1944-05-12

Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, before the business of the house proceeds I wish to raise a question which affects not only my own privileges but the privileges of the members of this house. Appearing in the Ottawa Journal of last evening was a statement of alleged non-payment of account by me to the king's printer. It was not only published in the local press but went all across the country over the C.B.C. last night. I think other members are in the same position as myself. I was alleged to be in arrears to the amount of $6.25 as of March 31, 1943. May I say that that account was incurred, $3.25 on March 6, 1943 and $3 on March 19, 1943; therefore I was in arrears to the amount of $6.25 as of March 31, 1943. That was unpaid on May 15, but, together with some other small accounts, was paid by cheque in full on July 12, during the session of last year. The impression that has been given to the country is that a large number of members of this house are in debt to the king's printer. I know that some others are in the same position as myself. We owe nothing to the king's printer. We keep our accounts paid regularly as the bills are rendered, and I think, Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the members of the house, the Ottawa Journal, which published the story, and the broadcasting corporation, should make a correction of the wrong impression which was left on the public mind.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to be permitted to clear before the house and the country the name of a very prominent Canadian, who is not in the house at the moment, from any unjustifiable impression that may have been created in the public mind as a result of the reports to which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has referred. I have this telegram from the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, former Prime Minister of Canada:
Am informed government officials have published statement representing me as owing printing bureau some $171 since 1925. Have never known or heard of this alleged debt until to-day. My secretaries then and since say they similarly had no knowledge of any such claim. All printing ordered by me or on my authority or with my knowledge was paid for. Numerous accounts have been rendered me since by bureau and paid with no claim made for past balance. Under these circumstances consider it an outrage that my name should be blazoned through Canada as a defaulting debtor. Please read this telegram to the House of Commons.
Arthur Meighen
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, politics makes strange bedfellows. I have not read the Journal of last night; I very seldom read the papers, but when I came up to the house I met charitable friends who were ready to organize a subscription for an amount of $85 that I have allegedly owed to the king's printer since 1925, 1926 or 1927- a long time ago. Well, I am ready to pay all the debts that I owe, but the taxes are so high that we must proceed gradually. Besides that, Mr. Speaker, it takes a \ irgin soul to be scandalized at such trifling matters. Of course when a man owes some money he has to pay it, as much as he can, but when there is nothing, the king loses all rights. I will tell you one thing, sir, so long as speeches made in the house are broadcast throughout the country through the printing bureau, what is the harm in that?-because the press does not mention them. If the press fulfilled its duty of report* ing speeches of members of parliament there would be no accounts standing at the king's printing bureau. It scandalizes me the more because speeches made by cabinet ministers, even by the former leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), and, I think, by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) especially those made on the plebiscite, have been published at the country's expense. I do not see why speeches made by cabinet ministers should be paid for by the country while hon. members are bled white to pay for a small number of copies of their speeches to inform their constituents of the work they have been doing here.
Radio Broadcasting Committee


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Mr. POULIOT:: I have just a word to say, Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me to conclude. It is that we should not view this matter from the point of view of the Pharisee; we must consider it from the point of view of the Publican, the man who sits behind in church and is doing the best he can to worship. What I regret about the publication is that it is aimed to discredit members of parliament, to show they are not fulfilling their duty to the state, and I join the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar in protesting very strongly. If there is something which can be aimed against members of parliament, these people are all ready to take advantage of it.


Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald):: I have not been asked to do this, but in the same connection may I say on behalf of the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin), who is in the same predicament regarding this publication, that he has advised us and showed us that he had already a receipt for the amount of money alleged to be owing by him to the king's printer.


Gordon Graydon: Better revise this list.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Perhaps I should state in the interests of fairness that there is one small difference between the report as published in the press and over the radio. The report which appeared in the press gave the names of some who owed accounts; in the report which came over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at ten o'clock last night the fact was stated but no names were mentioned.


An hon. MEMBER:: "Party leaders".


Ernest George Hansell: It said "party leaders", but it did not give their names. The reason I owe a little account to the king's printer is that I am a poor man. I have been trying to keep the wolf from the door, and now I have to try to keep the collector from the door.



MB. HANSELL-PROCEEDINGS OF RADIO RROADCASTING COMMITTEE

Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege with regard to a news dispatch which appeared in to-day's papers. The matter is related to a discussion which took place the other day in the parliamentary committee on radio broadcasting, and I claim that the dispatch constitutes a charge against my sincerity and integrity as a member of this house. I will not take time to read the whole article. It is entitled, "Protests Remarks by Mr. Hansell."


Thomas Vien: Order. I gather from what the hon. member has said that he is taking exception to something which was said about him while in a parliamentary committee. If that is so, I rather think his protest should be made in the parliamentary committee, because it is not before the house.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of privilege affecting not only myself but every member of parliament. It seems to me I am not divulging anything or criticizing anything which went on in the parliamentary committee. I am only rising to a point of privilege because of attacks upon my-


Thomas Vien: Order. The hon. member should first bring the matter before the parliamentary committee. If it appears that some reference should be made to it in the house, they can so direct, but in the meantime the hon. member's first step should be to bring it before the parliamentary committee.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order, upon which I would ask your ruling. A moment or two ago I rose on a matter of privilege, I should like to refer Your Honour to standing order 16. at page 45 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, from which I quote one sentence:
Whenever any matter of privilege arises it shall be taken into consideration immediately.
In note 156 at page 48 I read:
The house will proceed with the utmost severity against persons who tamper with witnesses, in respect of evidence to be given to the house, or any committee thereof; who endeavour to deter or hinder persons from appearing or giving evidence, and who give false evidence before the house or any committee thereof.
I call your attention, sir, to that notation because the matter of privilege which I wished to discuss was a reflection by the press this morning upon myself with regard to my attempt to bring before the parliamentary committee a matter which I considered important. I cannot rise to a question of privilege immediately, Mr. Speaker, if I have to wait until Wednesday next. I do not wish to discuss the matter of the broadcasting committee. I simply wish to rise to a question of privilege with regard to something directed to me personally.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member has quoted a standing order to the effect that a question of privilege must be taken into consideration immediately. The question to which he is speaking is something which was stated in connection with the proceedings of

a committee. The first opportunity which the hon. gentleman has to bring the matter before the committee should be taken advantage of, and if the committee, decide that something should be done, and report accordingly to the house, then the house can deal with it. But my ruling already given must stand.


Ernest George Hansell: I rise to a point of order, and ask for your interpretation, Mr. Speaker


Thomas Vien: Do I understand the hon.
*member is referring to the ruling I made?


Ernest George Hansell: No, not particularly. I
should like to ask for a ruling on another matter that affects the public accounts committee. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) rose on a question of privilege with regard to a number of accounts that were before the public accounts committee. I should like to ask if an hon. member may rise on a question of privilege on a matter that is before the public accounts committee but may not rise on a question of privilege on a matter that is before the radio broadcasting committee?


Thomas Vien: Whatever may have
happened the facts as set out by the hon. member are these. A statement was made by him in a committee of which he is a member. An article has been published reflecting upon the hon. member. I have ruled that the house cannot deal with a matter that should first come before that committee. If the hon. member will look at Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, second edition, paragraph 665, he will see that that paragraph reads as follows:
Until the report and evidence have been laid upon the table, it is irregular to refer to them in debate, or to put questions in reference to the proceedings of the committee.
At the moment the house has no knowledge of what has happened in the committee, and therefore the hon. member is not in order in rising on a question of privilege on a matter that should be brought before the committee.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Was it made clear to Your Honour that the hon. member for Macleod referred to a press statement?


Thomas Vien: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: Was it made clear
that the hon. member was referring to a press statement?


Thomas Vien: Order. I have ruled.
Post-War Civil Aviation



MR. HOWE-LETTER FROM LORD BEAVERBROOK READ IN THE HOUSE ON MAY 11

Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege on another subject. Yesterday, as reported in Hansard, page 2807, the leader of the opposition asked this question:
I should like the minister to state whether what he read is the letter in full.
I answered "It is." The answer should have been, "It is, with the exception of one sentence." This came to my attention when I was revising my remarks. I read the statement, and in reading it I omitted a sentence which had no relation to the subject matter we were discussing and which I thought, in a hurried reading, might prejudice further, negotiations if it were made public. Your Honour will recall that I was reading a private letteT at the insistence of the leader of the opposition. After the debate I handed the letter in full to the Hansard reporter. It quite escaped my mind that in reading it I had left out that sentence. The sentence was typed into the Hansard record, and, apparently by the Hansard reporter, was checked with my verbal statement and the sentence was deleted. When the record came to me, I checked back, again read the subject matter of the sentence. It seemed to me that the deletion should stand, on the ground that it was not in the public interest to place before parliament that particular sentence.



POST-WAR CIVIL AVIATION   REFERENCE TO STATEMENT BY LORD BEAVERBROOK IN RESPECT TO CANADIAN DRAFT CONVENTION

[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I now have the full text of Lord Beaverbrook's statement in the House of Lords, made on Wednesday, and as it differs slightly from the agreed statement which I read to the house yesterday, perhaps I should place this version on Hansard. It is sent from the High Commissioner for Canada in London to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and is as follows:
The United States proposed that we should go forward to an international conference on certain lines and I will quote those lines. They were that there should be an international authority to lay down standards for technical requirements and for rates of air carriage and to interchange information. According to the American plan the proposed authority would start on a non-executive basis with no power or means of enforcing its regulations, at least during an interim period. I hope I have made quite clear the position taken up by the United States of America. It proposed an international authority on a non-executive basis with no
2S50
Post-War Civil Aviation

power or means of enforcing its regulations at least during the interim period. The United Kingdom delegation presented for consideration what is known as the Canadian draft convention, which has been laid on the table of the Canadian parliament. This draft convention lays down a detailed plan for international regulatory authority with powers of enforcement. Its provisions include the allocation of frequencies of air service and national quotas for international air traffic. I hope I have made clear the distinction between the two proposals. The Canadian proposal was considered by the Americans to be too rigid as a basis for talks at the proposed international conference. After discussion it was agreed, therefore, that we should go forward to the conference on the basis of proposals for international handling of civil aviation agreed at the commonwealth conversations some six months ago. These proposals are in some respects open to varying interpretations and were considered by the Americans to be flexible enough to provide a more satisfactory basis for an international conference. The broad purpose would be to draw' up an international convention on air navigation to be implemented by an international transport organization which would evolve standards, seek to eliminate uneconomic competition, work out for each nation an equitable participation in world air transport and maintain broad equilibrium between air transport capacity and traffic on offer. On these general principles the United States and Great Britain are in agreement. The powers of enforcement of the provisions will be open to further discussion. There you have the progress towards international "cooperation in civil aviation. I repeat the principles, the elimination of uneconomic competition, the setting up of national quotas in international air transport, equilibrium between the transport capacity and the traffic offering on any international air route. These must be the foundations of an enlightened approach to this subject in the future. But make no mistake; we did not give up the Canadian draft convention without reluctance. We would have preferred it. Mr. Howe, the Canadian minister, has produced an admirable document building up his structure for the regulating authority on the principles agreed at the commonwealth conversations.
It is signed by the high commissioner.
Mr. POULIOT; Nevertheless, I was in agreement for once with Beaverbrook on that.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: May I ask a question of the minister arising out of the statement he has made to-day? In the statement of His Lordship there is a reference to the commonwealth proposal which apparently was different, in extent and in purport, from the Canadian convention. In view of the fact that His Lordship referred to that proposal, I would ask the minister whether or not, under that proposal, Great Britain and the other dominions were in favour of an all-empire route.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have already stated that I am not in a position to discuss the conversations that took place in London. I have already stated that no agreement was finalized

and that the purpose of the conversations was not to finalize an agreement but to clarify the viewpoint of those attending the conference.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister one question on that point? I was not very clear, in connection with the statement by Lord Beaverbrook, as to what the difference was between the Canadian convention and what is referred to here in the words, "instead, we adopted the commonwealth report". What is the difference between the Canadian convention and the commonwealth report?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The commonwealth report was a draft prepared by a subcommittee during the conversations, for consideration by the assembly. It was a very brief document. As I stated previously, the Canadian convention was founded on that report, but expanded to form what we considered to be a rounded document on the subject.



MAILING OF PRODUCERS' CHEQUES FOR 1940-41 PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATES

Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that the Canadian wheat board is commencing the mailing out of cheques to producers in payment of their 1940-41 participation certificates to-day.
As soon as the mailing of the cheques can be completed on the 1940-41 participation payments, the cheques will be mailed in turn to cover the 1941-42 and 1942-43 payments.
The per bushel payments by grades on the 1940-41 certificates have been fixed at 6-215 cents for No. 1 northern and range all the way from 6-166 cents for No. 2 northern to 20-599 cents for feed wheat and to 26-640 cents for No. 1 mixed grain. The initial advance on this last grade was only 35 cents, basis in store Fort William, Port Arthur.
In general, the rates of payment are higher on the lower grades, owing to the fact that the board was able to realize more on the ultimate sales over the initial advances made on those grades than was realized over the initial advances on the higher grades.
I have in my possession a statement showing the per bushel payments for each of the 1940-41 grades. As this statement is rather lengthy,
I do not wish to place it on Hansard, but I have a number of copies available for any of the hon. members interested, and copies are being sent to the press gallery.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Are these cheques
being mailed to all three prairie provinces?


Leslie Gordon Bell: Or just Saskatchewan?

Alaska Highway


James Angus MacKinnon: The cheques are going out in regular order.


Mr. PERLEY:: To all the provinces?


James Angus MacKinnon: To all the provinces.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Is it a coincidence that they are going out about the time we are having the Saskatchewan election?


James Angus MacKinnon: Just a coincidence.


Ernest Edward Perley: Now that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has made a statement which, I suppose, a number of farmers in western Canada will be pleased to hear, to the effect that payment is to be made on participation certificates, and having in mind that the case that was brought against the wheat board was argued before the appeal court of Manitoba on Tuesday last, will the minister tell the house the result of that argument?


James Angus MacKinnon: I
have not heard that the case was argued.


Ernest Edward Perley: Will the minister give us a report on the item to-morrow?



AIDS TO HEARING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. K. ESLING (Kootenay West):: May I ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health what steps have been taken to provide hearing aids for veterans who are pensionable for deafness or impaired hearing? May I also ask the hon. gentleman, as minister of national health, whether any arrangements are under way to bring low cost hearing aids within the financial range of handicapped persons in Canada.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): I would tell my hon. friend that arrangements have been completed whereby the department will provide, under appropriate medical supervision, a thoroughly modern and approved hearing aid to discharged members of the forces whose hearing has been affected by war service. A number have already been issued.
An offer has been received from Commander E. F. McDonald, president of the Zenith Radio Corporation, to provide the department with its newly developed radionic hearing device on the same basis as it has been offered to the United States government for members of their armed forces.
I am informed also that this device will be made available to the general public of Canada at the same retail price in Canadian currency as prevails in American currency within the United States. We are deeply appreciative of the generous offer which Commander McDonald has made both to the Canadian forces and the Canadian public at large. Commander McDonald, who is a retired officer of the United States Navy, is well and favourably known in Canada.
May I add that we are also grateful to my good friend, the hon. member for West Kootenay, for his valuable services in t'lis connection.



ALASKA HIGHWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: This
morning I sent to the office of the Minister of Labour three questions which I intended to ask him; but I see that neither he nor his parliamentary assistant is present.. As the matter is an important one perhaps some other member of the government could give me an answer to them. Is it a fact that United States military authorities in charge of the Alaska highway have opened an office in Vancouver, British Columbia, to interview workers to be sent to them by national selective service at Vancouver for work on the Alaska highway? Is it a fact that the Americans are trying to hire at Vancouver 1,200 men for maintenance work on the highway and 300 men for maintenance work on the oil pipeline from Norman Wells to Whitehorse, Yukon? Is it a fact that on February 22 of this year national selective service at Vancouver had 7,200 jobs awaiting men and that on May 1 they had 12,300 jobs awaiting men-all apart from the American attempt to hire 1,500?


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State):: The questions asked by the hon. member were handed to me just as I was coming to the house. Unfortunately I have not had time to obtain the necessary information. The nature of the questions indicates that it will take a little time to obtain the information. I wonder if the hon. member could let his questions stand as a notice until Monday and I shall see that an answer is given at that time.
Radio Broadcasting



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. J. O'NEILL (Kamloops): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National War Services. Yesterday morning the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation carried an announcement that an announcement of great importance would be made at 8.55. The secrecy surrounding that announcement by the radio was very disturbing to a lot of people and, may I say, caused some inconvenience. Why did the radio announcement of yesterday morning not specifically state that the Prime Minister of Canada would be on the air speaking from the houses of parliament in London?
Mr. ROWE:: He wanted to get a big audience.
Hon. L. R. LaFLECHE (Minister of National War Services): The hon. member for Kamloops was kind enough to inform me in advance that he intended to ask this question. He refers to an historic and most important speech made before the assembled members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons in London yesterday, when the Prime Minister of Great Britain went to very great length to explain what a magnificent war effort Canada had made. He also explained that the Canadian Prime Minister is one of the great war leaders of this war and indispensable to the successful waging of war against our enemies.


William Earl Rowe: You are going to have it all over again now.


Gordon Graydon: I thought the leader of the government said yesterday that this was not to go on Hansard.
Mr. LaFLECHE: My hon. friend has asked why more details were not given in advance. May I say that the whole announcement was made at the request of the British Broad-[DOT] casting Corporation. Negotiations and discussions as to exactly how it should be done went on until the middle of Wednesday evening. At the specific and repeated request of the British Broadcasting Corporation the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation did not, because it could not, say who would be the speaker, for the very simple reason that had the enemy known that the houses of parliament at Westminster were meeting together

and that the great war leaders and notable figures were present they might have attempted a bombing expedition against that house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Graydon: I suppose one answer is as good as another.


Mr. TAYLOR:: That is a good one.


William Earl Rowe: The public will welcome that.


Thomas Vien: Order.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply. Has a brief sent to all members of parliament by the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America on behalf of the employees of Dominion Arsenals Limited of Lindsay, Ontario, protesting against their difficulties, come to the minister's attention, and if so, does he care to make a statement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no knowledge of that communication.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL

[Stage Direction]
PROVISION FOR GRANTING TO HIS MAJESTY AID FOR '	NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY
The house resumed from Friday, May 5, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. McCann in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Censorship-
Administration	 $	18,345
Information and records branch 171,900
Postal censorship	 1,515,260
Censorship of publications.... 135,355 Telegraph and cable, etc., censorship		337,040
Jean-François Pouliot: I have just a few words to say about censorship. In the first place, we asked for a copy of the censorship regulations but it was never tabled. There are, of course, the defence regulations that must be

War Appropriation-War Services
observed by the press, as by any individual; they are for the protection of the country in time of war, as is censorship itself. Lord Macmillan, who was the first British censor, held the view that the news which should be withheld from the public was that which would be detrimental to the war effort, not at all that which w'as in criticism of the government. It is a great mistake for legitimate criticism to be considered a personal insult by any minister; it shows how far away we are from true democratic principles. The idea of having all heads shaped in the same mould is absolutely totalitarian; for only by constructive criticism can we improve the standard, quality and efficiency of the war effort.
Having said that much, I protest most strongly against the actions of the so-called liaison officers of all departments who prevent the press from publishing news which is of value as well as interest to the Canadian people. I remember that at the beginning of the war the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was crazy enough to carry an address which was delivered by Adolf Hitler in Germany. That was most stupid; it was German propaganda carried by the C.B.C., one agency of government, and passed by the board of censors, another agency of government. Against that sort of propaganda I protest most strongly. There is an old Latin axiom which is well known; it is "errare humanum est"-to err is human. As long as it is the business of the censors to prevent information from reaching the public, in order to create a sanctimonious atmosphere in which our infallible men may sit on the treasury benches, we have no democracy in this country. Emile Fague, a French academician, wrote a treatise on friendship in which he said that two friends may differ at times in order that they may realize that they are two. I am an old timer; I am for public discussion. I admit the right of any hon. member to disagree with me, but on the other hand members of parliament as one should condemn most strongly the propaganda which makes members of the cabinet above criticism. It is to their own benefit that they should be criticized; but to my great surprise I see evidence of scissors having been used in the reports of the Canadian Press and British United Press. The newspapers attach little importance to what is said here in parliament, though they devote full pages to reports of the debates and discussion in provincial legislatures. Take any newspaper published in Ontario or Quebec, or any other province. Its pages are full of what has been said in the provincial house, but sometimes there is just a word about what has been said here in
Ottawa. And what is broadcast to the Canadian people? The C.B.C. broadcasts matters of little interest, but when it comes to vital questions the people of Canada are not informed. The private stations are doing a much better job of informing the Canadian people than is the C.B.C. I wonder if it is not the censors who prevent the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation from informing the public about national issues. The people of Canada are anxious to get true information. They want an exact summary of what is being said and done in parliament. That is their right, and one which nobody can deny. At times small news items are given, but when it comes to the most vital questions the people are not informed at all.
For instance, this afternoon the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) spoke with respect to the draft of the international air convention, to which Lord Beaverbrook has given a cold shoulder. If the press had been fair it would have said that in order to save humiliation for the minister two private members rose in the house, the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) and myself, to protest against the convention. Other hon. members, too, expressed views that should have been noted. It was precisely to save the Minister of Munitions and Supply the humiliation of a rebuff from Beaverbrook that we took that stand. But the press did not mention it.
Then, the other day the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) moved to secure information with respect to Claire Wallace. Unquestionably that was his right, but it was most *strange to find him exercising it, because he belongs to a party, the national chairman of which has decided that Claire Wallace should be paid S200 a week. I cannot conceive how it is that a gentleman whose party will be directed in the next election by the former Justice McTague, the man who gave that order-


Gordon Graydon: Are my hon. friend's facts right?


