertising. All organizations having to do with broadcasting in the United States are privately owned and obtain their entire revenue from commercial

Radio Broadcasting Committee
advertising, and the revenue of some of these organizations is very high. That of the national Broadcasting Company is $80,000,000 a year, and that has something to do with the type of programmes we are bound to have. Any organization that has a revenue of $80,000,000 a year and a population of 130,000,000 from whom talent can be drawn is in a much better position to give programmes that are considered better than those we are able to provide in this country.
What we want to do is to build up in Canada a type of programme that will be indicative of our Canadian people and Canadian culture, and it is folly to think we can have programmes put over the C.B.C. network that will compete with those in a country in which bigger organizations with much more money to spend are operating.
It has also been said that there is conflict between the C.B.C. and the privately owned stations. I do not think anything could be farther from the facts. The C.B.C. and the privately owned stations are made to appear as competitors, implying beyond question that there is unfair competition and disaffection among the privately owned stations. The facts are anything but as represented in that type of statement. The relationship between the C.B.C. and the privately owned stations is one of cooperation, not competition. Of the eighty-nine private stations that are on the air, seventy are on one or other of the C.B.C. networks and share in the revenues from network advertising, and they share on a very fair and equitable basis. They receive every day many programmes which they could not otherwise broadcast and which listeners in many parts of the country could not hear were it not for the C.B.C. network programmes which enhance the prestige and greatly increase the audiences of the privately owned stations.
I submit that were it not for the C.B.C. with their two extensive networks across the country, the manner in which they feed the privately owned stations with programmes, and the contribution they make to the revenues of those stations by passing on advertising to them, these privately owned and operated stations could not exist. It is because of that fact, because they are willing to cooperate with this great national and publicly owned utility, that the relationship between the privately owned station and the nationally owned station is as harmonious as it is.
In conclusion, I see a great future for radio in Canada. Let us remember that it is only in its infancy. I hope that the government will continue to maintain it as a strong public
[Mr. McCann.J
utility and a great instrument for education, information and entertainment. I hope that the committee, which is about to be set up, will give the affairs of the corporation earnest and sincere consideration and will make without fear or favour such recommendations as are considered to be in the interests of this public utility of the Canadian people.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: I should like to support the hon. member who has just taken his seat; but in the words of another we might well say that "the half has not been told". I have appreciated the work of the. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in many ways. We have fun for the children; we have beautiful swing music for the young people and the help in the home, and we have relaxation for those like ourselves who have a good deal to think about when we can turn on the radio and listen to the broad-east of a hockey match. If we turn down the lights we can visualize ourselves witnessing a really thrilling game.
But that is not what I want to speak about. I should like to say, in support of the management of the C.B.C., that they are doing a great job in putting on "The Church of the Air" on Sunday afternoons. That halfhour on Sunday afternoons is better than all the rest that is put on the air on Sunday. It gives a colour that is badly needed to the citizens of Canada. Not only that but "The Church of the Air" on Sunday afternoons does two things. It permits the citizens of Canada to hear the best clergymen of the dominion, and those who listen in to "The Church of the Air" can go back and tell their own minister that he compares favourably with the best doctors of divinity in Canada.
I should like to pay my tribute to the local broadcasting stations. We are permitted to have a devotional period over our local station nearly every morning in the week, and they do not charge us five cents for it. Anybody who would not appreciate that is extremely stingy. I was one of those who tried to help along that line, and I have received more letters because of that than I ever received from giving a political speech over the radio. Therefore I say that the management have the right to be supported in giving leadership of a kind that is badly needed all over Canada, in allowing each of the denominations to have its turn on the air, to enlighten the citizens of Canada and to tell them of the Master Workman whom if they will follow, they will never come to grief.

Radio Broadcasting Committee


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: It is not my intention to delay the passing of the resolution to set up the committee; but before the motion is put to a vote I should like to suggest to the minister under whose department the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation comes, that they should be furnished with more powerful stations, stations that can send the message over the air for a greater distance than any of the stations we have in Canada can now send them.
In the Yukon we are not very far away from Vancouver, or Edmonton or any of those northwest cities. But in our locality it is seldom, if ever, that we can get any sound of a Canadian broadcast. We can get San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, New York and London, England, but not Toronto, Vancouver or any of the Canadian cities.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Do you get Watrous?


George Black: No. If the work of the corporation is to be effective in Canada it should have better equipment. Something has been said about the commercialization of the C.B.C. Advertising over the radio can be overdone, or, at least, I think it can be. There was an instance that came to my attention just a few weeks ago. Those of us who listen to the radio recall that usually when a broadcast is begun, the listeners are told the time of the day by a certain make of watch. I have never seen the watch they refer to and I do not know whether it is a good watch or a poor watch; but I do know that one listener said to me, "If I had to buy a watch and could not get any watch other than the one they advertise I would carry a sundial rather than buy one of those." As I say, advertising can be overdone, but I should like the minister to consider the suggestion that radio broadcasting stations be made stronger and more effective in order to reach the distant points in Canada.


Thomas Reid: Some of the remarks and speeches made this afternoon impel me to rise in my place and say a word or two regarding some of these before the resolution is passed.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), in speaking about publicity, pointed out something each and every hon. member knows and fully realizes, namely, that speeches made in this house against either the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) or the C.C.F. have the effect of giving him or them lots of publicity; and they have had lots of publicity so far this year, due to that very method being applied. The hon. member for York South
who, by the way, is one of the newer members of the house, may think he is letting the members of the house into a secret. Let me say to him in all sincerity that he is entirely wrong. Many of us have realized for a number of years that the more you attack a person or a party, the more you are publicizing that individual or party and making them better known to the world. I just wish to disillusion his mind in that respect and to tell him that many of us are fully aware of that. Three years ago the viewpoint was held by many members of the C.C.F. party that their speeches and debates in the house had the members of parliament buffaloed, but at least some members of that party have changed their minds in that respect, because they have realized this year that there are members on this side of the house who can hold their own when it comes to debating. I point that out in passing, because I should not like the impression to go abroad that the members on this side of the house are a lot of greenhorns; they are not.	.
Some references were made to the fear that some of us hadi of turning all radio over to the C.B.C.; that we were somewhat afraid of democracy. That is not an entirely true interpretation of the views which many of us hold. May I say that I am one of many other hon. members who fear a government monopolistic concern, just as much as we fear a private monopolistic concern. There is just as much danger in one as there is in the other, for this reason: we are nine provinces, and I view with some alarm much of the centralization that has taken place in Ottawa since the war commenced. Perhaps I speak as one who comes from three thousand miles away and who views with alarm this centralization; yet I say to the hon. members, let us be very careful and watchful of this government monopolistic concern. We know not what the future may hold; but, if not properly controlled or adjusted, it may be just as evil an any private * monopolistic concern could be.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, because, to my mind, they have done a great work. I do not think, however the entire picture has been put before the house this afternoon. I rather suspect the C.C.F. realize to a greater extent what the act actually contains than do some other hon. members. I was one who sat in the house in 1932 when the first radio bill was passed. I was more susceptible in those days than I am to-day, and I fell for things much more readily than I do now. I must admit that I was somewhat carried away by the statement of the then Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, who
Radio Broadcasting Committee

