1946-08-30

Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):: The other day in the course of the army estimates the hon. member for Lake Centre asked me to produce any correspondence which might have passed between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Department of National Defence relating to one Mr. Elliott, a former officer in the army. I told him that if there were any letters which were properly producible, I would see that they were produced. My statement in that respect appears at page 5264 of Hansard, where I said:
If there is correspondence between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which I take it is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, and the Department of National Defence which is properly producible under the order, it -will be produced. If there is

Supply-Trade and Commerce
such correspondence, I do not know why it was not produced. I will look over the files, and if there is correspondence that is producible under that order, I will see that it is produced.
Mr. Diefenbaker: Without any qualification?
Mr. Abbott: Without qualification.
I find that I was in error in my assumption that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is under the Department of Justice. The order calls for the production of correspondence between the Department of National Defence, the Department of Labour and the Department of Justice. There are five letters, three from the commissioner of the Roye! Canadian Mounted Police, and two I think from the deputy minister of national defence in reply to these letters. All the letters are marked '*'confidential" and are not producible under the order. Of course, even if the order did call for the production of such correspondence it would not cover the confidential letters; therefore the letters cannot be produced.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Will the minister please tell us why there are so many objections to giving the full facts in connection with this matter-because one letter after another has been refused production? The minister now raises another question of confidential letters.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not raise the question of confidential letters, if my hon. friend will permit me. I raised the point that the order of the house does not call for the production of these letters. The letters are letters which passed between the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the deputy minister of national defence. No order of the house would have been passed calling for the production of such letters, and no order was passed. That is the ground on which I say that the letters are not producible. In addition, I mentioned that they are marked "confidential." I do not think it has ever been the practice of the house to require the production of letters from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in connection with their proceedings.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Can the Minister of Labour give us a progress statement on the strike situation in Hamilton?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: All I can say is that the conversations are going on.



COMMODITY SHORTAGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
^ Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South): I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Finance. I did not have the opportunity of sending him notice of this question, because it arises out of a telegram I received this morning from the Retail Merchants Association of Glace Bay, Nova Scotia. Is there a possibility of relieving the extreme shortage of shortening and lard in that area? The merchants claim that they are receiving only fifty per cent of the supplies they were receiving in 1945. There is also a serious shortage of paper bags and wrapping paper. The merchants say that they have to discontinue the handling of a large number of commodities because of the shortage. These merchants question whether it is necessary to continue meat rationing. Will the minister take note of these questions and give me an answer when he can? I would appreciate his doing this.
Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall bring my hon. friend's remarks to the attention of the wartime prices and trade board and see what can be done. I think that is the best answer I can give.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): In the course of the discussion of the trade and commerce estimates yesterday an hon. member is reported at page 5608 of Hansard as having called me a mountebank. I will call him an angel, and both of us will be mistaken.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Canadian government travel bureau-
390. To assist in promoting tourist business in Canada, $650,000.
Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: What coordination is there between the dominion and the provinces in advertising the tourist business? My riding is extremely interested in the tourist trade and the Ontario government is doing a good deal to that end. I should like to know something about the coordination between the two governments
561S
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The tourist branch of the department realizes the importance of the closest cooperation with the various tourist agencies in the provinces and tries to maintain the closest contact with them. As Minister of Trade and Commerce I have called a meeting for Ottawa for the month of October, and all the provincial ministers in charge of the tourist business have responded one hundred per cent. In each case they have stated that they heartily approve our plans for coordination and have assured us that they will be present with their officials.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That seems wise and right. In what has actually been done up to the moment, has there been any consultation with the provinces? Take Ontario, for example. Have there been any conversations with the Ontario department?


James Angus MacKinnon: I understand the
director of this department maintains close contact with similar organizations doing this work not only in Ontario but in the other provinces.


Mr. HANSELL:: This morning I received a letter from the secretary of the Alberta boards cf trade. This organization coordinates the work of all the boards of trade of the province. The letter urged me to press for action in respect to the building of landing strips for tourists coming into the country. I know that this is not directly under the minister's department, but the letter suggested that air strips should be built at such places as Banff and Lake Louise. I do not know whether there would be any place at Lake Louise, because it is mountainous, but the suggestion would apply to Jasper and other parks. A good deal of the tourist traffic in the future will be earned by air. I call this to the attention of the minister because it might be discussed at the future conference. I would ask him to take the matter up with his colleague the Minister of Mines and Resources and canvass the possibilities in that direction, because it deserves consideration.


James Angus MacKinnon: It does deserve the closest attention and support, and I am in close touch with it. I shall be glad to carry out the hon. gentleman's suggestion.


Mr. McLURE:: I would remind the minister that in March last I pointed out to him that in the advertising of the tourist business, so far as maps are concerned, Prince Edward Island appeared to be entirely omitted. He kindly stated that he would give the matter

his attention. I would once more remind him of it and ask him to make a note of this so that our province will not be left out again.