Jean-François Pouliot: Here it is, under date of February 17, 1944. I was not going to read this, but to satisfy the mind of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), the leader of the opposition, I shall read this order issued by the national war labour board, at the time when Mr. Justice McTague was chairman of the board. And it will be noted that this gentleman is now national chairman of the Progressive Conservative party. These are the reasons for the decision:
Re Advertising Agencies of Canada and Mrs. Claire Wallace Stutt.

War Appropriation-War Services
This part of my remarks is dedicated particularly to the hon. member for Souris. And, by the way, I did not know she was Mrs. Stutt. The reasons continue:
This is an appeal from a decision of the Ontario Regional War Labour Board refusing to authorize an increase in remuneration for Mrs. Claire Wallace Stutt (Claire Wallace) from $170 weekly to $200 weekly.
As we view the matter, the sole question to be determined is the status of Claire Wallace. Is she an employee within the meaning of the wages order, or a salaried official within the meaning of the salaries order, or is she within the class of those persons whose emoluments are not under control at all? In other words, has she similar status to the doctor or the lawyer, and is she subject to the same lack of restriction in so far as war-time controls are concerned?
This is written in judicial language.
Two of the members of this board are quite familiar with her radio programme and her personality

Ho! ho!
-as reflected over the ethereal waves, and we both approve.
"Personality as reflected over the ethereal waves"!
The other member is prepared to accept our estimation. So much for the principle of solidarity.
Ho! ho!
Having established that background we are all of the opinion that she is an artist, and a very fine artist indeed. As we understand the situation, she enjoys with the national war finance committee a retainer for her services which does not exclude her-
Mark this, Mr. Chairman; you will be interested in this.
-from accepting a similar retainer or retainers with others.
She can get money from everybody.
Her position is rather analogous to that of :he lawyer who is free to engage himself in the service of various clients, even though he may for a certain period be engaged in the service of one. Perhaps she could be more closely likened to the portrait painter who can hardly be said to be an employee of the person whose portrait he paints.
McTague has lots of imagination.


Gordon Graydon: He has got a lot on the ball.


Jean-François Pouliot: It continues:
That being the case, we regret that under our reference we have no control over her destinies-
Ho! ho!


Gordon Graydon: Is the "ho! ho!" in the order?
[Mr. Pouliot.l


Jean-François Pouliot: I am reading the order by McTague.
And since it falls to our lot to decide whether the salaries board has any control we are unanimous in deciding that if we had any control we certainly would not relinquish it to any other board.
It is a matter of regret to us that we have no jurisdiction whatever over the lady.
Imagine that!


Gordon Graydon: That is what I thought the order was, and that is why I asked about it.


Jean-François Pouliot: It continues:
If we had, it is likely we would stretch a point or even two in her favour. We can only deal with her case by way of appeal without her personal appearance, a rather unsatisfactory process. However, she should not be left to the whim or caprice of the Ontario regional board without some support.
The support of the national chairman of
the Progressive Conservative party.


Gordon Graydon: He was working for this
government, then.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know. But I mention it, and the press should have mentioned how ridiculous it was for a member of the Progressive Conservative party to ask a question as to what has been done by the national chairman of his party.
Accordingly, much as we dislike having no control of her financial destinies, we must conclude that she belongs to the uncontrolled and legally uncontrollable section of the community, not, however, overlooked nor forgotten by the income tax department. Accordingly, in our opinion, if the national war finance committee feels that she is worth $200 a week instead of $170 a week, that is a matter for them to decide; and as far as we are concerned they can make the increased payment retroactive to the extent that they feel the public conscience will tolerate. The appeal is allowed.
And this is dated at Ottawa, Canada, February 17, 1944. In the corner of the notation " R.D. 121."


Gordon Graydon: Chairman McTague did not recommend or did not order that her salary be increased from $170 to $200 a week at all.


Jean-François Pouliot: The national war finance committee did not give the increase, but it was allowed by the national war labour board.


Gordon Graydon: No, it was not. I very seldom find my hon. friend offering anything inaccurate, and I know that in this instance it is only a matter of inadvertence; but when he said that chairman McTague, the former chairman of the national war labour board, had ordered that the salary of Claire Wallace should be raised from $170 to $200 a week, I

War Appropriation-War Services
thought he was obviously in error. My information is that this matter was dumped on the doorstep of the national war labour board, and they refused to do anything with it. Now it is back on the doorstep of the national war finance committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, Mr. Chairman, anyone who will read Hansard must decide between the leader of the opposition and myself on this issue. The report is there, and anybody may read it. No one will deny that' Judge McTague was chairman of the national war labour board when that order was issued. If that had been pointed out by the press at the time, this contentious issue would have been left aside.
That is only one thing. But the matter is more important than one would imagine at first sight, and I leave aside Judge McTague and Claire Wallace. What I find wrong is that when anybody disagrees with the government on a certain point he is considered unpatriotic, and is said to be unpatriotic by the press and even by the members of parliament. This is contrary to the democratic idea, contrary to democratic traditions and to British institutions as they are observed at Westminster. If we were all to agree with the policies of the government, both on major and minor points, what would be the use of calling parliament together, inviting the members here, only to be told what has been decided? The only thing they would then have to do would be to nod agreement. But such an atmosphere of sanctity has been created that it is considered sacrilegious if not blasphemous to express one's personal views. Any member who expresses personal views that are not entirely in accordance with the policy that has been made underground by the intelligentsia of bureaucracy is exposed to be denounced as a traitor and as a man who is unwilling to cooperate in the war effort and the prosecution of the war.
I know that some agents of several war departments are going to the press and threatening the press if they publish certain news which is accurate and which is in the public interest to be known; or, on the other hand, they try the method * of inducement, by promises, so that the press shall not convey to the public a true picture of what happens in the House of Commons. I do not mention the Senate; there is an official reporter for the Senate and their debates are on a level that is different from that of the House of Commons, because the Senators are not in touch with the under-dog, with the man on the street, with the people who have no right to say publicly what and how much they suffer.
Therefore, sir, in conclusion I will ask the minister to see to it that the newspapers are not forbidden to publish or prevented from publishing anything that it is in accordance with the defence of Canada regulations to publish. I know that there are no censorship orders-I mean orders in the sense of regulations-but instructions are given, and instructions that are all wrong and which put the Canadian people under the impression that if they speak out their minds as good citizens who are loyal to the crown and are behind a total war effort they are bad citizens, traitors, because they disagree with some features of the general policy of the government.
In this connection I will mention what has been said in the United States by a great Liberal, by a man who is outside of politics. I refer to Mr. Archibald MacLeish, who is the librarian of Congress of the United States. He made a speech which was reported in P.M. in March last, and he concluded with these words:
We have before us, if we will raise our heads and look before us, the one great cause which justifies and ennobles everything we have ever said and thought. We have greater right to believe in ourselves and in the victory of the things we fight for now than we have ever had before in our lifetime. If we will believe, if we will act on our belief, nothing, no organization of reaction and ignorance, no political stultification, no power whatever of selfishness and cowardice and doubt, can stand against us.
To accept the inevitability of reaction at this point in the history of our world and of our cause-to accept and to submit to the swing_ of the pendulum-to bow our heads to the wind that blows the candles out-to surrender in advance of the attack-is not faint-heartedness alone, but folly.
What is required of us now is confidence in ourselves and our purpose. Unless we can find the courage of unshakable determination-wre and people like us throughout this country and the w'orld-this war will not be won. If we can find it, if we can renew it, there is nothing we can fail to do. Because the hope of every living heart is with us.


Mr. GILLIS:: Under the heading of censorship there is one matter I wish to bring to the attention of the minister. It arises out of a Canadian Press dispatch from Sydney Mines, Nova Scotia, dated May 9, which appears in the Ottawa Journal of Wednesday of this week. I have heard a lot of discussion under the minister's estimates as to the maintenance and promotion of national unity, but this type of advertising which I am going to read for the minister's benefit is a type of advertising from which the province of Nova Scotia, and particularly the mining sections, have suffered for the past fifty years. It

War Appropriation-War Services
certainly does nothing to promote national unity. This Canadian Press dispatch reads as follows:
Their pockets bulging with lump-sum wage increases, coal miners of Sydney Mines and nearby Florence have been on a $160,000 buying spree since the weekend, and neither of the two collieries in the towns has worked since Friday.
Christmas business paled beside this rush to the store counters, merchants reported, as their cash registers tinkled merrily. Saturday night's volume of business was the biggest in years.
Liquor stores did a brisk business Monday, and there were reports that as high as thirty-six dollars was paid bootleggers for a dozen quarts of beer.
The celebration was expected to end to-night, with the miners resuming regular operations to-morrow.
About fifteen hundred miners shared in the windfall, which came through retroactive pay increases going back to November 1, 1943, under an order of the national ivar labour board.
Knowing the situation as it exists, I think the Canadian Press dispatch should have been thrown into the wastebasket somewhere in central Canada., because it does not tell the true story. It is distorted, misleading, and deliberate propaganda to prejudice the rest of Canada against the coal miners in that end of the country, and miners generally. The Canadian Press representative who wrote that dispatch has done a disservice to that part of the country and has thrown mud in the eyes of the Canadian people. The statement, made in glaring headlines, that the miners' pockets are bulging with money is deliberate propaganda. If anyone stopped to think about the matter he would realize that. Fifteen hundred miners participated in that retroactive payment of $160,000. That works out at exactly $107 per man. The majority of these men are married. For two years the Nova Scotia miners of this particular group carried on negotiations through their executive board with the war labour board, while their lontract was in abeyance; for two years they negotiated for that increase of wages, which was granted in December, 1943, and from then to date they have waited for payment; and I am safe in saying that ninety-five per cent of the money which was received on this account was owed by the miners and earmarked for payment of their debts before they received it.
A little further in the story the writer says that the mines were idle. Reading that statement, the reader who does not know the situation is led to believe that from Friday until Monday every one of those fifteen hundred miners, their families and friends, were around making whoopee and there was no coal being produced. That is not the situation at all. For many years the coal mines of Nova

Scotia have not been worked on Saturday. The five-day week was in operation. Not very much coal has been produced on Saturdays since the outbreak of the war, as the end of the week is generally a clean-up time. Friday night is practically the end of the coal-producing week. Saturday is the only day when the miners have a chance to clean up properly and enjoy perhaps a few hours' sunshine. We must remember that these people live half of their lives underground. And Saturday is not the same as it is in this province. There are no beer parlours in Nova Scotia; there is no place in town where one can go and sit down and buy a glass of beer. Intoxicants are sold only by the government liquor store, and on Saturday, the only day when the miner has a chance to get a bottle of beer, the liquor stores are not open. One can get a fairly good idea of how much of this money went into liquor when it is realized that there is nowhere to purchase it. The stores are closed when the men get home in the evenings, and-


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Are there no bootleggers there?


Clarence Gillis: That is the point I am coming to. On Saturday, the day they are home, the store is closed. I am not as bad-minded as the ex-leader of the opposition. Whether the government of the province enacted their liquor laws in the interests of the bootlegger is something I am not prepared to say.
I want to make this matter clear to hon. members, because there is too much of this kind of propaganda. Inquire of the Department of National War Services, and you will find that in the matter of voluntary enlistments no section of Canada surpasses the coal mining districts of Nova Scotia. At the present time these men are frozen to their jobs. If you were looking for voluntary enlistments in that end of the country you could fill your quota in twenty-four hours and close your offices the next day. As regards victory loans, within two or three days the quota for the coal mining districts of Nova Scotia is subscribed one hundred per cent. Never up to date have they gone under; they have always gone over their quota, and they have got it quickly. They have a systematic organization; they know the job has to be done, and the job is done. As I have said, their war record is not surpassed in any other part of this country.
If the man who wrote that Canadian Press dispatch is in Sydney, he knows the facts as well as I do. That is why I am objecting so strongly to this story emanating from that section of the country. You may have ninety-eight per cent of your working force in a

War Appropriation-War Services
coal mine report for duty in the morning, ready to mine coal, but there is a classification of boys who work on the haulages, who grab that coal to the rope, and who represent perhaps less than one-half of one per cent of the employees; but if half a dozen of them are off they cannot be replaced, and the result is that the mine is tied up. If a very few drivers who handle the coal by horses underground are absent from work, the mine cannot operate. The writer of the dispatch would lead one to believe that all the men in the colliery during the one day it was idle were on a drunken spree, forgetting their obligations to the country. The fact is that half a dozen boys who are in good positions, who have special training for a dangerous type of work, and who are the only ones permitted to handle it, can tie up the mine if they are off work. That is exactly what happened.
The writer of that press dispatch deliberately designed it, in my opinion, to create a wrong impression of the miners to the general public with respect to that particular class of people. If anything can cause dissatisfaction or indifference to the war effort in that particular section of the country, it is this kind of advertising, which is designed for the wrong purposes and certainly does not promote national unity. I bring it to the attention of the Minister of National War Services because I think he should check with the Canadian Press, and if there is any necessity for censorship I think it is indicated in the item I have read. The Canadian Press should be checked, and only items which tend to pomote national unity and the war effort and the country's interest in general should be printed in the newspapers across Canada.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I do not know whether the hon. member for Cape Breton South was aware at the time he was speaking that the subject had no relation whatever to censorship. He did nevertheless express opinions about newspaper reporters, and also he gave us food for thought in his remarks about people who work very hard, who are extremely patriotic and are admired by the whole of Canada. Speaking for a moment on the same subject, I think all of us are extremely sympathetic to the man who works hard year after year and then, through some fortunate circumstance, has a few extra dollars in his pocket. I can only say I wish I had been there to see the joy on their faces, men, women and children, because I believe it is good for human beings to have some legitimate and joyous moments in their lives, particularly when they are hard working. I think everyone in this house feels exactly the same way about it. But I must confess that censorship can do nothing about that matter.
In reply to the two hon. gentlemen who have spoken, neither has spoken regarding matters in which censorship may intervene. Censorship exists because a war exists and it is practised by every nation engaged in this war. Unless there were censorship we could not carry on the war. It is essential in warfare. On this occasion, at the beginning of what is believed by all to be the most serious stage of the war, may I remind the house that at no other time is censorship as careful as it is at the present moment. But censorship may operate only in matters affecting the national security, the lives of our young men and women who are fighting for us overseas and for the security of Canada and the allied nations.


Clarence Gillis: In this item there is an expenditure for censorship and publications of $135,000. It is the prerogative of the minister's department, I understand, to scrutinize and check all publications in Canada and to suppress them if necessary if they are detrimental to the best interests of the country's war effort.
Mr. LaFLECHE: If they contravene the provisions of the defence of Canada regulations.


Clarence Gillis: That is right.
Mr. LaFLECHE:	I submit to my hon.
friend that the article that he read would not, even by the greatest stretch of the imagination, be a matter of legitimate interest or action on the part of censorship.


Clarence Gillis: With this exception. The
minister also passed an item, and there was quite a long discussion on it, in connection with the promotion of national unity in Canada, bringing people together, having a better understanding, and so on. I agree with it all and while I am not asking the minister to censor the press I think there should be an understanding with them that reports from one part of Canada to the other by wire should at least be accurate before they are picked up by the general press across Canada and a lot of damage done that cannot be undone. Many times in the past I have sat in my home in Nova Scotia and read this kind of stuff. I know what it made me feel like. I had no opportunity of correcting it. There was no way I could make my side of the story known, and I know exactly how 99 per cent of the men in that section will feel when that is read back to them from the press of Nova Scotia, who also will pick it up and not only pick it up but play it up, as to the injustice

War Appropriation-War Services
done that section of the country by the Canadian press. It definitely promotes disunity at a time when unity is absolutely essential.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not supposing that the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) suggests that propaganda in Canada, no matter how violent it may be, if unrelated directly to the war effort, should be suppressed by the censor. The situation is bad enough as it is, but propaganda will emanate from certain sources and there is counter-propaganda. I am not defending for a moment what was in that dispatch. Probably it was grossly exaggerated, but I would say that if we are to have censorship of news items of that kind, which may or not be exaggerated, there will be a revolution in this country. There will be no longer a free press in the country.


Clarence Gillis: There is not now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I dispute that. There is a free press in the country, but a violent battle will take place if a suggestion is adopted that there should not be a free press in this country, and I would be one of the first to take part in it. I do not rise to comment on the statement made by the member for Cape Breton South. I quite understand his feeling. I dare say the position was grossly exaggerated. I dare say the explanation he has given of the conditions that obtain down there will be appreciated by the public. I do not think it is very much different from what he has said it is. But I want to ask some questions with respect to censorship in Canada, because I have suffered from censorship.


Clarence Gillis: And so have we.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I recall the day when I made a speech in Prince Edward Island on the question of the establishment in Canada of an empire training scheme, and when it was "on again, off again, gone again Finnigan" in the censor's office, and finally was released in order to give the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence for Air opportunity for a tongue lashing against me personally after it had been decided that the story should be censored and killed. But thank God we have a free press in this country that gave me an opportunity to answer contemporaneously the statement the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence for Air had made.
I had a complete answer to them and I carried it in my portfolio day after day, thinking they wrould renew the attack in the House of Commons, but they never did. It had served their purpose. Control of censorship 
was in the hands of members of this government. Partisan control was in the hands of this government, and the young man, who was one of the censors, on the floor of this house to-day, was a party to it. I had him over to see me and his explanation was entirely unsatisfactory. I am going to say that in his own presence.
On another occasion my mail was censored when I was leader of the opposition, without any rhyme or reason. A constituent of the Minister of Finance wrote me a letter, and in that letter were certain reflections on the minister. That letter was censored, and I understand that under the regulations copies are taken of the letter and given to the minister in question. I do not say that was actually done, but it is capable of being done under the censorship regulations. Fortunately it did not amount to a snap of the fingers, but that is the significance of the gestapo that we have in Canada to-dajr, under this censorship under the minister.
I wonder if there has been any change in the regulation? I have on my files references made to censorship in the old country and a statement made by Captain Balfour, Undersecretary of State for Air, in the British House of Commons relating to matters of this kind. I have sent for it, and if I get it in time before the debate is over I will put it on the record of the house to show how differently they operate over there. Are these regulations still in effect? When a letter is addressed to me or to any other individual, are copies of it made and handed to the ministerial department which may be concerned or referred to? Is that system of espionage and spying going on to-day as it was in 1940 and 1941? Political spying and espionage-that is what it was.
Mr. LaFLECHE:	Does the hon. member
want an answer now?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes; I
will pause for the answer.
Mr. LaFLECHE:	I say categorically that
there is no political espionage, and for any hon. member to say so in this committee is to say something of which he has no knowledge. There is no such thing. It has happened, and I think I apologized for the department, as I should have done, when a letter addressed to my hon. friend was opened by censorship.
I have made inquiries about that, and no copies of the letter were passed on. Why should there be? Evidently on reading it over it was discovered that the letter should never have been opened by censorship.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why was
it done in the first place?