painted a wonderful picture of what the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would be for this country. He had in mind something which is still incorporated within the powers of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but which is not generally understood, namely, the idea that there would be no private stations, once the corporation could operate fully.
There are those in the house who believe that everything in this country should he government-owned or state-owned. I differ from those views, and especially as it applies to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It was pointed out in 1932 and has been pointed out since that radio in Great Britain is entirely government-owned. The statement was made further that in the United States, our neighbour to the south of us, it was entirely pri va tely-o wned.
I am one who believes we should follow neither country. This country is entirely different from the United States. We are a country of only some twelve million people. The latest report I have from Great Britain is -and it might be well for the committee to look into this-that the people over there are just waiting for the end of the war so that they can throw overboard their government-controlled radio. That is the information I have. Let us not be too easily carried away with the thought that as a part of the commonwealth we in this country might very well follow along the lines of Great Britain. I say to members of the house, and to the committee to be set up: Let us have our own system, one peculiar to this country of ours, following neither the one in Great Britain nor that in the United States.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), I believe by way of interjection, compared the radio with the two railway companies to-day. That is just the idea I should like to see carried out, a radio -system somewhat similar to the two railway companies, one privately owned and the other government-owned, with a body supervising both. While there has been a good deal of criticism against private ownership by those who say, "criticism is just an attempt by the privately owned radio stations to throw the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation overboard," the information I have is that the owners of private radio stations have nothing but praise for the government-owned corporation. They realize, however, that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is working under difficulties, and that those difficulties are contained within the very act under which it works.
The owners of private radio stations do not want the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to be done away with. And while we give praise to the C.B.C. we must also give praise to the private stations, because it must be remembered that they were in existence long before the C.B.C. came into the picture. They would be in a better position to-day, were it not for the fact that they are circumscribed by the rules and regulations laid down by the C.B.C., the object of which in 1932, and I think in 1936 when the bill was put through, was gradually to have all radio absorbed under government ownership.
That thought and that information has'not been put before members of the house, and I am taking a few minutes time just to place it clearly before them, believing that the act itself should be changed, and also that there is a place in this country for both privately owned and government-owned stations. If that change is not made, and privately owned stations are put out of business, we might have a serious monopolistic state-owned concern which none of us would like, and for which the country would suffer.	*
Information is given to me that on account of this very fact Canada's position will be very weak in 1946 when the conference is held at Havana, because the lines in this country have not been fully and properly developed. As is well known, the privately owned stations are held down to not over 1,000 watts. We in British Columbia can very well complain about the discrimination we suffer because, while Toronto and Montreal under the C.B.C. have 50,000 watt stations, there is no such station, or no station of that power in British Columbia. I bring this matter to the attention of the committee, and would ask that they give it consideration.
Something has been said about freedom of the air. I draw to the attention of the committee that there is some danger of allowing too many newspapers or newspaper chains to own and control private radio stations. In that lies a danger. A short time ago exPremier Pattulo of British Columbia introduced a measure which, I understand, has been refused by the legislature, under which he would compel newspapers to print letters sent to them in self-defence by those who have felt that they have been defamed through either editorials or letters sent to the newspapers concerned. Nothing so far, I believe, has been done about that bill, but it has some merit. It does show, however, the trend of things, and that matters of this kind will have to be considered. I would ask the committee to view that aspect- of our radio set-up, and find
[Mr. Reid.J

Radio Broadcasting Committee
out how many newspapers are in control of private radio stations. More than one newspaper has taken the attitude, and so stated, that it was in control of many of the public men in this country and, by criticism, could put some of them out of public life. I, for one, do not want to see freedom of speech, either through the medium of the press or over the air, put into the hands of private monopoly, nor do I wish to see freedom of speech over the air put completely under a government monopoly, such as we are drifting to in this country.
Hon. L. R. LaFLECHE (Minister of National War Services): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon and this evening I listened to some excellent and constructive criticisms, and to others which, to my mind, were to the contrary. First, I shall say a few words, not about that which is constructive, but in answer to some of the allegations which have been made in this honourable house.
Before proceeding to do so, may I observe that we in Canada have in operation a dual system of radio broadcasting. We have a system which last year I described in the following words-words which I believe still describe the situation prevailing in Canada:
In the matter of radio broadcasting as in so many other respects, Canada occupies a midway position between Great Britain and the United States. In Great Britain, broadcasting is controlled by the crown, whereas in the United States, radio is privately owned. In Canada we have both systems and I have not yet observed anything which has convinced me that we should be better off with either one or the other system alone. It is a matter for serious consideration whether it were wise to make up our minds in regard to this matter whilst Canada is engaged in war, or even until some time after the war is over, until victory is won, and we are well advanced in the reconstruction work which must necessarily follow this war.
I make the further observation that Canada is still engaged in a life or death struggle with her enemies. The flower of our young manhood and womanhood are fighting our enemies thousands of miles away from their homes. It might not be fair to those who have undertaken the great responsibilities of defending us so that we may live safely in peace at home to decide certain problems before they are able to return to this country. War time is not a normal time. Situations are aggravated in times of war. I am really stating my personal belief that we would do well to make haste slowly in deciding finally whether Canada is to adopt one of these two systems or whether we should try to do better with what we have.
It is possible to do better with what we have. That applies not only to our radio 100-57
broadcasting system but to every other human endeavour. It is our. purpose in life to progress, to do better with those things which we control. It was with real regret that I heard to-day what sounded to me like reflections upon those Canadian citizens, all persons of standing and quality, who have assumed the onerous duties of membership on the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It is indeed poor recompense to be criticized in a place where they have no voice.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask the minister if he has read the report of the 1942 committee because that is all that was quoted?
Mr. LaFLECHE: I do not want to lose the thread of my thought. As I say, I was grieved to hear these persons dealt with in a manner which I thought was unfair in a place where they had no voice. I want to come to their defence in all fairness and in all decency to them as well as to other persons who serve Canada and who have no voice in this house.
Some of the members of the board of governors of the broadcasting corporation have been praised and they should be praised. I believe the nominations which I had the honour to recommend were highly meritorious. Those people honoured the board of governors by accepting the positions, just as they were honoured by Canada by having those positions offered to them. A lady was named a governor in order that the women of Canada might have a representative on this board to defend if necessary the particular interests of Canadian womanhood. That lady is a jewel in the crown of the broadcasting corporation. I know of no one I would rather have i on the board of governors than one gentleman who has had such a splendid and long experience in matters concerning labour-I refer to Mr. Howard Chase. He has done an extremely good job since he was appointed, as has the lady.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Who is the lady?
Mr. LaFLECHE: Mrs. Sutherland. She replaced Mrs. McClung who had to resign because of ill health. Another appointment was that of Mr. Crawford of Toronto. He is a man of affairs, a broad-minded and fair-minded gentleman. Let me say to my hon. friend who does me the honour of looking at me at this moment that there are many excellent men in Toronto.


Mr. BRUCE:: I would approve your selection there.

Radio Broadcasting Committee

Mr. LaFLECHE: It was my good fortune to have my invitation to join the board of governors accepted by another gentleman who for years has been actively engaged in agriculture. He is still carrying on that occupation, but his activities have increased to the extent where he has assumed responsibilities over matters concerning many thousands of his fellow farmers. I refer to Mr. Parker of Winnipeg. I suggest that that lady and those three gentlemen could not be bettered anywhere in Canada. We in this House of Commons owe those four persons a debt of gratitude for their willingess to continue to serve under what I submit are not very pleasant circumstances because of the things that have been said about them and about their work.


Gordon Graydon: Is there not one jewel missing from the crown you spoke of?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is going to be filled.
Mr. LaFLECHE: There is only one jewel in the crown; the others are mere gold; they constitute the setting. I was coming to that vacancy. That vacancy has caused considerable concern to some of my hon. friends in this house and to some people outside the house. I have been taken to task by a genial hon. gentleman who sits on the other side. He is such a genial and fine gentleman that I have trouble at times in believing that he can speak so harshly and drastically to me and to others of his colleagues in this house. But to relieve his feelings, to bring his blood pressure down a little, let me say that having given the house the measure of the standard of quality of the members of the board of governors as I would like to continue to choose them, I hope very soon, next week, to announce the appointment of a person who will compare very favourably even with those I have mentioned. But the board of governors have not yet made a recommendation to me in regard to the general manager. I know on good authority that the board of governors have been able to operate very successfully even though there has been one missing, No. 9. It must be remembered that the radio broadcasting act provides for the automatic filling of the position of general manager when he is absent. Therefore, there has been at all times a general manager of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Section 6 of the act makes the provision I have in mind in regard to the appointment of a. general manager of the corporation. It says that the general manager shall be named by the governor m council on the recommendation of the board of governors of the C.B.C.