War Appropriation-War Services
Mr. LaFLECHE:	It was an error. I ask
my hon. friend and all hon. members of this committee to consider the vast volume of work being done by the censors, and the fact that all members of the censorship staff could not be expected to know as much about the public personages of this country as the hon. member for York-Sunbury does. Their regulations are definite. Mail coming to members of parliament from points within Canada is not to be censored. If it should happen-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was that
always the regulation?
Mr. LaFLECHE: To my knowledge, it was put down very rigidly, and rigidly enforced as soon as the situation was foreseen.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As soon
as it developed; but that -was not always the regulation.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I think I have explained it correctly; I have certainly explained it to the best of my knowledge. I have knowledge of one such letter addressed to a gentleman in parliament within the last four or five months-perhaps two letters. I have explained the situation, as I am trying to explain the situation now to the hon. member for York-Sunbury. The other gentleman I have in mind sits in another place. I think he is entirely satisfied with the explanation. There is no wilful snooping in regard to censorship. If there were, I would take steps to dispense with the services of any such employee. Since the hon. member for York-Sunbury has made an issue of this, I want to convince him and all hon. members of this committee that I would not tolerate such a thing for an instant. I say again definitely that censorship is exercised in Canada; it is also exercised in all other countries at war. In Canada censorship is exercised for the purpose of keeping Canada and our friends and our fighting forces safe. That is the only reason for it.
I think it is proper for me to acquaint all hon. members of the committee that in so far as the tide of war will permit us or will indicate to us, steps to dispense with censorship as our armies overseas make the situation safe in one respect or another in one country or another will be taken. There is no intention of carrying on censorship a moment longer than it is absolutely necessary for the security of our country. I believe the committee should have that information, and I give it as a gauge of the outlook of those responsible for and engaged in censorship.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With the statement of general principles just enunciated by the minister I am in full accord, and I
accept them. As to the present attitude of the department with respect to the fundamental principle of censorship which he laid down, the safety of the state, I am in accord with that. It is the operation of the practice to which I have objected in the past. I expect that because of concrete cases that have come to the attention of the department, the system has been improved. I am prepared to accept the minister's position on that account. But I do say that there never ought to have been in the regulations-if the minister will give me his attention and not try to engage the attention of the censor at the same time, I shall be obliged-a provision that any document transmitted from one point in Canada to another point in Canada could be opened and the information contained therein transmitted to a department. There never ought to have been the power to do what has been done in the past, namely, where it was of a political character to transmit the information contained to the political party that may be reflected on. That is what was done in the past, and that is why I voiced my objection at the time my correspondence was opened and censored. The minister says that was a mistake. I am not sure it was a mistake in regard to the case I had in mind.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Last year?


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was not last year, because I was not leader of the opposition then. The hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar remembers the occasion, because he has suffered from it too, or so he said, and I believe him. Under what I call political regimentation on the part of a partisan administration and a partisan censor-who are those two young men who are set up as censors? Mr. Charpentier and Mr. Eggleston. I have known Mr. Eggleston a long time. I have not a thing against his character, but prior to his appointment he was a political writer of the Liberal party. That is not the type of man who ought to be the chief censor in Canada. In England they do that sort of thing better. In the last war they set up as censor a man who was afterwards made Lord Chancellor. I refer to Lord Birkenhead. He was the chief of the censors. We ought to have a high judicial officer. The Prime Minister admitted that principle when he put Mr. O. M. Biggar over the head of the censorship staff. He is retired now and we are back to the status quo. I object to it. I think censorship ought to be revised. The head of that branch ought to be a judicial officer. That is my position. I am not prepared to go on with the other angle until I get my file down here, and then I propose to take it up again.



COMMON3

[Stage Direction]
War Appropriation-War Services
Mr. WOOD:: I wish to say a few words because of the remarks made by the hon. member for York-Sunbury. It would be almost impossible to ask any department of government to censor all the news items in the press that do not agree with the particular ideas of a department. I may say to the hon. member for York-Sunbury that I have a high regard for the intelligence of the public mind to filter out the good from the bad. When something fantastic is published in the press it reflects only upon those who are responsible for that particular publication. There may be times when it would be possible to put some particular propaganda across before truth could catch ,up with it; but in the main I am averse to making an attack upon the press, because they usually have the last word. Nevertheless the press in Canada has served a very useful purpose by transmitting some of the important news, though I do not claim that it has transmitted all the important news, by any means. As was demonstrated by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, it would be very difficult for anyone to write a story or article without colouring it with his own prejudices or philosophies. I believe the intelligentsia of the country realize this, and articles are usually read with the ordinary reservations of common sense that should be applied.
I am just mentioning this in the hope that the press will not get the idea that because it publishes something, the public believes every word of it. Really I have a higher regard for the intelligence of the press than to believe they think any such thing. The hon. member for York-Sunbury should not be too thinskinned about certain criticism; public men must be prepared to have some things interpreted in a different way from what they had hoped. I have in my hand an editorial published in the Ottawa Journal of April 26 which I believe more or less shocked the public. Not very much has been said about it, but I am sure it has been drawn to the attention of many hon. members. It is headed, "This smearing should be stopped" and is written in such a way that I think it reflects upon members of parilament. It says, "There is-"


Gordon Graydon: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; I know my hon. friend would not want to contravene the rules of the house, and it is a well known rule that such editorials as he has mentioned should not be read in this chamber.


George Ernest Wood: I was not reading the editorial; I was using the text of it to express what I had in mind, because its language is much better than anything I could offer; just as the hon. member for Cape Breton South read a

particular item which he said was a reflection upon the miners. Since we are discussing the press I think it must be in order to discuss what the editor of a newspaper has to say; at least I presume this was written by the editor, since it appears on the editorial page. I am like the leader of the opposition; I do not hold the editor of a newspaper to be different from any other human being; he is just an ordinary man giving his opinion. I do not see why we should not quote him just as we quote the leader of the opposition, who is also just a man with an opinion.


Gordon Graydon: That is quite true, but this happens to be a rule of the house. If my hon. friend wants to change the rule he knows how that may be done. While the rule remains, however, I think the hon. gentleman should observe it. I have no desire unduly to restrict him; it is only a matter of keeping the record straight. On more than one occasion I have been prevented from reading editorials, and in this instance perhaps I may have a personal reason as well in asking that the rule be observed. I would request the chairman to give a ruling with respect to the point of order, because this rule is always observed, to my knowledge.


George Ernest Wood: I have not started to read the editorial yet, so that I do not know what the hon. member's point of order may be. If he is trying to head me off, that is characteristic of the very thing to which I was trying to draw attention. I do not think anyone should have a gun put under his arm and be told what he may or may not say.


Gordon Graydon: My hon. friend says he is not going to read the editorial, but he had started to. read it. After the editorial was read it would be too late to raise any objection; then my hon. friend would be guilty of the same sort of smear tactics that the editorial apparently is criticizing. If the hon. gentleman attempts to read this editorial; if he is allowed to do so by the chairman and the committee, probably it will be a reflection against some hon. members of the house. That being so I think my hon. friend, with his usual courtesy, generosity and kindness, would not wish to proceed further.


George Ernest Wood: If there is no ruling I shall proceed. I appreciate the very graceful tribute of the leader of the opposition, and with equal courtesy I must say that I do enjoy his. wholesome approach to these matters and I am sure our friendship will not be smeared, in any way by anything I have' to say to-day..

War Appropriation-War Services


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. McCann):: Is there any further discussion on the point of order? If not I would refer hon. members to citation 306, which reads:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on the proceedings within the house.
Since the hon. member for Brant does not intend to quote the editorial it will be unnecessary to give a ruling on the point of order.


Gordon Graydon: I think on reflection the hon. member has changed his mind.


George Ernest Wood: I am sure I should be the last to disobey your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but we are discussing censorship, which applies to newspapers and periodicals. I do not know how we can do that without making reference to certain articles which have appeared in the press, whether in the form of editorials or otherwise. But I might say that a comment was made in the press in reference to the least desirable groups of government supporters, in regard to a campaign that was under way to smear two gentlemen who had held high offices in this government. It referred, I believe, to Mr. Justice McTague and Mr. Borden, who had deserted the war front to become associated with a political organization.


Mr. GARDINER:: It would not be out of order to read that.


George Ernest Wood: The point is that no newspaper man should put a gun under the arm of a member of parliament and tell him what he may or may not say in regard to a public servant. An hon. member said there would be a violent battle if we interfered with the freedom of the press, but I think the press should recognize that members of parliament and other citizens have the same rights and privileges, and they should not be accused of smearing because they see fit to criticize the unethical action of certain gentlemen who saw fit to desert the war front at a time of crisis and join a particular political party. My attention was drawn to this article shortly after it was published. I think it contains some reference to being shocked. I am sure the people of Canada were shocked when they learned that this situation existed, but this newspaper saw fit to publish this editorial which said this smearing should be stopped before it even started. It seems to me that the attitude of the leader of the opposition was somewhat coloured with the same weakness when he endeavoured to stop me, before I had even got started. So that I am beginning to think that in consequence of his
conduct here he has indicated one of the characteristics of his own particular philosophy of political thinking. It would seem that one of those characteristics is to head something off before it gets started.


Gordon Graydon: Your bark was worse
than your bite; that is all.


James Joseph McCann: Order.


George Ernest Wood: Something further was drawn to my attention-and I make this statement, not so much for the good of the press, but rather for the good of the country generally. After all, I believe intelligent people do frown upon a certain code of ethics, whether used by the press or by any other person or group of persons.
Following the ceremony in front of this building in connection with the launching of the victory loan campaign, under the guidance of the war finance committee, a picture appeared in the Globe and Mail of April 24. There was a splendid demonstration out here, and we find in the newspaper mention of Mr. George Spinney, honorary chairman. Then appears *the name of the man who was honoured with the Victoria Cross, Major Triquet. But *the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), the man who has been conducting the financial destiny of this nation, did not appear. He sits there, as appears in the picture, in a prominent and conspicuous position. I suppose the average reader of the Globe and Mail would wonder who that distinguished gentleman is, whose name is not printed. However it is only fair to say that *the Ottawa Journal, in which appeared exactly the same picture, did honour the Minister of Finance by printing his name, and tendering to him the recognition he deserves.
These may be small things, but they are of importance. These pictures were mailed to me by friends from two different places. What I have said is a reflection of what is being said in the country at large. I am not saying that the minister should supervise all news items and pictures. I suggest, however, that the hon. member for York-Sunbury should not take himself too seriously. He should remember that the general public have ideas of their own, and they do not always agree with his political philosophy.
I had nothing to say against the press, although at times I see things printed which cause me some concern. However, one time I heard a man say that it is much better to worry about what one would say than to wonder why he said it. Sometimes that is the situation in connection with the press. At

War Appropriation-War Services
times I wonder why some articles are printed. Nevertheless I have felt it my duty to draw attention to the attitude of the press.
I believe the hon. member of York-Sunbury has suggested that a censor should be a judicial officer. Well, we had a judicial officer in one high position, but he has deserted that position and returned to the ranks of his own political party, to act as chairman. Surely the argument should work both ways. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and I suggest that the hon. member's argument is not sound.
I do not believe the people generally have suffered a great deal through the censorship regulations. We like to know some things when we should not know them. So far as our war effort is concerned, I believe, while we are making a pood job of it, we would do well to suppress >ur desires for a time, and to accept the censorship regulations with as good grace as possible.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Mr. Speaker-


James Garfield Gardiner: In order that we may
fully understand the rule to which the Chairman referred a few moments ago, I should like to say that the hon. member had a perfect right to read the editorial.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is history.


James Joseph McCann: There was a ruling given.


James Garfield Gardiner: A ruling was not given, but the rule was read. I - wish to read it again.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the hon. member speaking on?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think the hon. member got the right interpretation of the rule.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there any point of order? What is before the Chair?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a point of order.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I had the floor. I was on my feet, and a point of order has not been raised. The Chairman saw me.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am raising again the point of order that was raised a few moments ago.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Well, if the minister is raising a point of order-


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to have a [DOT]decision upon it.
{Mr. Wood.]


James Joseph McCann: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think there was a misunderstanding at the time. It was taken for granted that the editorial could not be read. Paragraph 306 in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms says:
It is not in order to read articles-


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was read.


James Garfield Gardiner: And I am going to read
it again. Apparently my hon. friend does not understand it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand it perfectly.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, the point was
raised by the hon. member's seat-mate, who apparently does not understand it. The paragraph says:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on the proceedings within the house.
I submit that this editorial, to which reference was made, has nothing to do with any of the matters mentioned in the paragraph.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Absolutely.


James Garfield Gardiner: And I should like a ruling upon it.


Gordon Graydon: It is the Chairman's job to interpret the rules, not that of the Minister of Agriculture.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But the Minister of Agriculture can interpret what the situation is-and he can do it better than my hon. friend can.


Gordon Graydon: You always had a good opinion of your own ability.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like a ruling as to whether or not we have the right to read editorials which do not reflect upon members in the house.


Gordon Graydon: This is a debate which is past.


James Joseph McCann: Does the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar wish to speak to the point of order?


Leslie Gordon Bell: No.


Gordon Graydon: He wishes to speak in the debate.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Yes; I wish to speak to the item before the committee.
War Appropriation-War Services


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like a ruling on the point of order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no point of order in that.


William Earl Rowe: Is this a debate on a point of order


James Garfield Gardiner: It was raised by your seat-mate.


Gordon Graydon: I suggest that we take the expert advice of the two ministers who have just spoken, and that we give consideration to it at another meeting of the committee -but not now.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Speaking to the point of order: despite the - attitude of superiority which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has taken, I suggest that any hon. member at any time may raise a point of order, during any debate.


Gordon Graydon: If that is a point of order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The point is very obvious.


Gordon Graydon: The minister did not raise it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member who was speaking was endeavouring to read an editorial.


Gordon Graydon: He had sat down, and another speaker had started to speak.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That has not anything to do with the matter. The leader of the opposition, took objection, and the position now taken is that that objection was not well taken and that, accords ing to the rules of the house, the hon. member for Brant is entitled to read the editorial.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Suppose we get on with the business of the house.


William Earl Rowe: The government's great war effort!


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And who is helping?


George Ernest Wood: I am prepared to admit that-


Leslie Gordon Bell: Mr. Chairman-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who has the floor?


George Ernest Wood: I am speaking to the point of order.


James Joseph McCann: Order.


Leslie Gordon Bell: If the point of order is being discussed, all right; but I do not wish the Chair to give the hon. member an opportunity to make a new speech.


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member for Brant is speaking to the point of order. He is the one who is primarily interested in this matter. When he has spoken to the point of order, the Chair will give its ruling.


William Earl Rowe: Is this debate on a point of order?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Certainly; that is always done.


William Earl Rowe: That is unparliamentaiy.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, no.


William Earl Rowe: Not after a decision has been given?


James Garfield Gardiner: A decision has not been given.


George Ernest Wood: I have always been treated with the greatest courtesy by the committee, and I have never tried to encroach upon the good will of hon. members. I am prepared to admit that I am somewhat shy when I stand before this august gathering, particularly when my right to speak is challenged. The hon. member has been reasonably successful in exploding a good deal of the material I wish to convey to the committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is not on the point of order; it is another speech.


George Ernest Wood: I did not express myself as I should have liked to. My purpose in attempting to read the editorial was to convey the thought contained therein in language better than I was able to use. I am prepared almost to admit that it has been successful to a certain degree in excluding argument. I should like to have your ruling, Mr. Chairman, whether I may quote an article which does reflect upon members of parliament and speaks of the least desirable group of members of parliament.


James Joseph McCann: Does the hon. member wish to quote the article?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not if it reflects upon members of parliament.


James Joseph McCann: The point raised is a hypothetical one and does not call for any decision. If the hon. member had proceeded to read the article I could have decided whether it was in order.


Leslie Gordon Bell: If the point of order is decided, Mr. Chairman, I wish to discuss the question of censorship briefly. The hon. member for York-Sunbury is quite right. I have had letters opened in the past, I must say not

War Appropriation-War Services
lately, although my hon. friend the member for Cape Breton South has had two letters addressed to him from his constituency opened recently, and one of them contained a little note from the Post Office Department saying that it had been opened by the censor in error. The other, he tells me, had no note with it or upon it at all.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Where was it mailed from?


Clarence Gillis: From Sydney, Nova Scotia.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I am not going to complain particularly of the manner in which the censorship has been operated by the censors. I believe we have to have censorship during the war. The safety of the state sometimes demands it. But I would be absolutely opposed to any kind of censorship in peace time. I agree with the hon. member for York-Sunbury that any letters which are opened by the censor ought not to be copied or passed on to any department. I have definite knowledge that one letter I wrote was copied and forwarded to department. I happened to find out about it because an official thanked me for a letter that I had written to an individual and told me that it was a very good letter. Then I took it upon myself to forward the letter to which my letter was a reply so that his file and my file might be complete. My letter was addressed to a man whose mail was being watched, so that I think the censorship was justified in opening the letter. But it was copied and sent to a department, and that should not have been done.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We are all watched.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I do not know whether we are or not. I want to say this, too. When we talk about a free press in this country, let us make up our minds that we have not a free press to-day.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are pretty free in what they say about most of us.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think so.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Some of our papers
operate as a free press; there is no question that most of them do. But I could name papers that do not. The Montreal Star, for example, one of the great papers of this country, will neither publish a report of anything that one political party in this country says outside this house nor take its advertising. Another paper in the province of Quebec that I could mention, L'Action Catholique, does exactly the same. That is not a free press. I can understand a party press confining its columns to its party. In Saskatchewan there

is the Saskatchewan Liberal. I do not know where they get the paper to publish this little sheet, which circulates in the thousands. I would not expect to see in the Saskatchewan Liberal a speech of mine published correctly, but that is a Liberal party press. My complaint is against some members of the daily press, which is maintained by the public through subscriptions, and by national advertising. Allegedly, we have a free press in this' country, but it is not a free press when we have papers with such a wide circulation as the Montreal Star refusing to publish reports of speeches made by members of one particular party and refusing its advertising. That is the worst kind of financial and economic censorship. So that when we talk of a free press, let us bear in mind that there are exceptions. But in the main the press of this country is a fair and a free press, and I say that very readily.


Gordon Graydon: The Montreal Star and L'Action Catholique are very highly thought of.


Leslie Gordon Bell: By some people, but I have nothing but contempt for papers which operate allegedly as a free press and then refuse to be free.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They published reports of your speech in parliament last Monday.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Did they really? I know they have refused our advertising.


An hon. MEMBER:: They refused to take your money?


Leslie Gordon Bell: Exactly.


William Earl Rowe: They may not be able to get enough paper.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They integrated your speech with mine, so that when I got through I did not know which was yours and which was mine.


Leslie Gordon Bell: That is probably too bad for both of us. I think that as soon as we can discontinue any form of censorship whatsoever it should be discontinued. In the meantime I believe that the policy of the censor and of the department that letters by members of parliament should not be opened is a sound one, and when they are opened inadvertently I think an explanation should be made, as was made in one of the two cases in which letters of the member for Cape Breton South were opened.
Mr. LaFLECHE:	An explanation was
made?


Leslie Gordon Bell: Yes, in one case.

War Appropriation-War Services


Richard Burpee Hanson: Whatabout letters by members of parliament?


Leslie Gordon Bell: I think it is worse if they are opened, but I have no knowledge of the opening of letters other than the One I mentioned, written by members of parliament to other people.
So far as the personnel of the censorship branch is concerned, I have confidence in the men who are operating it. I think that gentleman who was named a few moments ago by the hon. member for York-Sunbury and who has a wide journalistic experience, can give fair consideration to matters of censorship, even although he does not belong to a political party to which either the hon. member for York-Sunbury or myself belongs. We have to give credit for breadth of view and fairness sometimes to people who are not associated with us politically and yet occupy positions of trust, and I am prepared to do that in this case.


Mr. REID:: Following the remarks of the member for Rosetown-Biggar who has dealt at considerable length with the question of the freedom of the press, I should like to point out to him and this committee the state of affairs that existed in British Columbia. I am not holding him to account for it because I know he has no control over the group of men belonging to his party out there. But in British Columbia we had intimidation of the press by members of the hon. member's party.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Read the Saskatchewan Liberal and see what they say.


Thomas Reid: Wait till you hear this, and then if there is anything worse I should like to hear it. They went to the newspapers in the Fraser Valley and told them that in their party they had so many subscribers to these different papers, and they said, "If you do not give us an extremely good break we will withdraw all these subscriptions of our adherents."


Gordon Graydon: That is pretty nearly blackmail.


Thomas Reid: It was serious enough. In Vancouver, the Sun, the Province and the News-Herald were informed that if they were not kindly-not kindly from my point of view but entirely from their point of view- these subscriptions would be withdrawn from those papers.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Does the hon. gentleman know that of his own knowledge?


Thomas Reid: I know it of my own knowledge so far as the local papers are concerned, and I can tell you this. I have not made any
100-180J
statement in the house but what I can prove. You look over my record in the house, and if you can match it you are going some. I shall probably have more to say this session before I am through about followers of the hon. member's party in British Columbia, regarding intimidation. I know the hon. member is not to blame, because he has no control over these leaders in British Columbia.


Gordon Graydon: They are really two parties.


Thomas Reid: The hon. member has tried soft-soaping some of them before now, but he has not been successful. I tell members of this committee that intimidation from that quarter is to me just as dastardly as any financial control such as the leader of the C.C.F. mentioned a few moments ago.


Mr. HLYNKA:: If hon. members have disposed of the political aspect of this item, I should like to make a few observations concerning censorship. There cannot be two views as to the need of censorship during war time, but there may be differences of opinion as to the type we should have and the degree to which it should be applied. There are two kinds of censorship, the voluntary, and the official type which is governed by regulations. I do not believe that voluntary censorship can work; in my opinion it is no censorship at all. Some people could not keep a secret if they tried. Others have varying opinions as to what is secret and what is not. Then, of course, judgment varies among the various individuals engaged in newspaper work or other types of work in connection with this matter. For instance, a conscientious and cautious editor would leave out a story, whereas an aggressive editor would take chances and dramatize the report to the advantage of his own newspaper. So that there is a definite need of official censorship in time of war, whether it has to do with newspapers, radio, or mail. Official censorship makes for uniformity and consistency.
But, as I said, we should seriously consider how far we should go. My criticism of the government's policy is that there are too many instances of, undignified and at times perhaps abusive censorship. Examples have been related to the committee this afternoon. We all know of instances where the mail of members of parliament was opened. Of course that sort of thing should not be permitted.
My other objection is that certain information is refused to hon. members and is later given to the press. We are somewhat at a loss to know what to tell our constituents; we know so little about the policies or intentions of the government that it is not infrequent that the
2866	COMMONS
War Appropriation-War Services
public gets the information before members of parliament do. Also certain information is denied to hon. members, and when we get out to our own constituencies we find that the people already know what we should have known, either through announcements in this chamber or by statements issued to us from time to time. Speaking broadly, it is proper to withhold information which, if disclosed, would have a bad effect on the morale of our troops or the people at home. Information about troops, ships and plane movements should also be withheld and censored. Information concerning strategy and diplomacy should be censored. Information which does not in any way endanger the safety of the state, however, should not be denied.
I have two questions to ask the minister. In the first place I have been informed, whether correctly I do not know, that there are employed in the censorship bureau in Ottawa a number of persons who have not as yet obtained their naturalization certificates; in other words, they are not Canadians and yet they are entrusted with the examination and checking of the mail of Canadians. My second question is, is the minister aware that news cables are being transmitted via New York from Moscow to be published in certain Canadian newspapers? Is there an arrangement in effect between Canadian news agencies and agencies in Moscow? I have seen some of these cables published in Canadian papers. I have seen also copies of such cables. It seems rather strange that a country, even though one of our allies, can send cables to be published in newspapers in another country. How does that come about? I cannot understand what is the purpose behind it.


Thomas Reid: The hon. member complains that there are men in this country censoring letters who are not Canadian citizens. I would ask him what he would have done in the province of British Columbia, where we have no Canadians of non-Japanese origin who can read l.e Japanese language; what would he do as regards the censoring of the letters of Japanese? There are men coming from Great Britain to do that. What would he do?


Mr. HOMUTH:: If we had done things right we would not have had any Japanese.


Thomas Reid: That is true, but I did not get much support when I urged it years ago.


Anthony Hlynka: I believe we should have our own men trained for service in such emergency. Had proper preparations been made, there would have been a supply of persons qualified to read these letters. Canada is a country in which many languages are

spoken. We should have men who understand such languages, but if we have not, no one is to be blamed but ourselves.
I should like an answer to the two questions I directed to the minister, particularly the one with respect to cables sent from Moscow which are published in Canadian newspapers.
Mr. LaFLECHE: The question of the hon. member for Vegreville relates to cabled news items and articles. There are press associations or news services outside Canada furnishing information in order that Canadians may be well informed. It is not there that the danger might exist, if it did exist. It would be in the publication of that news. That leads me to say this about the press. There is a free press in Canada, and there is not the slightest intention, so far as the government is concerned, of making it less free or not free. I must also pay tribute to the people of the press, those of the fourth estate, for assisting 'in making it possible to have good censorship in Canada because of their cooperation. The people of the press do much toward censoring or exercising sound judgment in regard to matters that can be published, and to that extent they greatly assist censorship.
This brings me to the two gentlemen who have been named in this house earlier this afternoon. Mr. Eggleston was from 1933 to 1937 an independent journalist writing for newspapers of all persuasions.


Thomas Reid: And he did a good job too.
Mr. LaFLECHE:	From 1937 to 1939 he
was secretary of the Rowell-Sirois commission and he went into censorship in the early stages of the war. I have, and all those concerned with him in censorship have, absolute confidence in this gentleman. As to M. Charpen-tier, he is doing a very heavy and an excellent job, and it is not fair to criticize civil servants who are honestly filling important positions. Again, it may be said that M. Charpentier enjoys the confidence of those who know him.
A question was raised by the hon. member for Vegreville about using the services of persons who are not Canadian citizens. This is the explanation. At a time when large numbers of freshly caught German prisoners were brought to Canada, there arose overnight the necessity of censoring mail matter addressed by such prisoners of war to a destination outside Canada. The civil service commission were approached and requisitioned for a number of persons properly qualified in the German language. It is to my knowledge that the commission made a nation-wide survey of the possibilities of finding competent persons in that language. They were obliged

War Appropriation-War Services
to name a small number of persons who are thoroughly competent in German but who are not yet Canadian citizens. Those persons, however, were most thoroughly investigated; their past was looked into, and we have it on the authority of several competent individuals and bodies that they are reliable. It was only then that the civil service commission made the appointments. They could not find Canadian citizens properly qualified.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: There are fifty thousand Canadians of the second and third generation competent in the German language.
Mr. LaFLECHE: The civil service commission might have asked the hon. gentleman's advice.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: If you had, you would have got some who were worth while.
Mr. LaFLECHE:	The German script is,
I understand, the reason which makes the reading of the German language difficult. I trust this explanation is agreeable to the hon. member for Yegreville. I repeat, the civil service commission could find no other persons properly qualified. Those who were selected had to be taken because that mail matter has to be looked into. Prisoners of war are treated in conformity with certain international conventions. We cannot hold up their mail, but it is necessary to look into it carefully There is this point to be borne in mind, that the persons whom the hon. member for Vegreville has in mind censored mail originating with these prisoners of war only. They did not censor any mail matter or anything else originating with Canadian citizens.


Mr. GREEN:: The amount for postal
censorship is SI ,515.200, which is an increase of almost $500,000 over the vote for the previous fiscal year. Why has there been that large increase?
Mr. LaFLECHE: That is due solely to the fact that we have fortunately very greatly increased the number of German prisoners of war held by us in Canada, and the service is one that is . automatic. The amount of censorship must go up when there is a greater volume of mail originating in that quarter, and when the time comes that it will be no longer necessary to censor that mail matter the number of staff will drop immediately.


Howard Charles Green: Is that item entirely for the censoring of German mail?	*
Mr. LaFLECHE: The increased number of prisoners of war alone almost accounts for the increase in the vote.


Howard Charles Green: How many are on the staff of the censorship branch?
Mr. LaFLECHE: There are 878.


Howard Charles Green: How many were there a
year ago?
Mr. LaFLECHE: There were 613.


Howard Charles Green: Will there be an increase in the staff?
Mr. LaFLECHE: There will be as and when we get a larger number of prisoners to hold in custody in this country. It is automatic. It must rise with the number of German prisoners-or Japs, if you like.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Under the minister s department is there any supervision of telephone conversations?
Mr. LaFLECHE: Yes, where it is necessary.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Are records made of conversations over the telephone-conversations of private individuals?
Mr. LaFLECHE: Not in the sense which I take it my hon. friend has in mind.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Does the minister know of any conversations that have been recorded?
Mr. LaFLECHE: I do not know of any single such conversation.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not know why, but there is one case I know of where private conversations have been recorded. I do not know why it is done. The practice of listening to private conversations over the telephone lines and the making of records of the conversations that have taken place should be very carefully looked into. I know of one instance where this happened. I am not going to give the name at the moment; but I do not know why there should be this supervision of the private lines. I think it might be interesting to the committee and to the country to know just how far the supervision of telephone conversation goes. We should like to know how it is done and a little more about it.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I should very much like to speak at length on the question, but if we were to give our methods to the enemies of our country, I am sure the hon. member for St. Paul's would the first to protest. I know it is my duty to give information to this committee and I want to do so. But might I try to reassure the hon. members of this committee by saying that such operations are carried out solely and for no other reason than the safety of the country. I think I can

War Appropriation-War Services
safely go this far and. say that such things as have been mentioned are not done unless there seems to be reason for doing it in a particular case. In other words, suspicion has been aroused. If my hon. friend or any other hon. member has misgivings and would care to give me some particulars I shall have the matter looked into, because I do not want anybody in this country attempting to ascertain information unless it is for the security of Canada.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I understand that the minister does not want to give away too much information, because it will disclose methods used; but is there necessity for the supervision of telephone conversations? Does the supervision come under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or under what department does it come? Who says that this man's telephone conversation should be censored or tapped, if you like to call it that? Does it come under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the military authorities?
Mr. LaFLECHE:	I should like to suggest
to the hon. member for St. Paul's that it is not in the national interest to give details of who might do this or that; but definitely those who originate the demand for such services are the security officers of Canada. They will be found centred in the armed forces.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I agree with the
minister, but it is something that lends itself to abuse and can be abused. I think it should be carefully watched. I happen to know of one case and I cannot understand why that particular telephone line is tapped. That is why I brought this matter up in the committee. I agree with the minister that we must have some supervision over telephone lines because we are at war. I think we should guard carefully the way it is done to see that it is not abused and that it is not used for purposes other than security.
Mr. LaFLECHE:	The hon. member for
St. Paul's was good enough to agree with me in one respect. May I agree with him entirely when he says that such operations must not be abused? When I know of any possible abuse I shall see that a remedy is found for it immediately.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Censorship of publications, $135,355.
Clarence Gillis: Would the minister give us
some indication of the types of publications that come under censorship?
Mr. LaFLECHE: The censorship of publications differs in its organization from the

other branches of censorship in that there are at the head of it three chief censors instead of only one. Of the three one is particularly concerned with English language publications, one with French language publications and one with radio broadcasts. Under an order made by the then Secretary of State on July 15, 1940, films generally are censored by the chairmen of the boards appointed by eight of the provinces for that purpose in accordance with directives issued by the chief censors of publications. The only province in respect of which this arrangement is not in force is Prince Edward Island, in which there is no provincial board of censors. With respect to certain films, for example, those prepared by the national film board, the chief censors of publications themselves are consulted. In regard to the press as such there is no restriction-and here is the answer-upon the freedom of the press as such; publishers, like all other individuals, are subject to the defence of Canada regulations, which forbid the communication of certain military information and certain subversive and other communications. There is also provision that newspapers and certain other printed documents must include the name of the individual responsible for their publication and that the Minister of National War Services may prevent or restrict the publication of documents he regards as prejudicial to the safety of the state or the efficient prosecution of the war. Generally that is the purpose of this particular division of censorship. I fear I did not grasp perfectly my hon. friend's question, but perhaps I did guess at it correctly and answer it correctly.


Clarence Gillis: Yes; you answered it
thoroughly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-shortwave station, $150,000.
Mr. NICHOLSON:: Would the minister make some statement regarding the shortwave broadcasting facilities on the west coast? Could he tell us how many short-wave broadcasting stations there are along the Pacific coast and whether any consideration has been given to establishing a short-wave station on Canada's west coast?
Mr. LaFLECHE: I am not certain that I have the exact meaning of my hon. friend's question. I recall that in another part of this building some mention was made a few days ago of the possibility that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would either recommend or construct a short-wave broadcasting station on the Pacific coast. I do not know

War Appropriation-War Services
that any concrete action has as yet been taken in that connection. It seems to be in the mind of certain people, and, undoubtedly, if and when there is a development in that situation we shall, of course, hear something about it. As to the short-wave stations on the Canadian Pacific coast, there is none under Canadian control or in Canada.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Does the minister know how many there are in the United States?
Mr. LaFLECHE: I cannot say how many there are. I am informed that on the west coast of the United States they now have two short-wave stations and are building three more.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It would appear to me that in waging war in the Pacific the radio would be a very important instrument, and I should think Canada ought to be making plans to have radio facilities available so that the people in the Pacific will be able to hear the voice of Canada when we become more active in that theatre. Could the minister make some statement as to what plans are now under way with a view to making the voice of Canada heard in the Pacific?
Mr. LaFLECHE: I am not certain that there are many on the other side of the Pacific ocean who would understand the voice of Canada. However, our immediate problem is of course, winning the war, in the Pacific as well as in every other part of the globe. I am afraid that if I attempted to say very much on that point I might encroach upon the strategy of those who have the responsibility of fighting the enemy in the Pacific. To judge by allied successes in that area, due very largely to the United States navy, they seem to have the broadcasting situation well in hand. Canada has no islands in the Pacific ocean far from her shores. The United States has Hawaii and many others. I am afraid it will foe necessary to await developments before Canada will be in a position to give consideration to that point, for civilian purposes. I am really speaking without having given the matter very serious consideration. All these would be matters of policy, to be brought down at a later date. I have done my best to answer my hon. friend, and, I hope, have given him some useful information.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: If the United States have two stations on the west coast and are building three more it would seem that they attach a great deal of importance to the use of radio in the waging of modem war. Since Canada is at war with Japan it would seem that this is not a peace-time project but a
matter of war strategy. The minister suggested that people in Asia might have difficulty in understanding the English language, but I should think it would be quite simple to have broadcasts in languages they would understand. I wonder if the minister can give us any information as to whether anything at all is being done with a view to having short-wave broadcasts sent from Canada to the people in the east.
'Mr. LaFLECHE: This matter of short-wave broadcasting on the Pacific necessarily would be influenced by two major considerations. The first, of course, would be the war strategy, including war requirements; the second would be the need or demand for such stations for civilian purposes. The second factor is not one which ordinarily would be given much consideration during the war. The first consideration, that is, the necessity of doing everything possible to win the war, I am sure has received very careful consideration. I am not in a position to go into that matter, except to point out to my hon. friend that the allies are doing very well in the Pacific ocean.


Howard Charles Green: What would be the cost of a short-wave station on the Pacific?
Mr. LaFLECHE: The capital cost to put up the buildings and purchase the necessary equipment certainly would be well over a million dollars.


Howard Charles Green: What would be the yearly cost of operating the station?
Mr. LaFLECHE: I need not try to safeguard myself, of course, by saying it would depend upon the volume of operations, and that sort of thing. I think a fairly good estimate at this time would be about $350,000 a year, and I believe that would be on the low side.


Howard Charles Green: Have any steps been taken by the government to investigate the possibility of establishing a short-wave station on
the Pacific?
Mr. LaFLECHE: The matter has received attention by the Canadian Broadcasting corporation.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: If difficulty is experienced in getting the equipment to build a million dollar project, could the minister give us any information as to whether any attempt has been made to use available United States facilities in order to express our views?
Mr. LaFLECHE: I would not want it to be taken for granted that there has been proved to be any necessity for that at the moment; I do not think it would be right to take that

War Appropriation-War Services
for granted. I have said this afternoon that the matter has received consideration, though I have not seen any particular report in connection with it. In regard to any necessary broadcasting from Canada to the far east, that has been done and can be done at any time through United States stations, I think particularly in San Francisco.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: You are not using any facilities there now, I understand?
Mr. LaFLECHE: I have said that Canadian news is going out over United States Pacific coast short-wave stations.


Mr. MARSHALL:: Two years ago the
amount set aside for this type of work was the small sum of 810,000, and we are told that this allotment was not used. Last year the amount set aside was $640,000, whereas this year it is 8150,000. Would the minister tell us how much of the 1943-44 allotment was used, and the type of work that was carried on?	.
Mr. LaFLECHE : If I may be permitted I should like to place on record a statement; it is not lengthy, but I think it will give much of the information required by the hon. member for Camrose, and if necessary I can supplement it.
Experimental broadcasting on a short-wave band began almost simultaneously with experimental broadcasts in Great Britain, the United States and Holland in 1926. The technical development progressed rapidly, and in 1932 the British Broadcasting Corporation inaugurated its empire service with a regularly scheduled service in English. The value of this new instrument of international communication was soon recognized, and the thirties saw a rapid growth of short-wave broadcasting, particularly from Europe. By 1937 fifty-eight countries were broadcasting on a short-wave band, on frequencies registered at Geneva. Certain bands in the spectrum were set aside at Geneva for short-wave broadcasting. The frequencies within these bands were chosen by the different countries on a first come, first served basis. The various countries then registered them at the International Telecommunication Bureau at Geneva.
Nazi Germany and Italy were the first countries to exploit short-wave as a weapon of offensive propaganda. Great Britain which had done a great deal of the pioneering in the short-wave field looked upon short-wave broadcasting primarily as a medium for the promotion of international good will, a philosophy well expressed in the motto of the British Broadcasting Corporation. "Nations shall speak peace unto nations." However, the

tactics of the German propagandists forced Great Britain to take similar action, though it was not until January 3, 1938, that the first foreign language broadcast was carried by British Broadcasting Corporation.
By 1939 Great Britain was broadcasting a regular service in ten foreign languages. With the outbreak of war the British Broadcasting Corporation foreign service was, of course, increased tremendously. Many new high-powered transmitters were put into operation, and by 1941 the British Broadcasting corporation was broadcasting over several stations more than thirty hours a day in some forty-eight languages.
The development of short-wave broadcasting in the United States lagged considerably behind the service inaugurated by the publicly owned systems of Europe. However, when war broke out, the United States began far-reaching plans for the creation of a comprehensive system of high-powered short-wave transmitters. The short wave-transmitters operated by the American networks were taken over by the United States government through the office of war information. New transmitters were constructed as rapidly as possible, and soon the voice of America was heard in many languages on a large network of shortwave transmitters.
In September, 1942, the government of Canada approved the construction of an international short-wave station. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was instructed to proceed with the construction and operation of such a station as soon as possible. The demand for transmitting equipment was so great both in United States and United Kingdom that even with the high priorities granted Canada inevitable delay was encountered in procurement of equipment. However, considerable progress has been made and it is expected that the first beam will be in operation by perhaps September, 1944.
I do not mean by that an international service. The first beam may be in operation by next September. This is questionable, however; it might be a little later in the year.
The first estimates on the cost of the shortwave station submitted by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation quoted a figure of 8800,000 for the purchase and installation of two 50-kilowatt transmitters and the associated antenna system. This expenditure, chargeable to war appropriations, was approved. Owing to changes in design and construction, the result of recent improvements in radio techniques, making for greater efficiency in short-wave transmissions, and owing to the increase in costs of fabrication and construction, it is now estimated that

the required transmitters, antenna, associated equipment and construction will involve an additional capital expenditure of $300,000, making a total estimated cost of $1,100,000.
Most of this increased cost is for a new and more elaborate antenna system which it is expected will have the result of providing a signal equal to that which would have been provided by transmitters four times the power operating on the type of antenna originally considered.
I think the hon. member for Camrose had in mind that in the first year the sum of $10,000 was asked for. Undoubtedly that was for preliminary investigation. Last year the house voted $650,000. It was considered at that time that not more than that amount could be expended in the fiscal year 1943-44. I now ask for $150,000. When the estimates were prepared the officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation thought that amount would be sufficient to cover what they could do. It may be necessary for me to ask the government to bring down a supplementary estimate, if experience proves that the cost will be considerably higher than the original estimate of $800,000. If it is possible to let contracts, arrange construction, obtain equipment, antenna and transmitters we shall have to pay for them.