I know the board of governors have been giving extremely careful attention to this matter. They have wanted to make a recommendation to me, but they have not yet done so, and until they do I am quite powerless to take any action in the matter. I say that plainly, and I know that when hon. members realize the position they will be quiet in their minds in that respect.
I have heard something said in the house to-day about commercial advertising on the radio and it seemed to be in the mind of some hon. gentlemen that the C.B.C. has entered upon a field where it has no right. I do not believe that is the case. I have read the act again, and paragraph (f) of the objects of the corporation will relieve any hon. member's mind as to its being quite within the intended objects of the corporation to enter into contracts here in Canada or elsewhere in connection with programmes.
In view of what I have brought to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the position of the corporation has become weakened, it has been suggested, in the minds of the Canadian public, which is something that I do not admit or believe. But were such the case, I am very sorry to have to say that in my opinion such weakened position, such impaired reputation of the corporaton, would be due to those who have thoughtlessly or for other reasons spoken so often to the public in that vein. They themselves are responsible. In that connection I would say this. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a valuable piece of property. That piece of property belongs to the people of this country, and I submit that it is a piece of property the value of which should be safeguarded by all Canadians. I think all hon. members have a direct and specific duty in helping to preserve the value of that piece of property. I know of no better way of protecting that property than by each of us in this house doing what he can to preserve and enhance the reputation of those who are there doing the work.
So far as the board of governors are concerned, they are working for nothing, and again I bring that to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and to that of hon. members because I know that in the final issue this house is a very fair-minded body of men. Until we win a victorious peace, the main objective of our lives to-day, I should so much like to see in Canada some of that peace-loving here at home for which our boys are fighting so far away from us.
I have heard something said about the new short-wave station at Sackville, New Brunswick, I should like to reassure hon. members that there has been no delay in the matter of

Radio Broadcasting Committee
bringing the station to completion as yet, for the reason that we have not yet reached the date first estimated as that upon which the station would be in operation. But I have to report, as was mentioned last year to many hon. gentlemen, that there is still difficulty in obtaining certain equipment necessary for the completion of the station. I know something about whiW; has been done in an attempt to gain better priorities, which one hon. gentleman mentioned this afternoon. I would like to reassure you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. gentleman that the authorities of the C.B.C. have been taking steps for several months to try to secure higher priorities so that there will be no delay in this matter. But there again, important as our short-wave station is going to be, I understand and believe that it is still more important that the factories should turn out the radio equipment and other technical equipment needed for our boys in the air and on the land and at sea to enable them not merely to carry on their fight for us but to preserve their lives in the face of the enemy. I think that is the correct position, and I give it to you, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) this afternoon asked the specific question of me, whether a certain article or talk on the radio had been censored. At the beginning I must confess that I did not quite understand his reference, but during the recess I did obtain some information. I take it that the hon. gentleman means: Was that speech submitted to the government, to the headquarters of the C.B.C., or was it submitted to anybody? I should like to make a categorical reply to that. It was not submitted to the government. I am convinced that it never reached Ottawa, was not submitted to Ottawa. I do not know whether the manager of the station over which it was proposed to give the talk had it submitted to him. It might have been, but if that were done I would say to the hon. member that that is quite in keeping with the regulations, because there are certain regulations which must be observed and respected. I am sorry that I have not had time to get more definite information about the local station than I have just given, I am speaking with definite assurance about the government, I am quite sure that the speech was not sent to Ottawa. It might be, though I do not think so, that the script was looked at by the manager of the local station. I trust that that will be acceptable to the hon. member.


Gordon Graydon: In such a case as that which was mentioned by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) with respect to the commentator in Vancouver, can a com-100-57J
mentator make statements of such a nature without running counter to the censorship regulations? I raise the point because, I believe, the minister is also the minister in charge of censorship.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I regret very much that I cannot give my hon. friend the answer I should like to give, because I have never read the article and I do not know really what is in it. He will agree, therefore, that I cannot give him any conclusive answer. I might say this to assist him in coming to an opinion of his own, although I am really repeating what I said, that there are certain regulations having to do with the defence of Canada regulations, the safeguarding of which is in the keeping , of the manager of the radio station in. question. That is all I can say. I cannot guess better than that. If he wishes, I Shall be very glad to go into the circumstances with him; but I should like to read the talk in question.


Gordon Graydon: I am reluctant to intervene at this time, and I would not interrupt the hon. gentleman but that the matter seems to me to be so important. I do not press the minister for an answer to-night, because obviously he is not in possession of the necessary facts; but I should like him, first of all, to produce the script which the commentator used on that occasion, and which there will be no difficulty in obtaining; also, to make such inquiries and investigations as the minister can, so that at another time, perhaps during the ensuing week, we may be able to get, on the orders of the day, or on some of the estimates on the war appropriation, a satisfactory answer. I am frank to say that this has caused me no little concern.


Mr. GOLDING:: Let the minister make his speech.


Gordon Graydon: This is a matter of grave concern.


William Henry Golding: It does not need half an hour to state that.


Gordon Graydon: Oh, well now, I am trying to be helpful on this. It is a matter of serious import so far as the country is concerned, or I would not try to intervene. I should like to have the matter cleared up. We as members of the House of Commons have respected the government's attitude on this matter, and we think those outside should not have special privileges in dealing with questions of this kind which we ourselves do not have.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I shall look into this matter as quickly as I can arrange to do so, and I shall do my best to have the information available for the satisfaction of my hon.
Radio Broadcasting Committee

friend. I add that I do so with great pleasure, because what is a matter of concern in regard [DOT]to what I deem to be the nature of this talk is necessarily of great concern to all Canadians, including myself.
I heard something said earlier to-day about political broadcasting. I heard something also about that classical case of absentee landlordism as represented by a very worthy gentleman, the leader of the Progressive Conservative party. That case caused a great deal of comment and a bit of interest at the time. My conception of the whole incident is that it was a piece of clever-I think, too clever- publicity on the part of the publicity staff of Mr. John Bracken. I do not believe that Mr. Bracken knew just what was being done for him or in his name. I have been informed that the publicity office in question believed that their offer could not be accepted on the script which was shown, not submitted, to the C.B.C. authorities. It has been expressed to me, and I have seen it in the press, that those responsible purposely made a gesture knowing that it could not be accepted because there are regulations governing such matters. Those regulations are known to all and sundry. They were published, and pamphlets distributed in large numbers a long time ago. Furthermore, I understand that the political party of which Mr. Bracken is the leader was a party to an understanding in regard to these particular regulations. Well, now, whatever the victory for the moment of such a good piece, sly piece of publicity might have been, I suggest-


Gordon Graydon: Did I catch the minister aright: he said, a "sly piece" of something?
Mr. LaFLECHE: Yes. If the hon. gentleman is affronted by that word I shall try to find another. I shall use, if you like, "too clever" publicity stunt. I do not believe that the Canadian public can possibly be impressed with such publicity work as that, for the old political party I mentioned a moment ago-


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: The brand new one.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I have not succumbed to the temptation of casting sly remarks about the continued changing of the name of these hon. gentlemen. I believe that they are a legitimate party, and I would not question either their parentage or their baptism.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Nor their sincerity.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Nor their sincerity; but their wisdom, of course!
Something also was said about General McNaught'on. That may be the Philpott article; I a-m not certain.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has covered that.