James Alexander Marshall: Is it fair to say that instead of spending about $640,000, we spent about twice that amount in the last year. In the minister's remarks he said that the actual cost of the apparatus was in the neighbourhood of $1,100,000. That is far in excess of the $640,000 asked for last year.
Mr. LaFLECHE: The amount of $1,100,000 was a revised estimate of the cost. The expenditure is an entirely different matter. The total budget must be in the neighbourhood of $1,100,000.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister give
further consideration to the possibility of establishing a short-wave station on the Pacific coast? It would be very beneficial in connection with communications between Canada and Australia and New Zealand. I believe it is only a question of time until Canadian war ships and Canadian troops will be in operation at some point in the Pacific. It would be helpful if the station were established by the time our forces reach that theatre. Would the minister have his officials give further consideration to the possibility of establishing a short-wave station on the Pacific coast? There will have to be one sooner or later; it would also be a great help in peace time.
War Appropriation-War Services
Mr. LaFLECHE: I shall gladly look into the matter, but may I point out to the hon. member that it is confidently expected that the new station at Sackville, to be in operation this fall, will reach as far as Australia. That does not mean to say, however, that there is no value in the suggestion that we watch the situation carefully. I have already explained to the committee that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is studying the matter, and I shall see that it is followed up.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Why was Sackville selected as the location for the station?
Mr. LaFLECHE: It was selected for technical reasons. In connection with broadcasting the topographical features, and all that lies beneath the surface of the earth must be considered. Those factors have a great bearing upon the receptive or sending qualities of a particular district.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I brought this matter up in the house two years ago. Now we find we are faced with these extra expenditures-at least half a million dollars more than we would have had to spend, had the station been erected two years ago when it was pressed for by the opposition. At that time the Minister of Transport had many different figures as to what the station would cost. At one time he told us it would cost $2,500,000, and at another time $1,500,000. Now we know what it is; and I certainly think the delayed action on short-wave broadcasting has cost the government and people of Canada an extra half-million dollars.
Mr. LaFLECHE:	I did not hear it or
understand it quite like that. I do not think they could have done it in less time; I am convinced of that. I have spoken to officials and to manufacturers of equipment, and most of the difficulty lies in getting the necessary equipment.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, something was said this afternoon about the short-wave radio station now being built, and some of the questions asked would seem to indicate [DOT]that perhaps the broadcasting corporation had not done all it could in one way or another. I think that under existing conditions, with the lack of materials and equipment owing to the war, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has done a marvellous job in bringing



War Appropriation-War Services
this short-wave station to the point where it may soon be in operation. I understand that because of the shortage of materials, the technicians of the corporation have had to build certain parts of this station themselves. Realizing as some of us do the tremendous job involved in building a short-wave radio broadcasting station, I think we should compliment the officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the minister, under whose department this corporation comes, upon the job they have done so far.
I wonder if hon. members realize the purpose of this short-wave station? I fancy the main purpose will be to tell the rest of the world something about Canada, in a word to sell Canada to the rest of the world. It can be used by the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of External Affairs and other departments of government. Taking all these things into consideration, I believe this short-wave station will be a great asset to Canada. While it may appear that we are spending a lot of money, I think it is money well spent.
I referred a moment ago to the purpose of this short-wave station being to tell the rest of the world about Canada. We all know that someone must write what is sent over the air. That is done in connection with our radio at home and it certainly will have to be done with respect to the short-wave station. The messages that go over this station should be of such a nature as to sell Canada to the rest of the world. I mention this because I fear that the broadcasters may eventually find themselves in a position where they will be compelled to accept manuscripts from certain people or organizations.
I have always believed in collective bargaining. I have always believed that men should have the privilege to get together in order to be able to fight for their rights. But if the time should come when we would have such a thing as a writers' union so strong that all articles for press or radio would have to pass through its hands, then I suggest that such an organization would be able ,to control the thinking of the nation. I am not suggesting that there is such a thing as a writers' union.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend mentions that there is such a thing as a writers' union. If that is so, then I suggest that we should be very much on our guard with respect to the type of material that comes forth from such an organization. I can quite understand how a union would be organized to protect the rights of writers, to see that they are adequately paid and so forth, but I should not like to see
(Mr. Hansell.]
the day come when one type of thinking only would come from the pens of oilr Canadian writers.
The minister may be aware that there is an organization in Canada known as the united front-I do not know if that is part of the name-[DOT]" writers, broadcasters and artists war council," which organization I understand has a communist as its secretary. This man has organized several branches and has brought into the organization some notable communists. I dio not know if this is the same organization as the one known as " Writers, Artists, Broadcasters and Musicians Council, Incorporated," but if it is I suggest that they seek to protect themselves lest they become permeated with some one type of thought that will absolutely rule the roost.
I know the Minister of National War Services is a distinguished Canadian. I think he is one of Canada's great men, a man with a distinguished career. I am sure he desires to protect Canadians and the Canadian way of life, but I deplore some of the propaganda which is put over in Canada to-day. When I said I hoped that the short-wave station would sell Canada to the rest of the world, I implied that I hoped it would not sell Canada out to the rest of the world. I see grave danger in that direction, and I ask the minister to pay all possible attention to this matter in order that by this agency the Canadian way of life may be sustained and improved. In times gone by it has not been all that we wanted it to be. Nevertheles there are in our democracy many great virtues, which I should be sorry to see imperilled or impaired.
While I shall be criticized in some places for bringing this matter to the attention of the minister and parliament, I deem it proper to refer to the fact that already this writers' union, the Writers', Artists', Broadcasters' and Musicians' Council, Incorporated, have " regretted exceedingly" any reference made by " irresponsible parties " in parliament to communist writers. If a man is to be named an irresponsible individual because he warns Canada and warns parliament, we have come to a pretty pass. It is a duty of every member of this parliament to protect the welfare of Canada and Canadians, and there is no justification for assailing his integrity and sincerity because what he says does not suit some particular organization. I do not know why I am not entitled to demand some sort of investigation along that line.
In closing, I would impress on the minister that our short-wave radio station will probably be one of the most powerful of Canada's media of propaganda and dissemination of information to the rest of the world. I trust that the

War Appropriation-War Services
messages which go over that station will truly reflect to the world at large what sort of a nation we have, and call upon every one of us to do what we can to make this nation worthy of world publicity. The people of Canada are paying for this short-wave station; they are also paying into the dominion treasury some $3,500,000 in licence fees, and it is not well that they should pay these large sums only to find in the end that they have been " sold out." I know the minister is just as anxious as anyone to have our democratic way of life protected. I am sure he will find every member of parliament supporting his efforts in that respect.


Anthony Hlynka: I should like to asK the minister a question on this item. As he knows, immediately after the outbreak of war this government by order in council banned all foreign languages from the air. Has the government given any consideration to lifting this restriction? If not, will such consideration be given to language groups in the near future? I have in mind such groups as the Ukrainians, the Poles and others. As the regulations stand, no foreign language can be used on the air except when one of the government departments sponsors the programme. I cannot see why I should not be permitted to speak to some of my older Ukrainian constituents in the Ukrainian language. If I should not I should like to know why.
Mr. LaFLECHE: The hon. member has brought up a point which has been under consideration for some considerable time. I think he will agree with my observation that there is an easing of the situation in this regard; there seems to be a decrease in the severity of outlook on the part of certain sections of the country. I believe it is now possible under certain circumstances to broadcast in languages other than English or French. At the moment I have not at hand the full details, but I understand that some provision has been made for that, although perhaps not on a very wide scale. I think that something like that is possible. I venture to believe that the question raised by the hon. member for Vegreville will continue to receive careful consideration in another quarter where matters having to do with radio broadcasting are under study at the present time.
As regards the observations of the hon. member for Macleod, he will be pleased to learn that there is now in training a small staff to make certain that the new short-wave broadcasting station at Sackville, New Brunswick, will get off to a good start, that we shall be ready for operations when the station is ready for inauguration.
I am not familiar with the circumstances referred to by the hon. member in his remarks 100-181J
concerning the mendbers of some writers' union. But, in general relation to such things as that, I suggest that Canadians as a whole will see to it that the new broadcasting station is not abused, and if it were, there would be a quick, immediate reaction which would take to task the guilty person. What my hon. friend has said is, I am sure, well said in its generalities. I think he can have confidence in the watchfulness of the minister and of public opinion to ensure that nothing untoward shall occur.


Thomas Reid: One question with regard to the short-wave staion: will it be powerful enough so that short-wave receiving sets in British Columbia will be able to receive it? I say that because there is not another province where the people are paying more and getting less from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation than the people on the Pacific coast. That so happens because the mountains are not conducive to speeches and programmes going over the air. Those who live on the Pacific coast know perfectly well that most of our programmes there are obtained from the United States, and we have long felt that we have a grievance in being called upon to pay $2.50 when we are limited to a radius of some eighty miles or so. If you had the most powerful radio station in Vancouver it would not get past the mountains. There are some parts of British Columbia where radio will not travel more than sixty miles. Will this short-wave station be powerful enough to meet all requirements? I urge that we have one on the Pacific coast so that we may be enabled to enjoy some of these programmes.
May I say one word with regard to the observations of the hon. member for Vegreville. He has championed the right of people to speak to those of a particular group in their own language. I am one of those who take strong exception to the tendency to build up in this country various foreign groups, representing different races with different languages. If we do not watch what we are doing, I suggest that we are in danger of having another continent of Europe here. I firmly believe that the fewer languages there are in the world, the more closely will people come together. In my district we have people from the old country-and when I say the old country I include Great Britain, Ireland and Scotland-


Gordon Graydon: And Wales.


Thomas Reid: Yes, and Wales; I thank my hon. friend for reminding me, because they are Celts after all. I should not like to cut off people who come here from their native language, but when one finds people who have been in the country thirty, thirty-five and

War Appropriation-War Services
forty years stating quite frankly, in broken English, "Well, I speak Russian", or "I speak Polish", and so on, it seems to me that there is something wrong. The object of language is to enable us to understand one another. That is what speech is for, and I say without fear of contradiction that if this is a good land to live in it is a good land the language of which to learn. I am not saying anything against the older groups who come here, but I do not think we should encourage the practice of building up a little Ukraine, or Poland or Russia in this country. I am against that kind of thing. The more languages you have, the more trouble there will be.
However, what I rose particularly to ask the minister is this: What about a short-wave radio for British Columbia?


James Arthur Ross: What about Gaelic?


Gordon Graydon: There is no answer to that.
Mr. LaFLECHE: It would be unfortunate if, as a result of the establishment of a new short-wave station in one province, each of the other provinces also asked for one. For the immediate present, it will satisfy my hon. friend the member for New Westminster to know I am informed that the new station at Sackville, it is hoped, will reach the residents of British Columbia, though it will be necessary, I am told, to use a particular beam for that purpose. The authorities have it in mind and I can only give him that information, which I hope will turn out to be correct.


Thomas Reid: What about cutting our fees in half, seeing that we get only half a radio?
Mr. LaFLECHE: I am sure that at $2.50 per licence the inhabitants of British Columbia are getting a fine programme at very little cost. It works out at five cents a week.


Thomas Reid: I am not so optimistic as the minister.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: I wish to say a few words on behalf of the inhabitants of northern British Columbia. We cannot get any reception except from the United States and Alaska. The broadcasting corporation two years ago built a line from Vancouver through the Cariboo up to Prince George. When they reach Prince George, however, they have not served the population in the northern section of British Columbia. The reason why they stopped there, we were told, was that the line between Prince George and Prince Rupert, which is 500 miles, was used by the militia. About three months ago the militia released two wires, and I have asked the broadcasting corporation to connect Prince Rupert, where there is a considerable population to be served,

with the ground line. I have been told that owing to the expense this cannot be done. For the information of the minister I may say that they spent $50,000 to reach Prince George, where they had not much of a population to serve, and the rent of the ground wires to complete the connection will cost about $15,000 or $20,000 a year. I cannot see why they should stop at Prince George, before they reach the bulk of the population, and now that the facilities are there to enable them to extend the service to the population in the northern section of British Columbia they do not carry out this work because it will cost $15,000 or $20,000. I should like the minister to look into this matter. I have approached the chairman of the corporation and it seems that for the matter of a few thousand they cannot reach that population. We cannot get any outside service at all. This is a matter that the minister should look into. We have in the vicinity of Prince Rupert a population of 40,000 and the money that has been spent to reach Prince George serves only about 10,000, if that many. I cannot see any sense in connecting up the ground wires through a part of the country where there are no people and stopping short of the population that should be served. I would ask the minister to take this matter seriously into consideration.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I shall certainly see to it. I may be permitted to recall that special action was taken in regard to that part of British Columbia which is so dear to the heart of the hon. member for Skeena. His observations will be looked into.


Gordon Graydon: I should not say, perhaps, that I am out of order in discussing the matters which have been spoken to by others in reference to this item. I believe this has to do only with a short-wave broadcasting station and all those who have spoken about other matters are out of order. That being so, I am courageous in following them. However, I should like briefly to make three suggestions to the minister. I will not ask him to answer any questions because that might start a lengthy debate and I do not wish to bring that about.
First of all I wish to support the hon. member for Skeena in what he has said. I know something of the situation in that part of the country which I learned in the brief time in which I visited the Prince Rupert territory a year and a half ago, and therefore I add my voice to what he has said about the poor reception facilities in that important metropolis. May I say further to the minister in all seriousness with every bit of emphasis

War Appropriation-War Services
that I can summon: Do not allow the question of the permanent chairmanship and permanent general managership of the corporation to stand any longer. I have been attempting to impress upon the house and the government the necessity of this ever since the session started. I hope that in the interests of our national radio set-up the minister will not allow the delay to continue any longer. I shall not ask the minister when the new general manager and the new chairman will be appointed, but I trust that whatever is done it will be done quickly.
The third matter I should like to mention has to do with the commercial revenue of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. That revenue has increased from the $500,000, which was mentioned by the Minister of Munitions and Supply when radio came under his jurisdiction, to a top figure of $1,204,000. I am speaking only from memory, but I think my memory is correct on this point. In view of the fact that this revenue has broken through the ceiling which was mentioned by the minister, there is now a very good case for a review of this question by the minister with the object in mind of abolishing, if necessary, the radio licence fee. I do not say that in any desire to embarrass the minister, but the fee is a difficult one to collect.
The Canadian people are concerned about the number of demands for money at this time. The average person on the payrolls to-day is absolutely amazed at what he and his employer have to go through with respect to the various taxes that come off his salary. After those taxes have been collected it is very difficult for him to figure out what is left. The radio fee is another item. It is a small fee, it is true. What the minister said in his answer to the hon. member for New Westminster may in his own mind be appropriate, but I think there is a growing feeling throughout the country that either the radio corporation should bring its revenue into line with the revenue which the minister envisaged in the first place, or it should review the whole position with respect to radio licence fees.
As I say, I have no desire to inject anything that would be of a controversial nature at this time because I am as anxious as the minister to see this item carry as quickly as possible.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to ask a question. If this question is not in order the minister does not need to answer it. What is the radius of the Watrous station?
Mr. LaFLECHE: I am extremely sorry, but the officials have not the detailed information which would permit me to give a correct
answer. It is a 50-kilowatt station and therefore of high power and should reach very far, depending, of course, upon the receptive conditions in various parts of the country which it serves. I can get the information and should be very happy to do so if the hon. member wishes.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: It is a very good
station.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does it serve right down to the Arctic ocean?
Mr. LaFLECHE: It is believed that it does. I think the best thing for me to do is to get the proper information and give it to my hon. friend, if he wishes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Film Board-revolving fund for purchase of supplies, special war film library, $40,000.
Joseph William Noseworthy: Would the minister care to give the committee a report on the work of the national film board? I am particularly interested in the work of the board because of its educational features. According to the act which set up the board in 1939 the commissioner is appointed to give advice upon:
. . . making and distributing of national films designed to help Canadians in all parts of Canada to understand the ways of living and the problems of Canadians in other parts; coordinate national and departmental film activities in consultation with the board and the several departments and branches of government work.
Will the minister tell us what other branches or departments of government make films and the relation of those departments to the national film board? To what extent does the national film board direct or correlate the work of other departments, and what other departments are interested in making, distributing and showing films?
I understand that the film board now has an extensive theatrical programme. I think there are three series of a theatrical nature, namely, "Canada Carries On", "World in Action", and a series of news items and news strips. Will the minister tell us something about these series and the number of audiences to which they are shown, if he has the information; the countries in which they are displayed and the languages used?
In the non-theatrical field I understand that the board produces films covering a large number of subjects. Could the minister tell us something of the variety of subjects with which the film board is concerned in the nontheatrical field, the languages in which those films are produced and the extent to which

War Appropriation-War Services
they are shown? I see that the sum of $845,000 is included in four items for this board. I presume that is chiefly for war purposes.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Entirely.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I find that there is a sum of $678,000 odd in the minister's civil estimates. I hope that when the time comes the board will no longer be required to devote its efforts to war; that not only the amount now available in the civil estimates will be expended but that we may be able to spend the amount which we are now spending on war to extend more cultural education to our people in peace time. There are many fields in which the board could operate, particularly in the immediate post-war period. There are many ways in which films can help with our rehabilitation programme. I am particularly anxious to see the film board take a much broader and more active part in the educational programme conducted in the schools throughout the land. I know that in that field we immediately run up against provincial prejudices. The minister has already pointed out the work that ha^ been done by the armed forces educational programme and that it has gone far toward coordinating the educational work done in the different provinces. It has done something to stabilize education. I feel that there is an enormous field here for the national film board in the post-war period, just as there is in the field of adult education and in the field of agriculture. I would suggest to the minister that when the time comes for this board to divert its attention from war-time to peace-time activities consideration be given to some more permanent organization. It has been suggested to me, for instance, that the board be incorporated as a crown company, assisted by a grant from the treasury and managed by a board of directors on which the government, labour, farm organizations, educational associations and so on could have representation, in order that we may be able to make mueh greater use of the work of this board, which has been doing so well in this field up to the present time.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Of course we are now *discussing items which come under the war appropriation and not items dealing with what are ordinarily termed civilian activities. The figures with regard to audiences are very interesting. As an example I would point out that about two million persons in Canada see each issue of the series called "World in Action". About two and a quarter million people in Canada see the "Canada Carries On" series. Non-theatrical films in Canada have an average audience of about a quarter of a

million persons a month in the factories, and about 350,000 a month in the rural districts. "World in Action" films are shown in upwards of five thousand theatres in the United States. May I be permitted to place on record a brief yet fairly illustrative statement in regard to the activities of the national film board.
During 1943-44, as in previous years since the outbreak of war, the board has devoted a great part of its energies to the service of war departments of the government, and to a continuation of its own very extensive work in the field of wartime information. On the production side, among the departments which the national film board has served extensively are the three departments of national defence, the Department of Munitions and Supply, the national war finance committee, the wartime prices and trade board, the wartime information board and the Department of Labour. Its own programme of war information in the film field includes a continuation on a regular monthly basis of the two series of twenty-minute films issued under the general titles, "Canada Carries On" and "World in Action." These two series have achieved a remarkably wide theatrical distribution in Canada and abroad, and have earned for the national film board an enviable reputation for excellence in its field. Among the subjects issued1 in the "Canada Carries On" series during the past year have ben such pictures as "Up from the Ranks," "Train Busters," "Target Berlin," "Proudly She Marches," "Coal Face Canada," "Look to the North" and "Thought for Food." The "World in Action" series has included films on "Labour Front," "The War for Men's Minds," "The Fighting Dutch," "The Gates of Italy," "The Battle of Europe" and "Our Northern Neighbour." In additon to the two series I have mentioned, the national film board has continued its extensive service of Canadian pictures to newsreels published throughout the world, and the record in respect of the publication of these stories is a very impressive one. Apart from the French language versions of the "World in Action" and "Canada Carries On" series, a regular service of "Reportages" on matters connected with the war is maintained to French language theatres throughout the province of Quebec.
The distribution systems which have been established for the exhibition of films produced by the national film board and by others among our allies are no less impressive than the production record. The rural circuits, so-called, now serve on a monthly basis some 1,600 communities in the rural areas of Canada with programmes closely related to Canada's war effort, directed particularly, so far as interest is concerned, to agricultural audiences.