Mr. LaFLECHE:	I wish to add that I
respect an officer who has had the honour of commanding a Canadian army too greatly to bring him too much into the limelight in a case like this.
I heard this afternoon the term "amazement" used-and I think this was done by the C.C.F. party-at certain things that had happened. That reminds me of certain ejaculations or expressions used by spinster ladies when they are amazed at something they know full well has happened.
Something was said this afternoon about manipulations and working behind the scenes, something about working surreptitiously, and I took it to mean certain publicity for the followers of these hon, gentlemen. I recall also that the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) repeated time after time that the hon. member leading that party was trotting down continuously to the C.B.C. If he did that he wore rubber heels, but it does not mean that he did not go. Only he, of course, would know.
I come now perhaps to the only serious thing said to-day-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I am sorry the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) is not here. He implored us, and I think he was right, to cultivate a more acute sense, of humour. Let me say that the only serious thing-because there was an implication in it -that was said this afternoon was that there had been government interference with the C.B.C. This is an honourable house. Our conduct and our language are both governed by rules and usage. I must therefore respect the ancient custom. I shall use mild language in flatly denying that there has been any interference with the C.B.C. politically by the Canadian government. If we were in camp, honest soldier talk would permit me to use a word which Mr. Speaker will not let me use in this house. It is just as short as that, Mr. Speaker, and that is the truth. Now come along-


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask the minister to put on the record the statement he made on November 17?
Mr. LaFLECHE: The hon. gentleman has anticipated me, sir. Yes; I shall put it on the record, accompanied by an expression of my regret that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) felt it advisable to stop after he had read just one-third of my press release of November 16, 1943.

Radio Broadcasting Committee


Major James William Coldwell: I was diverted from it. I did not realize until I read Hansard that I had not read it all. I apologize for that.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I thank my hon. friend. May I read it from beginning to end:
The acting general manager of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation recently discussed with me an item "Of Things to Come" which had been proposed for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation programme. The acting general manager stated that this item had not progressed satisfactorily and, indeed, that it had never been submitted to the board of governors. He added that he deemed it necessary to refer the matter to his board and therefore, in the meantime, this item would be considered closed until the proposal had been properly surveyed and approved by competent Canadian Broadcasting Corporation authority. What the acting general manager told me was his own decision and that of no other person.
That is the end of the press release. I wish to add at this time an expression of admiration for the acting general manager, Doctor Augustin Frigon. He acted, in my opinion, as he should have acted. He acted on his own and he acted like a man. Statements made this afternoon had to do with this programme "Of Things To Come." The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, in my opinion, and the hon. member for, I believe, AVinnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) both levelled charges of government interference. Now,, the hon. gentleman I mentioned in second place very quickly drew to the attention of you, Mr. Speaker, that he had used the word "alleged." Well, to take the trouble to protect oneself by slipping in the word "alleged" when one has nothing plain in one's heart is not the act of a brave man, and I regret very much to say this, but actions of that kind remind me that it is well in war time to act the man even though one has not chosen to go to meet the enemy. I have no admiration for men who do nothing of which I know to help to win the war, but remain at home, perhaps not willingly yet effectively, to cause trouble in a family which should remain united so that we can do a better job in helping the other united nations in downing our enemies.


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a point of order. Is the hon. gentleman not casting an innuendo with an imputation reflecting upon the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre?
Mr. LaFLECHE: And the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.


Major James William Coldwell: And the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the minister admits that he was casting an imputation by innuendo on the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre
and on myself. That is clearly against the rules of this house and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw.
Mr. LaFLECHE:	May I speak, Mr. Speaker? The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar had asked Your Honour a question. I was assisting him in putting his question to you.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, let us be truthful at least.


Mr. STIRLING:: That is another.


Thomas Vien: I did not catch what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said last.


Major James William Coldwell: I said, let us be truthful.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Hear, hear.


Thomas Vien: It seems to me that both hon. gentlemen should withdraw. I think it should be dropped.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Vien: The hon. minister's time has expired.
Mr. LaFLECHE: May I ask a few moments to complete-


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask for a ruling, Mr. Speaker. I am quite prepared to withdraw my remark if the minister withdraws his.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Of course, Mr. Speaker; if I am at fault, of course I wish to make amends. I am a law-abiding man and I am truthful.


Major James William Coldwell: I give up.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I wish to be very, very brief, sir. I heard the hon. member for Macleod mention a subject this afternoon on which I wish to afford him all the support of which I am capable. He said that it is wise and necessary that we respect and do what we can to see that the Sabbath is respected. I believe that is a proper thing, and in that connection may I say to him through you, sir, that there was set up by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation a long time ago what I believe is termed a religious committee. I am not certain that that is its proper name, but whatever its name may be it was given all facilities to broadcast the Word.
I recall also that the hon. gentleman mentioned the high cost of talent. It is not for me to defend the C.B.C. operations in this respect; but is it not a case of the labourer being worthy of his hire? I do not believe any very great salaries are being paid in Canada. I think it is rather unfortunate, but remember that high-class talent is like a delicate flower,

Radio Broadcasting Committee
it does not live long, and even if it is well paid I personally cannot follow the hon. member in that respect.
The same hon. gentleman expressed some fear that this country might some day be governed under nationalist socialism. Well, I wish to give him my assurance in that respect again. I do not think that will be the case.


Major James William Coldwell: Nor do I.
Mr. LaFLECHE: We have now the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar expressing publicly in this house the view, the opinion, that he will never come to power.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to a point of order. We are at war with the national socialists and when hon. gentlemen in this house try to apply that term to this group, the members of this party, I say that that transgresses the rules of this house and decency. I would not call any member of this house a national socialist, and I say that either it be withdrawn or you arrest me as an enemy of this country, one or the other. You cannot have it both ways.
Mr. LaFLECHE: High-class talent. My hon. friend is melodramatic.


Major James William Coldwell: It is just about time this stopped. We are fighting the national socialists and I object to this epithet being hurled at me personally in this house.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Is this a speech or a point of order?
Mr. SPEAKER. The hon. gentleman has taken exception and has stated his position; there is no point of order. The hon. gentleman has made a statement denying that he is identified with the national socialists. He has stated his position emphatically, and no point of order arises.


Major James William Coldwell: I ask that the minister withdraw the term.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I think Mr. Speaker has given me the floor. Would the hon. gentleman care to continue?


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Vien: Order. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is asking the minister to withdraw the statement.


Major James William Coldwell: As an imputation against my character.


Thomas Vien: The statement I heard the minister make was not one that identified the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar as b national socialist.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, yet
fMr. LaFlechOb]


John Gordon Ross: Do not deny what the Speaker says.


Thomas Vien: Perhaps the minister
would repeat the statement that he made. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has the right to object to a statement which he thinks imputes something which he has emphatically denied. I wish to be sure as to what the statement was. I did not so identify the statement as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has, and I wish, therefore, to know exactly what the statement was.
Mr. LaFLECHE: May I express regret that my voice is not clear to-night. I shall try to speak loudly enough so that Your Honour will understand me. A moment ago I attempted to give assurance, assurance in the form of my opinion, to the hon. member for Macleod that he had no reason to fear that this country would ever be governed by a party of national socialists. Then the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar hurriedly took that unto himself by saying "not us".


Major James William Coldwell: No.
Mr. LaFLECHE: "Not I", whatever it was.


Major James William Coldwell: I said, "nor do I."
Mr. LaFLECHE: I must be given an opportunity to make my cracked voice heard by His Honour, the Speaker.


Major James William Coldwell: You know what you said.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I said that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, as I understood him, immediately claimed that I was aiming at him. He immediately-


Major James William Coldwell: No.
Mr. LaFLECHE:	He immediately came
forward and accepted the name.


Major James William Coldwell: No.
Mr. LaFLECHE:	By saying, "not I" or
"not us," or whatever it was.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. LaFLECHE:	Then, Mr. Speaker, I
gave some further good news to the hon. member for Macleod. I have been sympathetic to that hon. gentleman for a long time. I am not laughing a bit, and I trust the reason is not one for which one might laugh. This evening I agreed with him very readily, very heartily and very sincerely on the point of the Sabbath. There is then some communion between the two of us, and I wished to give him that further assurance. I did so in good faith. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar does not like to be called, or his party to be called,

Supply-Agriculture
national socialists, despite what has been said many times and despite that his lieutenant in British Columbia preached the methods employed by that party in Germany of which our friend says he is not a-


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I ask, if
I may, to get a transcript of what the hon. member has said. This reminds me of nothing more than the hon. member's evidence when he was appearing before the committee some years ago.
Mr. LaFLECHE:	Mr. Speaker, that confirms my view in regard to the hon. gentleman's position in regard to making war against the enemy in our country.


Major James William Coldwell: I am asking, Your
Honour, that you get a transcript.


Thomas Vien: I have sent for the transcript.
Mr. LaFLECHE: If I may proceed, something was said this afternoon about Canadian Press and British United Press dispatches, and the editing of the newscasts. We have heard a great deal about that. I wish to enlighten the house by saying that quite a number of employees of the corporation work throughout the day. I am told that there are sixteen working hours in the day. It is in my opinion a most appropriate subject to be taken up by the committee which, I trust, will be sitting before very long.
In that respect I think it is the duty of the committee we have in mind to do everything possible to assist the governors, the officials and the members of the staff of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in making of the C.B.C. a Canadian system for the betterment of our country and all its people.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would ask leave to return to the order for motions. We have now appointed all the committees. In other years there has been a suggestion that the auditor general's report and the public accounts should be referred to the public accounts committee at an early stage of the session. I would therefore move:
That the public accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1943, and the auditor general's report for the year 1942-43 he referred to the standing committee on public accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bradette in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $130,406.
Thomas Reid: There are two matters I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture. While neither of them may come directly under his administration, still I cannot see how the procedure I am about to discuss could become effective unless through the advice of his officials, or of the minister himself.
The first item has to do with the cost of hay. In British Columbia the ceiling price on hay amounts to some $22 a ton. May I point out that I thought it was foolish to put a ceiling price on hay because, as is well known, hay is one commodity which is exchanged between farmer and farmer, and does not as a rule travel any great distance from one market to another.
What is the present situation in regard to hay in British Columbia, and particularly at points along the Pacific coast? It is maintained that the ceiling price is away below the cost of production. Many farmers have taken the attitude that they are not going to sell a product, the cost of which has been far more than would be the selling price. The result is that hay has not moved, and that there is a shortage in certain districts. I understand hay is being brought in from the prairie provinces, and that $35 to $39 a ton is being paid. Usually straw is sold for half the price of hay. However, the situation on the Pacific coast, and in the Fraser valley is that in many instances straw is being sold for $24 or $25 a ton, whereas the selling price of hay, no matter what the quality, is set at $22.
That is the situation faced by the farmers in that area, and it is a condition which is affecting purchasers of hay. I suppose the wartime prices and trade board officials have discussed this matter with officials of the Department of Agriculture. But if they did I am wondering if they took into consideration the extent of the country, and that the fixing of a ceiling price at one point may work a hardship and have no bearing whatsoever on actual conditions in another.
The other point to which I would direct the attention of the minister has to do with potatoes. The treaty on potatoes allows potatoes from the United States to enter free. But, generally speaking, all potatoes going to the United States have a duty placed upon them. We in British Columbia have been
Supply-Agriculture

developing a seed potato market, and it is estimated that there are about a thousand tons of first-class seed potatoes available and for sale, for which a ready market can be found in the state of Washington. But when those potatoes are exported to Washington, those purchasing the seed have to pay a duty of $15 a ton on which, to keep the record straight, I believe they have a rebate of $7.50 a ton after six months. But in effect the price given by the Washington buyers of seed to the sellers of seed potatoes in British Columbia is set, with that tariff to be paid in lieu.
I am one who believes in reciprocity. If we allow potatoes to come into this country free, then they should allow our potatoes to go into the state of Washington, or into other states free. I do not know how this situation affects the farmers of the maritime provinces, but I know the potato situation is greatly affected in British Columbia, on account of the tariff condition.
I believe these regulations are set, first of all, by the Minister of Finance, under the trade treaties, and, second, by the wartime prices and trade board, in so far as the question of hay is concerned. But I am beseeching the minister to do something about these matters. On many occasions I have said I should like to have seen the minister in charge of these matters, because I do not think the injustices and inequalities prevalent in agriculture would have been so marked, had all agricultural matters been under his control.
Since these matters have been drawn to my attention, and because they affect our people greatly, I am asking the minister to make a statement. If he has not the information at hand, I am asking if he will present the matter to his departmental officials, and to the wartime prices arid trade board.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: This is a matter under the control of the prices board and I have not before me the details with which to deal fully with it. From what has been said by the hon. member for New Westminster I understand that farmers in his district find it difficult to carry on trading in hay as between farmers in the same area, because certain price ceilings have been placed on that commodity.
I am not sufficiently familiar with the regulations with regard to hay to deal with the matter to-night, but I shall bring down this information when my estimates are up at a later time.
I should think there is some argument for maintaining that where a transaction is between farmers in a district it should be pretty well taken care of as it is in connec-

tion with most other commodities upon which the price board has placed control. I understand why ceiling prices are necessary in order to maintain controls when hay is delivered to a market, or when it is shipped from one part of the country to another, but as a rule the transfer of a commodity from one farmer to another within a district is pretty well taken care of. This principle is generally applied in connection with the ceilings placed upon different products.


Thomas Reid: What about potatoes?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are under the control of either the customs or the prices board, and I would not care to offer an opinion at the moment without getting further information from them.
I have before me a statement in answer to some of the questions asked the other evening by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) and having to do with grass seeds, particularly clover seed and alfalfa seed. I think I should put these answers upon the record at this time. Under authority of order in council, P.C. 5428, dated July 9, 1943, the special products board was authorized to purchase and to become the sole exporter of surpluses of agricultural seeds, subject to determination by the Minister of Agriculture as to classes of seed to be included. The board was also authorized to arrange for the distribution to producers of each class of seed of any net profits resulting from its transactions. The reasons for the establishment of this method of control were set forth in the order in council as follows:
That prices for certain agricultural seeds used only for seeding purposes obtainable in the United States and other allied countries are considerably higher than prices obtainable in Canada under established price ceilings;
That these differences in price have rendered it impossible to control exports in a manner equitable to producers and at the same time to assure retention and distribution in Canada of supplies of seed necessary to meet domestic requirements;
That to secure for producers the full advantage of export outlets for such seeds and to secure equitable allocation of supplies to allied nations which are looking to Canada as a sdurce of supply of these seeds, it is necessary to centralize all export transactions.
In other words, all seed purchased is purchased by the board and distributed to the different allies. Up to the present time it has been found necessary to make the special products board the sole exporting agency for only the following classes of seeds: alfalfa, alsike, red clover and alsike-white clover mixtures. Subject to the securing of export permits on the recommendation of the agri-

Supply-Agriculture
cultural supplies board, the seed trade or producer cooperatives have been free to take advantage of any export outlet available for seeds such as sweet clover, timothy and brome grass, production of which in 1943 was greatly in excess of Canadian requirements.
Purchase by the special products board of alfalfa, red clover, alsike and alsike-white clover mixtures has been limited to quantities surplus to Canadian requirements and to supplies required, as in the case of alfalfa, to meet allocations by the combined food board to the United Kingdom. Seeds required to meet Canadian requirements are handled as in the past through regular seed trade channels.
Prices at which the board has been prepared to purchase any of the seeds brought under its control were set forth at the beginning of the season in detail by grades on an f.a.s. Halifax basis, and at levels in relation to established retail ceilings which should permit seed needed to meet Canadian requirements to move freely. These prices are materially below those available not only in the United States but in the United Kingdom at which seed exported by the board will be sold.
Net profits to the board from its transactions resulting from the difference between the prices at which seed is bought by the board and resold by it, less any cost of moving the seed other than the administrative costs of the seed export office, will be returned to producers who sold their seed on a participation plan. In other words, producers will receive in full measure any profit resulting from export sales uninfluenced by the operations of speculative interests. The value to producers of participation certificates issued for any kind of seed sold by them will be dependent upon the amount of seed of that kind exported and upon the total quantity of that kind of seed purchased by the trade on a participation basis from farmers up to March 15. That is the total statement in answer to the questions asked the other evening by the hon. member for Melfort.