War Appropriation-War Services
The industrial circuits reach more than 1,000 factories every month and, in collaboration with the various labour organizations and the workers' educational association, an extensive service to trade unions is maintained. This is in addition to the extensive film library system which is maintained in collaboration with local authorities throughout the country to serve audiences of every sort.
In the foreign field there has also been a gratifying extension of our distribution activity. The "World in Action" series continues to be distributed widely throughout the United States, the United Kingdom, Australasia and many other countries, and certain subjects in the "Canada Carries On" series considered suitable for international distribution have secured wide circulation in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and elsewhere. The newsreel stories released by the film board to newsreel editors have been issued throughout the world.
Early in 1943 the national film board assumed certain functions in relation to the production and distribution of still pictures which had formerly been performed by the wartime information board. This service has been continued and extended with highly satisfactory results in respect particularly of the distribution of still pictures in Canada and the United States. The work of the graphics division stills of the national film board has been considerably extended in response to the requirements of the armed services and other war departments. Services in respect of layout of publications, the preparation of photographic exhibits for educational and other purposes and the production of instructional film strips are now available at the national film board to all departments of government requiring these services. They are all being extensively used.
This is a very brief review of the board's activity, but it is enough, I think, to indicate that the work of the board is carried on with imagination and vitality.


William Earl Rowe: Does the film board collect
any revenue, other than the estimates now before us?
Mr. LaFLECIIE:	The board does receive
some revenue; the figure I have before me as the revenue from films last year is about $123,000. I trust that is the information sought by my hon.* friend.


William Earl Rowe: Has the film board any private contracts with other companies for any service outside? Does it receive revenue?
Mr. LaFLECHE: The national film board does not produce film for other film companies. In that sense it is not in commercial production.


William Earl Rowe: Does it receive revenue from other departments of government?
Mr. LaFLECHE: Yes. Now I understand the information the hon. member requires. The national film board does a very great deal of work for other departments of government.


William Earl Rowe: What amount of work?
Mr. LaFLECHE: To begin with, it is the only producer of film in the government, with the possible exception of a very small occasional operation in one other department. That operation does not amount to very much. With that one exception all the old departmental activities in the film field have been centred in the national film board, and are carried out by it. Therefore it is the proper body to produce films when required by departments of government.
I have before me a table showing figures covering the work done for other departments of government. The moneys referred to were expended by and recovered in the national film board's allotments. This table shows the following:
Film production expenditure for
other government departments $ 683,114
Industrial circuits, other government departments	 143,541
Department of National Defence, director of military training,
prints	 92,500
Department of National Defence, purchases, equipment and so on 105,000 National war savings committee,
victory loan publicity	 52,000
Graphics division, for other
government departments		111,779


William Earl Rowe: The minister gave the figure of $123,000 as the amount received in revenue.
Mr. LaFLECHE: That was revenue from rental of films.


William Earl Rowe: That is in addition?
Mr. LaFLECHE: The latter figures show the work done by the national film board for the other departments. This means, of course, that those departments finance the operations.


William Earl Rowe: Is that money from the other department paid over to the film board?
Mr. LaFLECHE: Yes. When a requisition is made to the film board by a department

War Appropriation-War Services
of government it is accompanied by a financial encumbrance-really a passing over of credit to the film board.


William Earl Rowe: Is it then turned in to the consolidated revenue fund?
Mr. LaFLECHE: It is spent in the production of films ordered by the other departments.


William Earl Rowe: I have listened to the minister's brief review of the extensive work done by the board. I am sure we acknowledge the value of most of that work. But from the point of view of accounting it would seem rather misleading to the committee to find that when the general estimates come before the house a certain amount is allotted. Then, in connection with the war appropriations we find a larger sum of money, which is supposedly an amount of money to be spent by the film board.
However, we now find that the board actually collects another $1,187,000. When one tries to reconcile these figures with what appears in the public accounts he finds it even more misleading. No doubt the money has been spent, but we sit here and struggle by the hour to find out how it is spent. It would seem that we are dealing with a lesser amount of money than that actually spent by the board. In other words, more money, of which we hear nothing in parliament, is spent by the film board, than is spent under the estimates we pass. I do not for one moment suggest that it may or may not be properly spent. I believe I am fair when I say that more money is being spent this year than was spent last year.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Yes.


William Earl Rowe: And more money was spent last year than the year before. And if we continue there will likely be more money spent next year.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Depending upon necessities.


William Earl Rowe: I do not doubt but what the necessities will be very great. I realize that the film board can render a great service. I have seen many of the films it produces. I believe some of them we might do without, but others are necessary. Some of it is probably, as we have heard it said, for national unity in this country. We know that expression "national unity" has been hackneyed for twenty-five years.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: We have not got it.


William Earl Rowe: It is hard to tell whether it is to win the war, or for the unity of a certain political party. Perhaps it is for a certain

amount of government advertising-that would be the more courteous way of putting it to the minister. However, in the public accounts of March 31, 1943, we find that vote 201 for the national film board, including the motion picture bureau, amounted to $237,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: What page is that?


William Earl Rowe: Page N-5 of the public accounts for the year ending March 31, 1943.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but is he not referring to peace-time or ordinary civilian estimates?


William Earl Rowe: No; it is all in what was spent. I mention it only to make my point as to how bookkeeping is done in the department. I am not making any charge in connection with the manner in which the money is spent, but I am saying it would be fair if we could have a clearer picture than we have had presented to us.
Mr. LaFLECHE: My hon. friend will not object if I attempt to keep him from getting more disturbed or more unsettled.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Oh, do not worry about our unsettlement.


Mr. ROWTE:: I would only say-
Mr. LaFLECHE: There is such a thing as courtesy in the House of Commons. I trust the hon. member who has just interrupted will remember that. I am trying to assist the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, and I am sure he did not resent my attempting to point out to him that he might be more confused by attempting to take out from the auditor general's report that which deals with civilian estimates, when we are discussing war estimates.


William Earl Rowe: I thank the minister for trying to save me extra work. I do not want to hold up the estimates, and I think he will agree that I have not held up the war appropriations very much. But I should like to make a brief reference to this matter. The public accounts show vote 201, national film board, $237,000; also vote 428, further supplementary estimates, $75,000, and vote 417, cost of living bonus supplement, $1,500. The expenditures are shown as $311,456.08, leaving lapsed, $2,043.92. The comments on these expenditures illustrate the point I have in mind as to the manner in which these estimates are presented. They state:
The following classes of expenditures were incurred:	(a) salaries and expenses covering
the cost of production and distribution . . .
And again:
It will be noted that the following lists of salaries, travelling expenses and vendors exceed

War Appropriation-War Services
in total the allotments authorized, the explanation being that this appropriation was credited with the costs recovered from other departments.
I presume that would be an amount similar to the $1,187,000, and we have in the general estimates a vote of around .$400,000 or $500,000. We have before us to-night an estimate for national war services amounting to $845,000, but this committee has had no opportunity to consider how this money is being spent. It may be necessary, in time of war, to have a great deal of bureaucracy, a great deal of control, and the passing of orders in council in the east block even when parliament is sitting and the matters covered could well be discussed here, but it does seem to me that we should have before us the total expenditures rather than a small part of them. We have been told what has been collected from other departments, amounts such as $683,000, $143,000, $92,500, $115,000, $52,000, $111,000 and $123,000; these amounts were paid for rental of films and produced a total revenue of upwards of $1,200,000.
The general estimates for 1944-45 refer only to twenty-five people who are paid salaries, but when you look into the public accounts you find that for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1943, there was a total of 375 employees paid from this vote. The comments read:
The following table shows those who were paid at the rate of $2,400 per annum or over at that date, or at date of separation (shown in bracket), as well as travelling expenses where the amount was in excess of $300.
Unless the travelling expenses paid were $300 or over they were not shown in the public accounts, and only the salaries of $2,400 and over are shown. I do not doubt that the money received from other departments was properly spent and I do not intend to imply that it was not, but I contend that we have the right to discuss those expenditures. Surely we do not have to throw away all our rights of discussing these matters merely because we are at war. As I said before, we have gladly sacrificed many rights and we have accepted many restrictions and are ready to accept many more, but it seems to me that it is too much to expect us to take unnecessary ones without bringing them to the attention of the committee.
Details of general receipts, which I presume are similar to the ones the minister read off, appear in the public accounts. There are items for the wartime information board, $677,000; wartime prices and trade board, $55,000; national defence, $203,000, and so on. I have no doubt that this money was well spent. Then particulars are given only for payments over $5,000. I submit that we
as members of parliament and as members of this committee have had no opportunity of knowing what was done with a great portion of this million and a quarter dollars. Yet we have spent hours discussing what we thought were the expenditures of the film board. The amounts in the general estimates are much less than what has been received, and this greater expenditure has been made without this committee giving the film board authority to make it. The payments over $5,000 include Action Film Company, Chicago, $8,530; Associated Screen News Limited, $157,000, and so on through a long list which I shall not read.
I totalled up roughly what was received by the film board and it coincides approximately with the figure the minister gave. It is about $1,200,000, this being the amount received in the year just passed. I presume the figures up to March 31, 1944, will not be out until next year.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: They will not be here to give them.


William Earl Rowe: The amounts received from the different departments are considerably in excess of what has been paid out. The board received about $1,200,000, and there is a vote for $840,000, or a total of about $2,000,000. As I say, the general estimates deal only with about twenty-five salaried people, compared with 375 that are actually paid. In other words, we have been passing a vote to pay about twenty-five people, whereas the film board has been paying the salaries of approximately 375 people.
It seems to me that the film board should take the money received from other departments, deposit it in the consolidated revenue fund and then ask for a vote to cover its total expenditure rather than ask for a smaller amount and leave it to the committee to guess what kind of inside bookkeeping is being done. As I say, I am not implying that the money received from the other departments is not properly spent, but I claim it is our right to know how the $1,200,000 received from these other departments has been spent. If this money has been received for services rendered by the film board and provided for by the initial vote, then it should be deposited in the consolidated revenue fund so that this committee can deal with it as we deal with other matters.


James Alexander Marshall: Are we not wandering far afield in this discussion? I do not think I need to come to the rescue of the minister because he can look after himself, but I think we are confusing two totally different votes. The vote here under the heading of war
28S0

War Appropriation-War Services
appropriation, on page 398 of Hansard, February 11, covers specific items and totals $845,500. There is another vote, 194, in the estimates, under the heading of "national war services (other than war appropriations)" amounting to $678,806. I contend that most of the discussion which has taken place deals with that civil estimate and has nothing whatever to do with the estimate which is before the committee under the heading of the war appropriation.
Mr. LaFLECHE: The hon. member for Camrose has it correctly.
The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, as best I could understand it, was really speaking about the civilian vote for last year as reflected in the auditor general's report for the year ended March 31, 1943, and the hon. member seemed not to agree or to understand that it is quite in order, although he may recall that for years and years it has been the practice, when circumstances so dictated, that one department would supply another department with a given amount of money to do a certain piece of work. That is not a new practice; it has been operative for years and years and I presume will be for years to come. How else could it be in view of the provision of the National Film Board Act that the board shall be the one organization in the federal government to do film work? The only other way would be that all the departments should ask the national film board to make up a combined budget and to put it through the house in that form. But I wonder whether that would be good accounting practice. As I recall it, that would not have been acceptable to previous auditors general, because those gentlemen have always wanted the requiring departments to show in their estimates the money they want for their own requirements. I suggest to the hon. member1 for Dufferin-Simcoe that if he will study the matter in the light of my remarks he may be satisfied in that connection. When a department requires some film work it must place an item in its budget or at least 'come to this house to get the required financial authority to spend money. But in that case the requirement is a departmental one; it has to do with the Department of National Defence or of Munitions and1 Supply or of Labour, or whatever it may be. The amounts for which I come to this committee to request its approval have to do rather with national objects. The amounts of money requested by the national film board are not for the requirements of one department but for general national purposes.


William Earl Rowe: They will appear in the public accounts, of course.

Mr. LaFLECHE: The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe took me politely to task for not explaining the details of this vote. Well, I was doing so when my hon. friend rose, and had I been permitted I would have gone on and given him the break-down of the $845,500, and if it pleases the committee I should very much like to do so now.


William Earl Rowe: I do not want the minister to delay his own estimates.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Well, I have answered my hon. friend. I have given him what I think is the proper interpretation, the correct routine, based upon my knowledge of what previous auditors general have wanted. I must say, howevfer, that the auditor general writes and publishes his own report. One knows what is in it only after it is published.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, I have given a correct explanation and I suggest that I have given a very satisfying one.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: Before this item passes I should like to say a little about the work of the film board. It is true that we are spending considerable sums of money upon the work of the board; but when we come to consider the importance of the film as a medium for the advancement of our prestige in the world generally, and the part it plays within Canada itself, I believe that these expenditures are well justified.
The minister mentioned the fact that one of the most successful of the series, known as "The World in Action", had been widely distributed. I do not know what the distribution is in Britain, but in the United States it goes to about five or six thousand theatres every month. So good has this series become that the columnist Dorothy Thompson recently devoted to it a whole section of her column. She said that the film board of Canada had set the world an example in supplying national and international information, something for which the board should receive commendation.
I sincerely hope that it will be part of government policy to continue the work of the film board, which has been done so admirably in war, into the peace period; in other words, to carry on the advertising of Canada. Reference was made once this evening to the advertising which will be done over the air by broadcast, and I think we must not minimize the value of the film in this direction. There is no doubt that by influencing public opinion the film is useful in establishing in the minds of people abroad the fact that Canada is a potential market, and it keeps the channels of public information very well supplied. I

War Appropriation-War Services
can look back with some amusement at the ideas I had of Canada before I came to this country; they were quite fantastic, although I was probably quite an ordinary product of the British educational system. All over the world people may still have rather strange ideas, if not quite so funny as were my own; but during the war, with our boys going overseas and by other means, people abroad have a better idea of Canada than I had many years ago. Nevertheless to-day, when Canada is the world's third trading nation, we realize that in the future we shall have competition in Europe from both Britain and the United States. Both these countries will use the film as a very popular medium to press their claims for trade and markets, and in this matter Canada must not be left behind. We must do everything in reason to let the people of Europe, Britain and the United States of America know the potentialities of our country, not merely through government departments and bodies of that kind, but through the medium of the film, which gets right to the people.
But it is not only in the fields of trade and commerce that the film is useful; it has great value in establishing cultural relations with other nations. These associations may be intangible things, but many qualities of the heart and the mind-the love of beauty, the appreciation of art for its own sake-are universal.
A little while ago I went to see the showing of one of the films which are exhibited on Tuesday and Thursday evenings here in the house, and I saw something which stayed in my mind for a long while. It was a little gem in technicolor, called "The West Wind", a small short film to commemorate the life and art of one of our great Canadian artists, Tom Thompson. Films of this kind would link us to the peoples of other countries in very subtle bonds. They would have greater strength, in my opinion, than many material things, and these films also arouse in Canadians a great feeling of pride, to think that they belong to a country which has produced men who loved Canada so intensely and who were capable of reproducing her wild loveliness for the peoples of other nations to see.
There is one other series known as "Canada Carries On", which has done, I believe, remarkable work in bolstering and stimulating public morale in the days of war. The minister gave figures of the people who see these films every week. I should like to see the series carried on in the period of reconstruction, because in that rather difficult time, when many people will have to make adjustments to peace-time living, it will be very necessary to bolster the
morale of Canadians and infuse in them a feeling that the period of reconstruction is one in which they have an active part in building up the economy and the happiness of the Canadian nation.
With regard to my own people back in the northern part of Saskatchewan, I would urge that some of the rural circuits which the film board conducts might be stretched to reach out farther into the north country. I know these circuits do go into the southern part of the riding, but my people in the northern areas are the persons who need it more than any others, because ordinary films do not reach them. They do not have so many towns and villages where they can see the ordinary shows, and to have these circuits go into the northern areas would be greatly appreciated by the farmers. Films which deal with farm problems, food and nutrition, cattle raising, implements and all the questions connected with farm work would be very helpful to these people, and it is a pity they have not yet been able to have these films.
The last thing particularly is this. I should like to see the minister take into special consideration the great possibilities opening up before us in the field of education, not only the education of our children, but public education generally.
With regard to the work of the film board at the present time, I know they have a service in which they lend films to clubs and to certain scientific groups, without charge except the cost of postage and so on, but I would envisage something in the educational line far in advance of anything we have now. I should like to see libraries of films for circulation among the rural schools in Saskatchewan. The children in the cities have access first of all to the regular films more often than the children in the rural areas. They have access also to public libraries and to other means whereby they can increase their education. But the rural child is cut off terribly from all these other sources. I should like to see a special department built up within the film board, where we would have educationists [DOT]whose sole job would be to prepare films in various branches of education, particularly for the use of rural schools. Teachers would find this of tremendous value, and the children would greatly benefit by it.
Having myself taught in rural schools, I know the problems that the rural teachers have. A little group of children in a country school on the prairies of Saskatchewan, learning their first lesson in physical geography, will be told of the source of rivers coming from glaciers and so on. But what conception have the prairie children of these things? Put

War Appropriation-War Services
before them a technicolour film showing the Rocky mountains, showing the source of the Athabaska or the Saskatchewan river, and you have something of great beauty, depicting the great possibilities of Canada. That is ingrained in the children's minds, so that it will never be lost.
I particularly commend the film board for their work in this connection and urge the minister, in the field of education, to go farther than we have done so far.


Howard Charles Green: There is a new vote here in connection with still photographs, the amount being $115,500. Will the minister explain what that covers? What proportion of these films are made in Canada; are any taken outside of Canada, and, if so, to what extent?
Mr. LaFLECHE: This is what is now known as the stills production and distribution branch or section of the national film board. We have in these estimates an item of $115,500 for the purpose. This allotment is intended to cover the cost of certain work produced by the graphics division of the national film board. This division combines the facilities of the former stills section of the national film board and the photographic and art sections of the wartime information board. There has been a fusion of the two. The graphics division makes pictures for almost every government department, illustrating their work and providing information on all phases of their activities. Such work is paid for by the departments concerned.
The following is a brief summary of the work produced by the graphics division in the past fiscal year: Production in Canada of 15,320 negatives; production of 162,565 prints; distribution of prints and mats to newspapers and periodicals in Canada; distribution of 185,266 prints and mats to newspapers and periodicals in the United States, and distribution of prints to newspapers and periodicals in the other nations of the commonwealth.
The subjects covered include the great-power dam at Shipshaw, the aircraft industry, research enterprises, tank and artillery arsenals, optical instruments industry, shipbuilding, chemicals and explosives, Sitka spruce and plywood industry, lake shipping, Alaska highway, coal mining production, first Lancaster bomber, the Quebec conference, mutual aid to Russia, Australia and India, rationing and price control, wartime housing, et cetera.
It has developed rapidly into a worth-while section of the national film board. This fusion represents what was taken by the wartime information board from the old public information board, and what they had in the

national film board. From this they made this new division of graphic stills. It has done excellent work, and its activities, I think, will be bound to increase in keeping with the demand for its services.


Howard Charles Green: The minister did not explain about the percentage of films taken out of Canada.
Mr. LaFLECHE: These are not moving-picture films. All still photographs taken by this section are taken in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: What about moving pictures? Are any taken out of Canada?
Mr. LaFLECHE: The exception is that of films on labour management which are sent to the United Kingdom. That is the only exception.


Howard Charles Green: All the rest are made in Canada? They are all moving pictures?
Mr. LaFLECHE: They are not moving pictures. They are still photographs.


Howard Charles Green: It is my fault. I asked two questions. My second question really had to do with moving pictures. Are all moving pictures taken by the film board of events that are happening in Canada, or are there moving pictures made outside of Canada, and, if so, to what extent?
Mr. LaFLECHE: With the one exception, the films taken on labour management. They are taken in England. That is the one exception. Let us not forget that the armed forces have their moving-picture cameras. We are very fortunate in receiving the results of their work. Those pictures are turned in to the national film board for distribution; also the cutting and putting together of the news reels and distribution thereof are done by the national film board. If I may express a hope it would be that the work should be increased as much as possible. I know the national film board does take the position that the Canadian public must see more and more of our boys who are away from home, some of whom have been away for a long time.