George Hugh Castleden: The hon. member for Melfort wished to know whether or not those who are purchasing seeds on participation certificates have been instructed to issue certificates to those from whom they purchase. It seems that some farmers who have sold seeds to these purchasers did not receive participation certificates, and they had no assurance that they would participate in the profits obtained from the sale of the seed.


James Garfield Gardiner: When the statement is read in Hansard I think it will be found that it is made quite clear. There is a possibility that seed may be sold without its being placed 100-58
in the hands of the board, and of course in such cases there would be no participation certificate. A man may make a deal with another person who desires to buy seed and he will probably not ask for a participation certificate. If he desires to deal through the board, or if the board is purchasing for export, then participation certificates will be asked for and obtained.


George Hugh Castleden: Who is doing the purchasing for the board?


James Garfield Gardiner: Any of the approved seed houses.


George Hugh Castleden: If purchases are made by persons not operating seed houses they would not have to give participation certificates?


James Garfield Gardiner: The term "seed dealer" would cover practically any person in the habit of purchasing seed from farmers and selling it to others. Such a dealer would issue a participation certificate.


Mr. HATFIELD:: I understand the war distribution board of the United States are now taking a great many cars of potatoes off their market in order to support the floor under potatoes and that our wartime food corporation is bringing those potatoes into Canada to supply our market when there is a surplus of potatoes in this country. Can the minister tell me how many cars have been purchased in the last few days by the wartime prices and trade board and how many they intend to bring into Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sure my hon. friend will realize that it would not be possible
for me to have information here as to the number of cars purchased within the last few days. That information is not available. I would suggest to the committee that these detailed questions about individual items should be asked when we reach the particular items, and then we could carry on any general discussion we wish to have from where we left off last Friday.


The CHAIRMAN:: The minister is quite right. There was to be a general discussion on this item, and questions on the details of individual items should be asked when the items are reached.


Thomas Reid: When I asked my question a
few moments ago I could not find an item in the estimates on which I could ask about the exportation of potatoes, nor did I see any item on which I could ask about hay prices. That is why I brought those two questions up now. I said that in British Columbia there

Supply-Agriculture

were about a thousand tons of first-class seed potatoes available and for sale. I particularly mention that because the committee will remember that last year I had an argument with the minister and some of his officials who had said that the Fraser valley was a deficiency area so far as .potatoes were concerned. I pointed out then that the Fraser valley could grow any amount of potatoes, and this year the Fraser valley producers saved the situation in Ontario, because twelve care of good British Columbia potatoes were sent to Ontario from there not long ago, but for which the potato situation in Ontario would have been very short indeed. We are anxious that the minister will make representations soon regarding the exportation of seed.


James Garfield Gardiner: The question might have been asked under the item relating to fruits and vegetables. I give the only answer I could give to the question asked a few moments ago, because it really does not touch this department at all. I just made a general statement with regard to it. I think we should discuss details about individual items as they are reached.


Heber Harold Hatfield: If too many potatoes come into our market they will demoralize the market. It is up to the minister to protect the market on agricultural products.


Mr. SENN:: The minister has made a statement regarding the seed situation and regarding the remarks made by the hon. member for Melfort. I think the minister's answer was fairly complete, but as I understand it the hon. member for Yorkton asked about participation certificates and whether they had been handed out to everyone who had sold seed. In my area a certain amount of seed had passed out of the hands of farmers before this order came down, and for that reason they did not receive participation certificates. I think what the hon. member for Yorkton had in mind to ask was whether these gentlemen who had sold their seed prior to the bringing down of the order which the minister read are going to receive participation certificates. I believe it is true that they did receive a higher price than that received after the order came down.
I would ask the minister to explain to the committee, just why the special products marketing board set the price for the seed for export at the levels they did. It certainly is not in line with the retail ceiling price which we can get for seeds in Canada; setting the price they did on red clover, alfalfa and alsike had the effect of bringing down the price to the farmer, and as a result the seed that was sold in the domestic trade is going to give a

handsome profit to the dealer. If I understand the situation there will be little, if any, alfalfa to be shipped out of the country and no red clover at all. So that the participation certificates will not be of any value on these two classes of seed. On the other hand, there will be 'quite a handsome profit on alsike seed. These participation certificates will be worth a considerable amount. The primary dealers bought the seed first from the farmers, cleaned it once and resold it, and the result will be that the farmers are going to say, when the proceeds of a big participation certificate are returned to them, that the dealers have not paid them enough. They are going to say: We have been gypped for years past by those dealers. I do not think it is fair to the dealers that they should be blamed. I would ask the minister to explain, if not now, on some other item just why the special products marketing board placed these prices where they did. In my opinion they were not high enough.


James Garfield Gardiner: I probably misled the
committee in bringing down this answer at all at this time. The question was asked the other evening and I passed it over then. The discussion properly comes under item 19 relating to plant products, seeds, feeds and so forth.


Mark Cecil Senn: Or else under the item: for the special products marketing board in the war appropriation.


James Garfield Gardiner: Either one or the other. There were two or three statements made by the hon. member for Melfort the other evening which covered the points raised and now I have specific answers for them which I should like to place on the record. For example, it was stated by the hon. member for Melfort:
This year, the special products marketing board has taken over the complete marketing of grass and clover seed, all domestic requirements being handled through that board.
That is his statement. Now here are the facts: Up to the present time	the board	hasnot been handling all	clover	seeds	as,	forexample, sweet clover, has not taken over the sole export .of any grass seeds, and has not been authorized to handle seed for domestic requirements.	The	board	is	nothandling much of the	seed.	Much	of	the
seed is being handled by seed houses and others, unless it is being purchased for special purposes. Not all of the different kinds of grass and clover seeds are being handled by the board.
The next statement was this:
According to a return tabled yesterday on the motion of the hon. member for York East (Mr. McGregor), the export price is 314 cents a pound.

Supply-Agriculture
That is the statement already on Hansard, made by the hon. member for Melfort. The answer to that is: This is the price at which the board is purchasing registered No. 1 alfalfa, f,a.s. Halifax. The price at which this seed will be resold to the British ministry of agriculture will be materially higher. Therefore there will be a further distribution to persons with participation certifications.
Another statement made was this:
However, I do not see why the producer of alfalfa seed should bear the brunt of this action. He is facing a loss of from 8 to 10 cents a pound.
That was the statement made the other evening. The answer to that is this:	As
stated, any profits resulting from export transactions in respect to any class of seed handled by the board will be returned to producers who sold on a participation basis seed of that class ultimately used either in meeting domestic requirements or in filling export orders.
Those are the facts with regard to the matters discussed the other evening. If the committee is agreeable, I should like to have further discussion of seed matters take place when the officials are here with all the facts.