Howard Charles Green: Are the moving pictures of the forces taken by the national film board or by the respective forces?
Mr. LaFLECHE: By the service personnel, but many of the service personnel have been trained by the national film board in Ottawa.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Who pays the bill for the taking of the films by the various active service forces?
Mr. LaFLECHE:	The active forces
themselves.

l('ar Appropriation-War Services


Howard Charles Green: That would come out of the army vote, the navy vote or the air force vote?
Mr. LaFLECHE: That is right.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: When the films are turned over to the film board is there any charge to the national film board by the various branches of the services? In other words, if the taking of the film of the Dieppe raid cost $100,000, is that charged against the national iilm board, or is there any charge like that?
Mr. LaFLECHE: There is no such charge for this reason: The armed services turn in these films to the national film board for printing, perhaps, but at least for distribution. It is through that medium that the work of the army, the navy or the air force movie photographers reach the public.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What effort, if any, is made by the national film board to carry to the people in remote areas pictures pertaining to Canada's part in the war? They could not send movies to the far remote areas, but still pictures could be sent. Are films sent to the Hamilton river in Labrador where we have troops and radio mechanics? Are pictures sent up to Moosonee in northern Ontario where there is quite a settlement of people but no theatre, or to Churchill at the mouth of the Churchill river, or Chipewyan on lake Atha-baska, or to Box on the same lake? or to Yellowknife or Great Slave lake, and on down to Aklavik at the mouth of the Mackenzie river? Does the national film board enlighten the Canadians in those remote areas on the wonderful work Canadians are doing?
Mr. LaFLECHE:	May I say in a word
that all the production of the national film board is available to the Canadian armed forces, whether they be in camps in one part of Canada or in the farthest and most isolated parts of the country. Everything that the national film board has is available to our boys in uniform. The way in which it gets to them is through certain welfare officers of the forces. They organize sports, entertainment and recreation for our young men in these camps. There is such an organization, for instance, in the army in each of the military districts of the country, and the proper officer makes arrangements to get the films that he wants. They are available to him, and in every possible way the showing of these films is facilitated and encouraged. That is the answer in so far as the members of the armed forces are concerned.
Then, there are the rural film circuits mentioned a moment ago by the hon. member for North Battleford. The rural film circuits are, to our knowledge, very much appreciated
indeed, and it will please the hon. member for North Battleford to know that there is already under consideration the extension of those circuits far afield which will take in the riding represented by the hon. member.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Most of the areas to
which I refer are much farther remote than those referred to by the hon. member for North Battleford. In only one area to which I referred, namely, the area on the Hamilton river in Labrador, would there be any troops. All the other places to which I referred are remote areas of northern Ontario and small centres like Chipewyan on lake Athabaska. There would not be over two hundred people there altogether. I have wondered for a long time what means or methods are applied in those remote areas to enable the people to see a picture occasionally.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I take it that the hon. member for Davenport has in mind the civilian population?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes.
Mr. LaFLECHE: We have already covered this evening the case of the members of the armed forces. The recreation and amusement of the civilians, of course, is left to private initiative. But the rural film circuits, as I said a moment ago, are being increased in number and extended so as to cover the greater part of Canada, in the hope that before very long the time will come that wherever there is a reasonable number of persons it will be possible to send films to them; but it requires the demand and the cooperation of, say, the two hundred persons in the isolated community mentioned by the hon. member for Davenport. There is a desire on the part of the national film board to do that, but it requires the people concerned in those areas to make known their desires to make it possible to have a showing there.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would the films be sent free to them?
Mr. LaFLECHE: The films of the rural film circuits are provided without charge, yes.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I am glad that the committee is giving some attention to the rural films. I know that in my part of Canada, Saskatchewan, the work that has been done by the rural film circuits is greatly appreciated by everybody and the films are of a very high order. Unfortunately I was called out of the chamber a few moments ago and was not present at all the discussion. Would the minister give us the number nf projectionists who are undertaking this work in the various rural parts of Canada? While I do not want to ask

War Appropriation-War Services
a number of questions separately because I want to assist in expediting the work of the committee, I should like to ask if the minister could give the committee, if he has not already done so, some outline of the use that is being made of our films in South America, the United States and elsewhere. From time to time in magazines and newspapers, not only those devoted to the film industry but such publications as Time, we have read complimentary references to the documentary and other films that have been put out by the national film board. I was wondering if the minister could give us some idea of the amount of work that has been undertaken, because I believe this service which the film board is rendering, not only to our own rural communities, which is very important, but also to the country at large in making Canada better known in South America, the United States and, of course, Great Britain, is something of which this House of Commons should have greater knowledge and appreciation. After all, the amount of money which is being spent may look very large to some people, but in my opinion the returns the country is getting from this expenditure far exceed the amount of money we are appropriating. I think some of us in this house who appreciate the work that is being done should endeavour to get for ourselves and for the country a clear outline of the valuable work this organization is doing for the dominion as a whole at the present time. To my mind the documentary films that are being made, and the many thousands of feet, I imagine, of film from which these films are being cut, are of great historical value to us.
I have another thought in that connection. Sometimes I wonder as to the wisdom of allowing these valuable documents concerning the war and the war effort to remain in a building which has struck me from time to time as being something of a fire-trap. I think the time has come-perhaps this cannot be done now in the middle of the war, when priorities may be against it-when plans should be laid, with the encouragement of this parliament, for a proper place where these valuable documents may be housed with no danger of being destroyed by fire at some time in the future; and where the facilities for the people who work on the production of these films will reflect some credit upon the country and the orgainzation. Personally, having had some experience in education, I believe that visual education will play a much bigger part in the future than it has done in the past, and that only an organization of the type of which the foundations are now being laid in the national film board can adequately perform the duties

that will be necessary in order to supply our educational institutions with the films that will be required in the future. These very films we are discussing to-night, having to do with the war and Canada's war effort, while they are interesting to our people at the present time will be of much greater interest in the years to come. Twenty, thirty, fifty or one hundred years from now the library of films being built up, and the documents being collected to-day by the national film board, will be of supreme interest; and anything we as a parliament can do to assist in this valuable work should be done.
I asked the minister one or two questions, and I should like to. hear something in reply if the minister is in a position to give it.
Mr. LaFLECHE: The national film board is now operating a total of eighty-two rural film circuits. There is every desire to increase that number as it can be done properly and efficiently; as I said before, it is hoped to be able in due course to cover much more of the rural parts of Canada.
The number of 35 and 16-millimetre films sent out last year from Canada by the national film board to a number of countries, I believe some thirty in all, was 2,503. The list is quite formidable. It may be interesting if I quickly read the list of countries to which the national film board has sent films: the United States, Great Britain, the U.S.S.R., Australia, India, the British West Indies, Newfoundland, New Zealand, South Africa, Egypt, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Mexico, Cuba, Porto Rico, Greenland, Iceland, Colombia, Panama, Peru, Dominica, Nicaragua, Uruguay, San Salvador, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Ecuador, Honduras and Guatemala.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Any idea how many people see these films or in how many theatres they are shown, both the shorts and the full length films?
Mr. LaFLECHE: We sent these films on request, so that we know they are to meet a demand. We have not a proper report which would enable us to say what have been the audiences to see the different films; I am afraid that would be beyond us.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Could the minister give us an estimate of the number of theatres in which these films are regularly shown?
Mr. LaFLECHE: We know that in the United Kingdom our films are shown in over a thousand theatres and in the United States in over five thousand. We believe that the total of such theatres in all countries would be upwards of eight thousand.

War Appropriation-War Services


Leslie Gordon Bell: How many projectors has the film board available now for these rural circuits in Canada which we have been discussing?
Mr. LaFLECHE: We have a sufficient number now.


Leslie Gordon Bell: What is the number?
Mr. LaFLECHE: Eighty-two.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Eighty-two projectors?
Mr. LaFLECHE: Yes.


Leslie Gordon Bell: And they are fully equipped?
Mr. LaFLECHE: They are portable and fully equipped, and there are trained projectionists.


Leslie Gordon Bell: How many trained
projectionists are there?
Mr. LaFLECHE: Well, we have a sufficient number to run the eighty-two circuits. In some cases, perhaps in twenty per cent of the total number of circuits, the board has the assistance of trained personnel supplied by local organizations. As I said before, this matter is run well, largely because of the good coordination and cooperation of all concerned.
The hon. member said something about safer quarters. I am very happy to say that as far as possible we have removed all fire hazards from the quarters of the film board on Sussex street in Ottawa. The board hopes that some day it will have a proper building for its head offices, laboratories and factory. Of course there is need for that. Making film is a hazardous occupation, and it is not always agreeable to other business houses to have film made in a neighbouring building; I do not believe the fire underwriters like it very much. Nevertheless it is hoped that some day. not too far distant, there will be safety vaults and good modern buildings to meet the requirements of the national film board.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Are these projectionists on the regular staff of the film board?
Mr. LaFLECHE: On a particular staff-the rural circuit system staff.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Are they equipped by the film board to do the job? For example, have they adequate facilities for servicing rural schools with the necessary electrical power to make satisfactory projections, and are they adequately remunerated for the job they are doing? Do they supply their own motor cars; does the film board supply a van, or how is it worked?
Mr. LaFLECHE: I thought it might have been taken for granted that the units were
self-sufficient; otherwise they could not operate. That is made possible by the fact that -some of them generate their own electricity. They have a system to do that, and they are selfsufficient. The trained projectionists are paid at trade union rates. They are proficient; they are trained and, as I said before, they work well with the local people who are interested in showing these films.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Do they have any trouble in getting gasoline and tires? Are they given good priority?-because this is important in the rural areas.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I have heard no complaints on that score. It is necessary, of course, that they be economical in their use of gasoline and tires.


Mr. CRERAR:: As a member of the film board, along with my colleague the Minister of National War Services, who is its chairman, I should like very warmly to support the general tenor of the observations made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar. The Minister of National War Services has given the committee a good deal of detailed information respecting the operations of the board, the countries in which these pictures made in Canada circulate, and approximately the number of people who see them.
Irrespective of our political affiliations I think we can all agree that this is a great service, and that it is well worth while to have Canadian pictures of Canadian scenes, Canadian life and Canadian activities shown regularly in over 5,OQO theatres in the United States and over 1,000 theatres in Great Britain, as well as in theatres in practically every country in the world. I know of nothing which will more effectively broaden in every way the information people desire to have about their neighbours than the agency of films. I think, too, it is an important factor in the promotion of international good will. If we have pictures of Canadian life and Canadian activities shown to the peoples of other countries they come to a clearer understanding and a better knowledge of the kind of country Canada is, and what its people are like.
The more I see of the work done by the film board, the more I am convinced of its great utility to Canada. I wish to pay tribute to those who are actively associated in the work of producing and distributing these pictures. While I do not wish to mention any names, I must say we are very fortunate in

War Appropriation-War Services
having associated with the work of production and distribution people with keen imagination and great energy.
Undoubtedly the film can be made a tremendous agency for sound education. After all, people learn readily through the visual processes, and receive impressions that are probably more lasting and more permanent than might be obtained through reading-or even, Mr. Chairman, than they might learn by listening to speeches in the House of Commons. Therefore the value of this agency is disseminating information can scarcely be measured. I look upon it as an important factor not only in the international sphere, but also as an agency for great good within Canada itself.
In the last forty years I have travelled a good deal over this country. There are not many parts of it which at some time or another I have not visited.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You missed Waterloo.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What has struck me is
this: I may go to the maritime provinces and find that they do not know very much about the problems or the living conditions of people in Alberta. The people of Ontario know comparatively little about -the activity and way of life of, or what the people in British Columbia are thinking about. Newspapers do not circulate much as between these different parts of Canada. I recall being in Vancouver many years ago, and, while there, staying at the Vancouver hotel. I went to the hotel newsstand to buy a Winnipeg paper, but there was not one to be had; nor could I get a Toronto paper.


Howard Charles Green: You went to the wrong
stand.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They may have more since then.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Not much.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: But I must say that I
could have bought any one of a dozen United States papers at the same news stand. The thought struck me: How are we to hold this country together? How are we to build up this thing we call national unity-for which I believe there is a definite need, to serve a definite purpose.
Through the agency of films a tremendous amount can be done in that direction. We can have films made showing the activities of the fishermen of Nova Scotia. Those films can be shown on the prairies. We can have films made of the activities of the lumbermen of British Columbia, and they can be shown in Ontario and Quebec. Pictures can be made of rural life in Quebec, and distribution could

be carried out across Canada. We could produce films-we have produced some-showing the potentialities of our great north land, and give our people an understanding of a part of the country concerning which they know very little.
I apologize for taking up this time, because I know the minister is anxious to have his estimates passed, but as a result of my association with the work of the film board in the last few years I am sure there is no vote coming before the committee which I could more willingly support than the one we are now discussing. I doubt if in the long run, particularly in the educational field, there is any vote the expenditure of which is doing more good.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I agree with everything
the minister has said. There is nothing better than a picture to build up in the minds of the people something of the potentialities of Canada. I think the greatest disappointment I ever had in my life was when I first saw a circus. I had seen an elephant in pictures and it was nothing new to me to see one in the circus. I had also seen tigers and lions. While I had never seen monkeys in pictures, I had seen some of them in public life. But the fact of the matter is that the whole thing was spoiled because it was nothing new to me.
I think something such as the minister has suggested is the only thing we can do to teach the people in the different parts of this country to appreciate the other parts. They must be shown films of the different sections of the dominion. People have visualized the Rockies who have never seen the Rockies and never will. People have visualized the valleys and farms and the fisheries and shipping of the maritimes when they will never see them in fact. It is a tremendous job that this film board has to do.
But sometimes I wonder if we are just as honest in connection with these estimates as we ought to be. I think it is nearly time we realized that the people love expenditures, provided that they produce dividends. What do we find in connection with the estimates of the film board? A year or two ago Mr. Grierson, the head of the board, received $6,000. He was then made the head of the wartime information board at an increased salary of $10,000. He was then brought back to the film board, and I understand his salary was the same.
I wonder whether in our desire to try to hide expenditures, in our desire to try to tell the Canadian people what we are doing without letting them know the cost, we are not actually doing more harm than good. There is nothing better than giving the people an

War Appropriation-War Services
honest picture of just what is happening in these matters. I believe that if the government said, ('We are going to find a man who will be able to publicize Canada to Canadians, who can publicize Canada to the world, and we will pay him $15,000 or $20,000, if necessary." I do not think the public generally would criticize such an expenditure which might bring back such large dividends.
This may be done by our ministers in an effort to avoid criticism, but I do not know. The leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation a short time ago questioned whether projectionists were receiving enough money. I question that also. I know something of their activities. I know something of the good that these films have done in our industries and rural schools. None of these men is receiving anything like the wages that are being paid to many workmen in our factories. If there is any authority in this country that ought to set a standard of wages it is the government. The government should pay salaries sufficiently large to bring from private enterprise the best men available.
I do not say this in an attempt to criticize Mr. Grierson. However, I feel that we ought to be truthful with the people and let them know just what the position is. I commend the minister for the work this board is doing, because I think it is a great work and they should expand it. They could go much farther than they have, but I feel we should be frank with the people in so far as the public accounts are concerned.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I hasten to rise to point out to the hon. member for Waterloo South that while it may be innocence on his part, he has done a great wrong to a valued civil servant. In talking about the present film commissioner, Mr. John Grierson, and about hiding of expenditures, I do not think he could have found a more impossible or extravagant illustration. The gentleman he has named was raised to a salary of $10,000 a year in November, 1941. His going to the wartime information board had nothing whatsoever to do with his salary, because he was receiving that salary before he went to that board. He continued to receive the same salary after he finished his term of office with the wartime information board. It must be remembered that Mr. Grierson was not transferred permanently to the wartime information board; he took on that extra work, stating in advance that it would be only for a certain number of months. I am sure the hon. member for Waterloo South will not mind this correction.
In connection with projectionists I stated to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that
they are being paid in accordance with trade union rates or understanding. They receive about S140 a month with cost of living bonus. I agree that this is not a great deal of money, but on the other hand they seem to live well enough. There is no trouble with them and there are many persons who want these positions. It is not a bad life since they move around and see lots of people. I say these things because sometimes a word said in error goes far afield and truth does not catch up to it.


Leslie Gordon Bell: While we cannot compete with so-called enterprise in the payment of salaries, I think if we want to get the best people in the public service we shall have to make conditions more attractive than they are. We cannot continue to employ people in the public service if we underpay them, and that is what we are doing throughout the civil service. When the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture were before us we were discussing veterinary surgeons and we found that the salaries paid were simply scandalous.
I am not so sure that these projectionists are getting trade union rates in terms of a yearly salary. From the few of them I have met, my observation has been that while they receive $140 a month and a certain allowance for their cars, they must provide the cars. If my recollection is correct they are paid about seven cents a mile for gasoline, tires, repairs and so on, but I believe sometimes they use the car engine to generate power and I do not know whether they are paid for that. If they are receiving only $140 a month for doing this kind of work, they are underpaid. In order to have people who can present these films in an acceptable manner you must have persons with some education.
From time to time I have listened to some of these projectionists exhibit films and I have been pleased indeed with the type of men who are doing this work. They were able to present the film in a manner which interested the people who were taking advantage of the particular, rural show. It seems to me that our ideas with regard to educational and cultural activities are all wrong. While we cannot hope to compete with business concerns in the salaries we pay, we should pay sufficient to maintain these people in adequate comfort. When we consider the responsibility entailed in making these films and then compare the remuneration of the chief of the branch or his assistants with the salaries paid by business concerns, we seem to be paying virtually nothing at all. I am not suggesting that we pay fabulous sums, but in all our cultural

War Appropriation-War Services
activities-in films, in broadcasting, and in the realm of education-we ought to give greater encouragement financially and in terms of security than we are giving to-day. I hope that we may be reassessing these cultural activities and that we shall place them on a better footing than they have been. I do not think we are paying anybody connected with the national film board too much; I have no doubt from what I know that we are paying too little, as we are paying too little in so many of our departments. Take our research council; the salaries of our scientists there are something of a public scandal. We have the responsibility of giving greater encouragement to the able and often brilliant young men and women who might be tempted to go into some private industry but who remain in the public service because they wish to develop it as a life work and do something worth while for the country in which they live.


William Kemble Esling: Are rural circuits proportioned to our province according to population? Also, are slides available for educational purposes for the school children? It is difficult to imagine anything more interesting or of more value to school children than each Saturday afternoon to have a showing of the slides of various parts of the provinces and the dominion, in auditoriums and various local schools, and in community halls in rural districts where they never see such a thing as a film and where nevertheless there are good-sized communities, perhaps of two or three hundred people. A private entertainment concern would never go there. This service could be accomplished very readily and at little expense if a certain number of slides were allocated to each community, we will say for Saturday afternoons, upon request of the principal of the high school or of the public school, so that somebody would be responsible. The educational value would be marked.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I am grateful to the hon. member for Kootenay West, and I am sure he will be pleased to know that these rural circuit projectionists do, as a matter of course, give a showing in the afternoon in the local school for the school children when the projectionists go to a given point to provide displays, say in the evening, for She adult population. The point made by my hon. friend is an excellent one. As I said before, the service is being gradually increased as there is demand and, in the case of rural circuits, provincial cooperation.


William Kemble Esling: For instance, if the principal of a high school made a request for a certain number of slides to fill in a programme for Saturday afternoon for educational purposes, 	; - i - j
would the board send those slides? Also, are there any rural circuits in British Columbia? I have never seen one. Nor have I ever seen a display of government films.
Mr. LaFLECHE: There are rural circuits in British Columbia; and as for high school principals or school principals obtaining, I do not say prints, but films, they can be had from what we term the national film board libraries, scattered here and there. If my hon. friend has any particular point in view and would care to write to the film board, his request will receive every possible consideration.


Leslie Gordon Bell: To what extent are
departments of education interested in the kind of thing that the hon. member for Kootenay West has mentioned?
Mr. LaFLECHE:	The provincial departments of education are very much interested in this.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Are plans being worked out? I think every school nowadays should have a machine. Many schools, of course, with which I am acquainted have them.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I could hardly undertake that the national film board would provide them.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Oh, I do not mean that. I do not want to be misunderstood. I mean that every school district should provide itself with a machine.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I agree.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Then, perhaps, through the national film board, a series of still pictures, slides, and films could be provided and could circulate like a library from school to school.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Right now the film board is working along those lines. We have already established film libraries; and, to make it practical, if anyone interested would care to write, every assistance would be afforded.