Mark Cecil Senn: I fully agree with the minister and will make only one further remark now, and that is in the nature of a warning. This other item might not come up before a considerable time. If I am correctly informed, there is not enough alfalfa seed in Canada this year to meet our domestic requirements. It would be too bad if seed were exported from the country by the special products marketing board or any other organization and not enough seed left in the country to go around. That is particularly true of eastern Canada. We must get our supplies from the west this year. I hope the minister will take these facts into account before any damage is done.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the objective of the order in council which was passed last year. By the sixth of July there could not have been much seed exported out of last year's crop. The intention is to do the same as is now suggested ought to be done, namely, to take control over the export of seed to see that too much does not go out of the country.


Mark Cecil Senn: Some has gone out?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Mr. PURDY:: When the agriculture estimates were being discussed last week and again this evening, we covered western agriculture fairly well, and got into Ontario and back to British 100-584
Columbia. This evening, perhaps, we should be able to start east and work west, east being the cradle of agriculture in this Canada of ours.
These lands that I wish to speak about were growing excellent crops when the buffalo and the Indian still inhabited the western plains. In any event, we have the sun in our backs instead of in our eyes, as some of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation from the west must think when they come to our province from time to time, and try to convince those of our farmers who are chafing to some extent under controls made necessary by the war, that in the socialistic state which they advocate the farmer will not be regimented, but can continue as a free enterprise individualist as he is at present. That was all I had to say to my hon. friends from the west. We certainly appreciate what they are up against in their agricultural problems, and we wish them well.
What I desire to speak about more particularly this evening is our marshland problem in Nova Scotia. I do not know whether this is the proper item under which to discuss it. Will the minister say if it comes under some other item?


James Garfield Gardiner: The proper place to discuss it is under "specials," I would say, the rehabilitation vote, if there is any place to discuss it here. The suggestion is that rehabilitation activities should be extended to all parts of Canada, and that kind of discussion of course would come up in connection with "specials," the last items in the estimate.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: What is the number?


James Garfield Gardiner: Number 29.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: The minister will be able to give us some information on that item concerning this problem, what was done last year and if anything is proposed to be done this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I could give now all the information under the general discussion, that could be given at any time. It is not really any item in these estimates.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: That is what I thought. I thought we could discuss it at the present time.


James Garfield Gardiner: Does the hon. member desire the information now?


Gordon Timlin Purdy: I had a few remarks which I should like to make at some time. There came to my desk this morning, as I think there came to the desk of all hon. members, a pamphlet regarding the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act entitled, "A Record of Achieve-
Supply-Agriculture

ment", and I certainly agree that it is a record
of achievement of which the present government may be proud, in taking these dried-out areas from relief and converting them into productive areas. On page 13 of this pamphlet is a picture of a very extreme case, a group of buildings almost completely covered by sand. I admit that it is a dreary picture, but I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, and to this committee that it is no drearier than to see hundreds, yes, thousands, of acres of land which produced crops for many years now covered twice a day by the tides of the bay of Fundy; and that is exactly what is taking place in the maritime provinces, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
I know this problem has been before the authorities for some time. A small survey was made last year, but no actual work has taken place. I believe the suggestion was made that this was a provincial problem, or a municipal problem, but not a federal problem. On the other hand, if I understand correctly the operations of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, it is carried out entirely by the federal government. As is known to hon. members, the situation with respect to the maritime farm lands was studied by the committee on rehabilitation and reestablishment, and in two of their reports they have referred specifically to the situation. They recommended the extension of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to cover eastern Canada. That is what we from eastern Canada are looking for, because we feel that our farmers need some assistance along the general lines of this act.
I could refer to other measures which have been passed specifically to assist western agriculturists. As I said before, we have no quarrel with that policy. In addition to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, there is the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, the Wheat Acreage Reduction Act, and the prairie farm income regulations, all of which seem to have been aimed specifically at the western provinces, while eastern agriculturists have been left pretty much on their own. Now we are hopeful that, with the rehabilitation programme before us, we can see some constructive steps taken for the relief of our marshland problems and other agricultural problems in the maritime provinces.
I happened to be at one of our municipal council meetings this fall before I came to Ottawa. People were appearing before the council asking for reduction of taxes to almost nothing, because their dike lands had gone back to the sea and they were not in a position to build up the dikes again. The problem is now too big for the individual; there must be some other organization behind

us; and it seems to me that in that respect the federal government has an excellent chance of being of some real assistance to our farmers.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Would the hon. member tell us how many acres are affected and why that result has come about? I am much interested.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: The acreage, or at least the amount of marshland, is somewhere 'between one hundred and fifty and two hundred thousand acres. The condition which we are in now has been brought about very gradually, by the operation of the tides wearing into the dikes, and the waters carrying them out. It has probably come to a head more in the last few years on account of the great shortage of man-power. Men are not available to repair the dikes, and even if they were, I question if at the present rate of wages the farmers could afford to hire them. The marshland has been gradually going back. One piece of dike would1 break out and would flood a hundred or two hundred acres this year, and then more the next.


Roy Theodore Graham: When were the dikes
built?


Gordon Timlin Purdy: The original dikes were built somewhere between 1600 and 1755, the time the Acadians were settling in the country. They were built by the French settlers and kept up by hand by the individual farmers right down through the generations. With the loss of our hay market, the result of losing to a large extent the export market in cattle to the old country, the farmers lost heart in the marshes and did not take the same interest in the work. Then there was the labour situation. The hand labour used to build the dikes fifty or sixty years ago has gone entirely. I was going to suggest in the meantime that prior to some general plan, if some temporary assistance could be given our farmers in repairing their dikes, through the use of machinery at low cost, perhaps in cooperation with the provincial government, perhaps in cooperation with the various defence forces, a large number of suitable machines in the adjoining areas, which for some reason or other cannot be obtained by the farmers, could be utilized to assist them in throwing up temporary dikes. This would save the situation and prevent further inroads by the sea until such time as a general plan could be worked out. I would commend to the minister some temporary arrangement whereby these temporary works could be undertaken to prevent further breaking of the dikes and prevent further land from being flooded. I wmuld strongly urge that a study be made of the

Supply-Agriculture
machinery necessary to make the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act apply to all eastern Canada. I know that the introduction of such a measure would meet with approval from all sides of the house as far as private members are concerned; at least, that is the impression I get. It might meet with opposition from certain sections from the treasury benches, but I am looking to the Minister of Agriculture to overcome that.


Mr. BURTON:: The problems confronting the farmers are so many and varied that in discussing them a person finds himself apt to get from one department to another. I have no wish to go beyond the Department of Agriculture, because I feel that the minister has enough to answer for without having to bother with the sins of omission and commission of some of the other ministers. When the estimates were last under consideration some hon. members had something to say about the expenses of the Minister of Agriculture and also of his department. The minister seemed ready to go to any length to show that he was not very much concerned about the matter. In fact, he appeared to be rather proud of it. I quote from page 673 of Hansard of February 18, where he is reported to have said:
That is the only explanation I wish to make in connection with the expense accounts, so far as my own expense account is concerned. Incidentally, it has been throughout those whole eight years one of the highest expense accounts among ministers of the government, and I am rather proud of that fact.
To me it seems a good deal like whistling in. the dark. I think the minister was more concerned about it than he tried to let on, and for that reason I intend to make a suggestion to him this evening. I suggest that when the minister finds it necessary on some future occasion to pay a visit to Humboldt constituency he should let me know. If he does I shall be pleased to make all the necessary arrangements for transportation and I shall see that he gets around the constituency. In that way I suggest he will be able to save a good deal on the cost of tires and the use of that famous car which last year carried licence number 20456, about which we heard so much.
What some of us are interested to know is whether the minister also used that car to go to Selkirk to look around in his official capacity.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not. I can answer that right away.