James Alexander Marshall: I heartily concur in all the remarks which have been made with respect to the educational work of the film board. I believe the time is not far distant when a great deal of our education will be imparted through the medium of the film. I have two small questions to ask the minister. The first is, could he give me the number of schools in each province? The second is, what constitutes a circuit?
Mr. LaFLECHE: I am sorry that I have not the eighty-two circuits broken down by provinces. This may be interesting: The cost

War Appropriation-War Services
of operating the circuits wholly financed by the board is approximately $375 per circuit per month. This sum provides the salary and expenses of the projectionist, shipping charges, print costs, maintenance of equipment, and publicity. If my hon. friend wants to know how many circuits there are in Saskatchewan I shall get the details and send them to him.


James Alexander Marshall: I am more interested in Alberta than in Saskatchewan. But if the minister would bring down figures for all the provinces, not this evening but at some other time, they might be put on Hansard.
Mr. LaFLECHE: With pleasure.


James Alexander Marshall: I should like to know the number of circuits in each province, and also the average number of points that axe covered in a circuit.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Each circuit comprises at least twenty different points a month. But I shall bring down this information.


Thomas Reid: I do not like to delay the committee, but a statement was made by the Minister of Mines and Resources which I do not feel like allowing to pass without contradiction. Speaking of my own province, he stated that he could not find on the news stands any newspapers from Winnipeg or Toronto. Let me tell him that the people of British Columbia know more about the other provinces than the people living in any other province, because people living in other provinces usually come to British Columbia, and show their good sense in doing so; we have that kind of province. As for the minister not being able to get a newspaper from Winnipeg or Toronto, I guarantee that I could take him to fifty news stands which would give him any paper he wants from any province.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I can assure the hon. member for New Westminster that the statement I made was a correct one. My visit on that occasion was a good many years ago. I am delighted to know that the west coast has made such substantial progress since that time.


Thomas Reid: In forty-five years?


James Joseph McCann: Shall the item carry? Carried.


Howard Charles Green: Are we under sundries?


James Joseph McCann: No.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I did not quite catch the carrying of that item. I was going to ask about trade union films, because I think we should have some knowledge of what is being done in that regard. I believe a great
deal has been done in the past by the showing of films and so on, and I think we should try to get a picture of this both for ourselves and for the country through the record. There have, I believe, been industrial and trade union circuits. What are they, And what do they do?
Mr. LaFLECHE: The film board operates ten trade union circuits and forty industrial circuits. They are in close touch with those immediately concerned, and with their cooperation, these circuits have been formed and, I understand, operate very successfully.


James Alexander Marshall: How can one get one of these circuits? What has one to do in order to get one of these circuits operating?
Mr. LaFLECHE: The interested party should write direct to the national film board, stating the requirements, the points to be covered, and that will receive immediate consideration.


James Alexander Marshall: Is there any guarantee-
Mr. LaFLECHE: There should be a correct description and all the necessities should be set out with full explanations.


Mr. QUELCH:: Should the proposal be made by some organization, or can it be made by a private individual?
Mr. LaFLECHE: From a school or from some well-known person, a resident.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Or a member of parliament?
Mr. LaFLECHE: Yes, of course.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sundry services, $69,080.
Howard Charles Green: There does not seem to be an item in the minister's estimates for what was known as the government office economies control. If the minister will Temember, that subject was dealt with rather fully last year in consequence of the resignation of Colonel John Thompson from the position of director of that particular division. Will the minister tell us whether or not that division has been allowed to die out? If not, what is the position at the present time?
Mr. LaFLECHE: During the last year the division has made remarkable progress. It has achieved a very high success in effecting economies in government departments. The director, a capable civil servant, who has been in the service for many years-


Howard Charles Green: Who is that?
Mr. LaFLECHE: Mr. T. P. Murphy. He does it without extra remuneration. He is an
2890	COMMONS
War Appropriation-War Services
employee of the Post Office Department and, working after hours as his war job, he carries out this work. He has had remarkable success and has gained the confidence and good will besides the entire cooperation of a number of civil servants in each of the departments. He has formed an interdepartmental committee. It attends at his office and holds joint meetings, and there is a great interchange of information. There has arisen, I presume, some friendly rivalry, because it is noticeable that those concerned in the several departments have now learned well what can be done by way of economy. They themselves do much of the work which otherwise would have to be done by the director. They follow Mr. Murphy and he gives them full credit for their own success. The situation is excellent.


Howard Charles Green: Is it a one-man show? Is Mr. Murphy the whole division of the government office economies control?
Mr. LaFLECHE: The complete staff comprises: Mr. T. P. Murphy, acting director of government office economies control, no salary; Mr. S. McCartney, estimating and printing adviser, $3,000 a year; Mr. H. J. Joyce, clerk grade two, $1,320; Mr. G. Rheaume, clerk grade three, $1,380; Mrs. Kiely, typist grade two, $1,080; and Miss Pazzkowski, clerk grade one, $780; total salary list, $8,340 with $780 war supplements.


Howard Charles Green: What vote does that come under?
Mr. LaFLECHE: It is in the sundry vote. The total is $10,885.


Howard Charles Green: Do they come under order in council?
Mr. LaFLECHE: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: The original order in council gave Colonel Thompson drastic powers to control expenditures. I understand from what the minister says to-night that expenses are now saved by cooperation rather than by direction. Is that the case?
Mr. LaFLECHE: I said earlier this evening that Mr. Murphy of the economies control has been an immense success. He has gained the confidence and has a widening circle of convincible public servants who are carrying on the work, not only under* instruction but by conviction and by a knowledge of what can be done. The authority here is the order in council so much commented upon last year. It is somewhat painful to go back a year ago-not painful to the department, 
however, but to a gentleman whose name was brought into prominence, not for his own sake but for other and, I am afraid, not worthy motives.


Howard Charles Green: What does the minister mean by that?
Mr. LaFLECHE: Because they were making a play on him. They were inviting the gentleman-and he is a gentleman-into public notice, with the result that he would make certain statements that would appear as we would read them, and make him unhappy. I am sure it did not assist him in the performance of his duty.


Howard Charles Green: The minister does not refer to any member of parliament? The minister is not suggesting that-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, no.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I have not done so.


Howard Charles Green: I am asking if he is referring to any member of parliament in making that inference?
Mr. LaFLECHE: It was not an inference; it was a statement. I did not say that any member of parliament had done that.


Howard Charles Green: Is the wartime information board under the order in council now? A year ago they were not subject to the government office economies control.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Yes. The wartime information board are doing very good work under Mr. Murphy.


Howard Charles Green: Has the order in council' been changed?
Mr. LaFLECHE: It has not.


Howard Charles Green: To make them subject to-
Mr. LaFLECHE: It was not necessary. It depends upon the approach. One cannot legislate men into doing good and one cannot legislate them into being efficient. But the civil servants in Ottawa, if properly appealed to, have always without fail responded in the right way; and they have done so, moreover, in the case of the economies control.


Howard Charles Green: That may be the position now. But the position last year was that practically all government departments were subject to this order in council with the exception of the wartime information board, and perhaps one or two other boards. Has any change been made in the order in council in. the interim?

War Appropriation-War Services
Mr. LaFLECHE:	I said earlier that no
change has been made in the order in council. Mr. Murphy has been able to interest people in all of the departments.


Leslie Gordon Bell: As I understand it, Mr. Murphy is lent to the office of economies control. If that is not so, how else does it work? It seems to me we are, as it were, getting the shadow here, not the substance. If Mr. Murphy is devoting his time to this work and receiving his salary from some other department, then I think that an adjustment should be made and he should be reasonably remunerated under the particular item which covers this office. I agree with the minister that you can get more out of people by cooperation than you can by endeavouring to drive them to something. If, as I think the minister has suggested, Mr. Murphy is trying to do this work after hours, then surely he cannot be giving very much attention to it even in order to get the cooperation of the civil servants involved. Of course the staff is comparatively small when one takes into consideration the billions of dollars that we are spending. I wonder how he can possibly do this job after hours, even to get the cooperation of the civil servants.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Mr. Murphy is a permanent civil servant and works in the Post Office Department. I think he has had forty-one years' service. When I spoke to Mr. Murphy about the possibilities of his coming over to economies control, because I had known of the excellent work of the same kind he had done in the Post Office Department, he undertook to come over when he could. He comes regularly in the morning. He does his work in his own department when he can.


Leslie Gordon Bell: In other words, the Post Office Department is practically lending him.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I am very grateful to my colleague, the Postmaster General, for permitting Mr. Murphy to come and get this work going, and for the spirit that he has put into it. It is not particularly hard work when everybody wants to do the same thing. There is a difference between driving and all marching together in the same spirit.


James Alexander Marshall: I have a matter that I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. In 1941 there was in his department an item which amounted to the sum of $50,000. It was a revolving fund in connection with an organization known as the civilian technical corps. All the expenditures made from the fund were supposed to be guaranteed by the United Kingdom. There was spent from this fund in the year 1941A2 the sum of $27,000. It was
not recovered when the auditor general made his report in 1943. A further sum of $7,833 was spent in 1943. Would the minister give a short statement showing the position of this revolving fund at the present time, and what reason could be advanced for the United Kingdom not meeting the amount which had been debited to them?
Mr. LaFLECHE: The civilian technical corps came into being at the request of the British government before the United States entered the war. It was felt that a great many qualified technical Americans would be very happy to go to the British isles and serve there in undertakings requiring technical knowledge and experience. The organization was not a Canadian one. It was a United Kingdom establishment. It was placed under my department nominally. It was in Montreal under the direct supervision of the United Kingdom air mission, I believe.
The Canadian government advanced the moneys and periodically the Canadian government was reimbursed for expenditures made. I do not recall the exact standing of the account as of March 31, 1943; but I know the entire account has been paid. Thehon. member has asked, why the delay? Well, it was in putting in the bills and latterly getting them sent over to Great Britain, I understand, for final approval, or something like that. It was a revolving fund. The Canadian government has been reimbursed in full. When the United States came into the war that organization had, of course, to go out.


James Alexander Marshall: Then I take it that this account has been closed out and has nothing to-day with the sundry services.
Mr. LaFLECHE: No. As I recall it, there was a balance some time last year and I asked why. It was inquired into and not long ago I was told that the account had been settled.


James Alexander Marshall: What do you do with a balance like that?
Mr. LaFLECHE: It goes back into the consolidated revenue fund.


Howard Charles Green: When the minister's estimates were under discussion on the last occasion he promised to bring down a statement showing the number of men taking educational courses in the pension and health hospitals of Canada. Could the minister give us a statement to-night?
Mr. LaFLECHE: I had hoped to begin this afternoon by giving my hon. friend the information, but in the hurly-burly an hon. member rose and I was not able to do so. It will

War Appropriation-War Services
take me fifteen minutes to give it. If the committee wishes to go on to something else I can do it at some other time.
I have made very careful inquiries, and the statement I am about to give reflects what I found after consultation with departmental officials. During the discussion of Canadian Legion educational services estimates on Monday, April 24, and again on the 27th, the hon. member for Vancouver South inquired as to what extent it is possible for a man in hospital to -take advantage of Canadian Legion educational services. Since that time I have caused inquiries to be made of the department concerned and have been assured that any patient in a Department of Pensions and National Health hospital may, subject to the approval of the responsible medical officer, commence or resume a suitable course offered by Canadian Legion educational services or commence a more suitable course with an approved correspondence school, and such instruction will, in so far as possible, be directly related to the individual's post-war occupation and any necessary training or education under the rehabilitation programme. These legion courses are reported upon favourably by medical and administrative officers of -the department and it is the intention to give further expansion of such . courses every encouragement.
I should like to add that at present -there are available a series of manuals on arts and handicrafts especially designed to give simple practical information, so that service personnel may learn a useful and interesting handicraft without -the aid of an instructor. Manuals which are now in print in both English and French include: woodwork, leathercraft, knitting and needlecraft, wood carving, metalcraft, rugmaking and fibre craft, weaving, photography and handicraft designing, water-colour -painting, sketching with oil paints and drawing. In addition to the handicraft manuals, there is a series of manuals designed to assist service -personnel in the intelligent choice of their post-war vocation. The first manual in this series is entitled, "How to Choose your Post-War Job," which provides the service man with clear but concise guidance on what sort of jobs are available and what abilities are required to obtain these jobs, together with information as to how he may prepare himself for -the particular job he has in mind.
To assist service personnel to procure further information a series of fifty manuals are either printed or in press or are being prepared for press by experts in each particular occupational field. I should like permission to place on Hansard a list of fifty manuals, or is it desired that I should read them? May I place them on Hansard without reading them?


James Joseph McCann: By consent of the committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Mr. LaFLECHE: They are as follows:
1.	Homemaking.
2.	Agriculture, including fur farming.
3.	Agricultural industries.
4.	Forestry and logging.
5.	Forest products industries.
6.	Prospecting, mining and smelting.
7.	Transportation-land, sea and air.
8.	Communication

telegraph, telephone,
radio and mail.
9.	Building trades.
10.	Fishing, fisheries, products and marketing.
11.	Machinists.
12.	Automotive repairing and garages.
13.	Stenography, typewriting and clerical
work.
14.	Steel construction, riveting, welding and
flame cutting.
15.	Education and teaching.
16.	Meals and lodgings.
17.	Textile industries.
18.	Clothing industries.
19.	Retail trade distribution.
20.	Salesmanship.
21.	Civil service, public administration.
22.	Bartering and beauty culture.
23.	Plumbing, pipe-fitting, sheet metalwork
and tinsmithing.
24.	Foundry work-moulders and core makers.
25.	Shoe repairing.
26.	Meat packing, marketing and butchering.
27.	Baking and catering.
28.	Electrical work.
29.	Printing trades.
30.	Patternmaking.
31.	Domestic service.	.
32.	Laundering, pressing, cleaning and dyeing.
33.	Law.
34.	Professional health services-medicine,
dentistry, nursing, pharmacy and public health.
35.	Boiler making.
36.	Blacksmithing.
37.	Commercial art and advertising.
38.	Accountacy and bookkeeping.
39.	Social services.
40.	Engineering-chemical, civil, metallurgical, mechanical, architectural, et cetera.
41.	Journalism.
42.	Scientific agricultural and veterinary
services.
43.	Librarianship.
44.	Photography.
45.	Household science.
46.	Stationary engineering.
47.	Police and fire services.
48.	Undertaking and embalming.
49.	Pottery work

brick and tile, clay and
glass.
50.	Personnel work.
It is felt that these manuals, covering us they do the history of the job and the nature of the work, the qualifications required, the training for the occupation, the opportunities for employment, the possibilities of advancement and the compensation, will be invaluable in connection with assisting service personnel with their study of occupations. Hon. members will be interested to know something of the very great care which has

War Appropriation-War Services
been taken in the preparation of these manuals. I should like, therefore, to mention a few of the titles, also the authors, as follows:
"How to Choose Your Job"-E. F. Sheffield, registrar and vocational counsellor, Sir George Williams College, Montreal.
"Accountancy and Bookkeeping"-Mr. Hilmer, commercial teacher in the Stamford Collegiate, Ontario.
"Engineering"-Being prepared by The Engineering Institute of Canada.
"Building Trades"-The Director of Apprenticeship, Department of Labour, Ontario.
"Graphic Arts"-Prepared by the executive secretary of the Toronto Graphic Arts Association.
"Home Economics"

Hr. Grace Hood, head of the Home Economics Department, University of Manitoba.
"The Ceramic Industries"-Professor R. J. Montgomery, University of Toronto, Dept, of Ceramics.
Three books on Agriculture-Being prepared by officials of the federal Department of Agriculture, through the Canadian Association of Technical Agriculturists.
"Automotive Repairing and Garages"-Being prepared by The Ontario Garage Operators' Association.
"Machinists"-Prepared by E. Slade, teacher, Western Technical Commercial School, Toronto.
"Salesmanship"

A. E. Wall, secured under the supervision of the Canadian Life Underwriters' Association.
"Social Services"-Prepared by the Montreal School of Social Work.
"Homemaking"-Mrs. D. S. Rawson, Saskatoon.
"Textile Industries"

Major D. Hallam of the Textile Institute of Canada.
"Wholesale and Retail Trade Distribution" 

Mr. G. S. Hougham, secretary, National Retailers' Association.
"Civil Service"

Dr. Moffatt, Civil Service Commission, Ottawa.
"Bartering and Beauty Culture"-By Director of Apprenticeship, Ontario.
"Meat Packing"-Being prepared by Swift Canadian Company.
"Personnel Work"-Being prepared by the personnel division of the Massey Harris Company Limited.


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister figures showing how many men have taken these courses in the pensions and national health hospitals?
Mr. LaFLECHE: I have not the final figures as to the total number of men in these hospitals taking these courses, but that information is being obtained for me and I shall pass it on later, if I may.
I think the hon. member for Vancouver South will find this of some interest. The hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough, on Monday last, the 24th of April, inquired as to
the number of certificates issued by Canadian Legion educational services. I might explain that three types of certificates are issued:
1.	Certificate for correspondence course completion.
2.	Certificate for partial completion of correspondence courses.
3.	Certificate of achievement.
1.	In this connection I should like to indicate to the committee the procedure which has been set down in order that students may qualify for these certificates. The student studies his booklets and forwards exercises to his correspondence instructor as he completes them. While his first exercise is being marked by the instructor, the student continues with paper No. 2 in order that no time may be wasted. The exercise is marked and is returned to the student, together with necessary explanations and additional instructions as to how he should procure the maximum advantage from the correspondence system of study. When the student has completed the ten papers, that is half a course, an examination is forwarded to the commanding officer who ensures that the man writes it under supervision. It is then returned to the correspondence instructor by the education officer. A similar procedure is following with the remaining ten papers and a final test is sent to him through the commanding officer on the completion of the twentieth paper. This again is written under supervision and is returned to the correspondence instructor. In all these exercises and examinations the standards of provincial departments of education are maintained. The marks gained on each of the twenty papers, plus those gained on the two supervised examinations, are averaged and the student is awarded the certificate which carries academic credit for the subject studied in all departments of education in Canada and Newfoundland.
In addition to this, the standing granted is indicated on sections 4 and 5 of his application form. Section 4 is forwarded to the officer in charge of records at national defence headquarters in Ottawa in order that it may be affixed to his permanent service records here, and section 5 is forwarded to the officer in charge of his unit in order that it may be attached to his unit papers. In this way commanding officers are made aware of the names of service personnel who are interested in advancing their own welfare. Other things being equal, we have no doubt that these are the personnel who will be chosen for whatever promotions will be available.

War Appropriation-War Services
2.	Certificates of partial completion are issued to students who are not primarily interested in academic credit at the present time but who, at a later date, may wish to continue their correspondence studies when the exigencies of the services so permit. In such cases a certificate of partial completion, showing the marks gained on the work actually done, is awarded in order that the student may continue his course with no difficulty at all on the production of the certificate of partial completion.
3.	Certificates of achievement are also issued for work done in Canadian Legion educational services classes. These certificates may be evaluated for academic credit in the cases where the duration of the instruction and subjects covered are acceptable to provincial departments of education, but generally they are issued for non-credit purposes. For
example, men who have studied the very elementary English course and have achieved a certain literacy in English are very proud to have their achievement recorded on certificates of this type.
Again, many service personnel make use of these classes as refresher courses and as courses to provide them with sufficient background to accept promotion within the services.
I have a table showing the number of certificates issued. It covers a full page, and with the permission of the committee I should like to place it on the record.


James Joseph McCann: By unanimous consent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Mr. LaFLECHE: The table is as follows:
(1)
Certificates for correspondence course completion
1941		 HI
1942		 947
1943		 1,450
1944	(3 months)	 452
Total	 2,960
(2)
Certificates for partial completion of correspondence courses
(3)
Certificates
of
achievement
For the entire period, there have been issued 15,000
15,000
For the entire period, there have been issued 4,192
4,192
Total of courses as referred to above University courses	
22,152
Grand Total
22,394
It should be explained that not all students participating are desirous of obtaining credits- *ertificates are issued upon request only.
Correspondence courses taken- Canada and Newfoundland Overseas	
129,361
33,739

	163,100
Classes (attendance) taken- Canada and Newfoundland Overseas	
University courses
196,849
94,250

	291,099
		242
Grand Total
454,441


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to. Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.

Chinese Immigration
Monday, May 15, 1944