Joseph William Burton: Or did he have another car at his disposal there?


An hon. MEMBER:: That is the time he went over the ditch.


Joseph William Burton: There are some people in Humboldt who were quite concerned when they heard that a certain car had met with a slight mishap because they were afraid that the country might have to get along for a while without a minister of agriculture. I can assure the minister that if he accepts my invitation I will drive with a great deal more care and see that he does not land in the ditch, because the policies of our Minister of Agriculture have so nearly run so many of us into the ditch that we do not want the hon. gentleman to go into the ditch along with them.
In connection with expense accounts the minister said, as reported on the same page:
Having said that, may I add that there is no inspector in the Department of Agriculture who is inspecting agricultural activities throughout the rural areas who would be worth his salt if he did not have a high expense account.
I have found that in the Department of Agriculture there are some very fine and able men, some men who do their jobs and do them well. There are in the various branches of the department inspectors who are really inspectors and who do get around and attend to their work. But I am very much afraid that too many of the inspectors in some of the departments under the Minister of Agriculture have heard him say, or had some reason to believe, that he was proud of their large expense accounts. I know of different cases that I could relate from now to midnight, but we do not want to sit so late to-night. I could tell of inspectors who seemed deliberately to run up big expense accounts. Let me mention one instance. I know of an inspector under the P.F.R.A. who had six or seven dug-outs to inspect in one locality. He landed there between three and four o'clock in the afternoon and inspected one dug-out. He asked that man where the other five or six were- I forget whether there were six or seven altogether in the neighbourhood-and this man said, "There is one over there, another over there, and I have a couple of hours to spare, so that I can go around with you and we can have them all checked now." Oh, no; he was sorry, but he could not take advantage of that man's kindness. He had to be back in Humboldt at a certain time and somewhere else later on. That inspector made a separate trip into that neighbourhood to inspect every one of those dug-out locations. He was certainly trying to be worth his salt. And there are other inspectors I have known who have carried on in such a way that they accumulated enough salt
Supply-Agriculture

to pickle the whole agriculture business in that part of the country-because out of salt we make brine, and some of them believe in piling up the brine for some future occasion.
I have mentioned the P.F.R.A. I will now give another example under the P.F.A.A. An inspector stopped along the road inspecting for the dried-out bonus. I happened to be broken down with a combine alongside the road and I was trying to repair it in a hurry. This chap came along and started talking, wanting to know about this and that. Finally I looked at him and said: "Are you another one of those inspectors running around here?" He said, "Oh, yes, I am supposed to be inspecting these dried^out areas." I said, "There is the field; look it over." He said, "I am not supposed to go any farther than three hundred feet. Do you think that crop will bring twelve bushels to the acre?" I looked at him and said, "Friend, it will be just too bad for me if it does not bring more." He said, "It won't bring more than twelve bushels to the acre." I said, "I have not time to argue with you. Go out and take a look." He stayed around for half an hour talking. He said, "What do you think it will bring?" I said, "If I could make one round with this combine I would be able to give you a far nearer estimate. At the present time, I do not know." I am telling you, Mr. Chairman, the grain that we were standing in there at that time was very good. If the whole field had been like that it would have brought between thirty-five and forty bushels to the acre, and that chap was asking me if it would bring twelve. I made the first round after he had gone, after I had got the combine fixed. By the time I had the hopper filled and placed in the box I said to the chap with me, "This grain is running somewhere around twenty-four bushels to the acre at the present time." Later on, it thinned out a little bit, but it averaged somewhere around twenty-two bushels to the acre, and this chap was standing there wondering whether it would run twelve bushels to the acre.
That inspector was as useless as the fifth wheel on a wagon. He had no more idea what that crop or anybody else's crop would bring than a child. Furthermore, that year we were required by law or regulation, after our harvesting operations were over, to report to our elevator where we were making our deliveries and to give an affidavit as to the number of bushels that we had threshed. That being the case, what was the need for the inspector and others like him running around the neighborhood?
I come now to the W.A.R. I may say that the first time I had any experience with

the W.A.R. was in the city of Regina when the first wheat acreage reduction bonus was on. I went there to attend a provincial session. I had a whole flock of letters from different people around the country with me, complaints about their wheat acreage reduction bonus. Finally I located the office. It consisted of a whole floor in one building. I said to myself, this is quite a good-sized establishment. They should be able to handle this. A day or two afterwards I found they had another whole floor taken up with offices somewhere else. Was there turmoil in those offices? The reports that were sent in by most of the inspectors were enough to turn anything into a turmoil. I met some of my colleagues at the buildings. They said, "Where were you; you should have been at a caucus this morning?" I said, "I was in a war office." They said, "Where is that?" I said, "Down there on a certain street in the city. It is war." I remarked that the way these fellows are going about their work we shall have a war before we get the bonus, and things straightened out. There were men running through the province drawing salaries and building up these handsome expense accounts who did not do anything else but make a heap of trouble for the people.
I admit there were some who were good and who tried to do their best.


Mr. McNIVEN:: Most of them were good.


Joseph William Burton: After a whole lot of them were cleaned out, most of them were all right.
I say it was a disgrace, when you think of the men who came out there and the amount of useless time and effort they put in on a lot of that stuff.
There is one more point I should like to ' take up with the minister. I hope he does not take it too seriously because he has been used to it for a long time.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not at all.


Joseph William Burton: The minister made a statement a week ago that I was surprised to hear.
I thought he was just pulling off a nice little joke when he made the reference to which I am referring. I shall quote a part of his statement which is found at page 676 of Hansard. He said:
I know there are fellows who live outside large cities like Winnipeg who pride themselves upon being farmers, but they spend most ot their time in Winnipeg sitting on boards of one kind or another.
First of all, I think a man who has had the experience of the minister and who has served the length of time he has in parliament and in public life would have had a little more consideration for a new member, but he used

Privilege-Mr. Coldwell
the language I have just quoted in connection with my colleague. I think he simply could not overcome the temptation to use that little paragraph. After thinking it over more seriously I have come to the conclusion that in an unguarded moment when the opportunity arose to use that little crack the truth came out. The policies of his department and of the government have been for years that we farmers should stay out on the farm and do the slugging and grubbing and let the other fellows run our business. For too long we have let armchair farmers and swivel-necked politicians run our business. The time has come for us to do more along the line of that which the hon. member for Selkirk was doing, take an active part in our affairs and have something to say in what is going on.
I noticed throughout the evening while the discussion was going on in regard to these estimates that practically every hon. member on the government side of the house failed to recognize the main point that the hon. member for York ton made when he was delivering his speech, namely, that while we are prepared to admit, and no sensible person will deny that at the present time as far as the farmers are concerned they are receiving more money for most of their products than they have for a long time, the hon. member for Yorkton was pointing out something which is undeniably true, namely, that for all these years we have been so far below parity that you can go out into the homes and on the farms of the farmers and you will find that it will take a whole lot more than one or two years of fair prices before these people can get anywhere near to what they are entitled.
I believe it was the hon. member for Qu'Appelle who said that he did not believe in going around knocking. I agree with him; yet at the present time it is necessary for us to face facts. There is no person in his right senses who can say that just because we have had one or two years in which we have been receiving-in fact it is not even two years, it is not even one year-anywhere near a suitable price for our wheat, everything is all right. But admitting that, in one or two years you cannot erase the past ten or twelve years that the farmers have faced. It will take quite a number of years of decent prices for us to be able to say that now the farmers are enjoying that security to which they are entitled.
I would urge the minister in all fairness and sincerity to look upon those farmers who are doing the farming as men who are prepared also to do their share for the welfare of our country. I say that the farmers are becoming
more and more concerned about what is to be done, and they are going out to see that it is done.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, February 28, 1944