James Angus MacKinnon: The information that I had was that the map in question was not the product of any Canadian department of government or any Canadian institution, but was published by private individuals in the United States. I believe I pointed that out to the hon. member on a former occasion. However, I will make a note of the question.


Mr. FRASER:: The map which the tourist bureau sends to Americans giving information about Canada does not show this country to good advantage. Accompanying the map should be a letter informing the recipients that maps of various sections would be sent to them. I also suggest that w'hen the conference is held the provinces be asked to indicate on their maps the different highways to available camping sites, because many Americans come here in trailers with camp equipment and go hundreds of miles without being able to find a camp.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Foreign trade services-
S61. Trade publicity and advertising in Canada and abroad-further amount required, $16,750.
Mr. MacINNIS:: I have some questions on the order paper respecting the export of lumber. How does the minister's department ascertain whether any company is shipping more than fifty per cent of its lumber? My information respecting one company is that it is shipping practically one hundred per cent of the lumber it produces, and ignores representations made to it by the Department of Trade and Commerce.


James Angus MacKinnon: The operations to which the hon. member has referred are under the direction of the timber controller, in another department of government. However he maintains a close check, and it would be difficult for me to believe that any one company is allowed to ship anything like its total production, or a quantity which would be out of line with the amount shipped by other companies seeking the export field.


Angus MacInnis: That may be so, but I should like to have some factual information on it. As the minister will have observed from my questions on the order paper, this company is also a producer of pulp and paper. All the lumber produced is of first-class quality, the poorer parts going into the pulp and

Supply-Trade and Commerce
paper mill. The people in Vancouver are having great difficulty in obtaining first-class lumber, my information being that the lumber offered for sale is of third or perhaps fourth quality, and that that is all that is left for the smaller dealers. It may be that we have already dealt with the item respecting the timber controller. I suggest however, that this matter should be checked further so that British Columbia builders may have at least a fair share of the lumber produced in that province.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
8G3. Electricity and gas inspection services, including administration of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act-further amount required, $46,720.
Mr. STEPHENSON:: I should like to ask a question respecting the checking of weights and measures. My understanding is that inspectors are appointed to check weights and measures throughout the country, for which they charge a fee. For instance, when a check is made on gasoline pumps a fee is charged for each pump. What is the revenue derived from these fees?


James Angus MacKinnon: This item was passed yesterday but I shall be glad to get the information and let the hon. member have it later to-day.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: If an operator has three or four pumps it costs him S15 or S20 every time an inspector comes around. That inspector can check perhaps eight or ten places each day, and it would seem to me the fees charged would bring in considerable revenue. Yet this department asks for about $1,800,000 for the purpose. Would the revenue not cover the costa in the department?


James Angus MacKinnon: This is a self-supporting service, the fees taking care of the expenses. The revenue goes into the consolidated revenue fund ffbcount.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: These inspectors when checking scales use weights running up to 500 pounds. I have in mind an instance in which scales were checked, but after several years it was found that because of wear in the scales, when a weight passed over them, near the weighing capacity of the scale, the mechanism would lower to the point that it was resting on the foundation. The weights were entirely wrong; yet these people had paid over a number of years for having the scales checked. When inspectors check the scales I suggest they should use a weight equalling the capacity of the scale, if they wish to ascertain whether or not the scale is operating efficiently.
In the instance I have in mind it cost several hundred dollars to have the necessary repairs made, and it was the weighman who found the mistake. This scale would probably weigh a load from ten to twelve tons, but the check would be made with a weight of only 100 or 200 pounds. This does not give a true indication of the weighing capacity of the scale.


James Angus MacKinnon: I shall see that that is brought to the attention of the department.


Ernest George Hansell: When item S61 was called, owing to the fact that we were proceeding rapidty I did not have an opportunity to ask a question I had in mind. I notice that this vote asks for a further amount of $16,750, although we have already passed an item of $459,000 for the same thing. While I do not object to these amounts, I would ask the minister to .tell me w'hat proportion of the money is to be spent on advertising in Canada. I have read carefully some of the advertisements issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce and published in Canadian periodicals, and I must confess that I have never been able to see the sense in advertising our foreign trade to our own people. They are more interested in buying Canadian products than in being fed with propaganda to bolster a foreign trade mania. I can see no other purpose in this advertising than that of trying to influence the minds of the people with the thought that the present Liberal administration is attempting to do the right thing by pursuing this particular policy. It may be the right thing; but I claim there is at least an element of using the taxpayers money to support a particular policy. I am certain if I were to take the time to read one of these advertisements and to question the minister upon it, it would cause him some embarrassment. I am not going to do that, but I would ask what proportion of these amounts, now totalling about $476,000, is spent for advertising in Canada. If the minister cannot give me the information now, I shall be content to receive it later.


James Angus MacKinnon: I will do that.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I take it we are still discussing the main item covering foreign trade services?


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: Item 863.


John Horne Blackmore: That is only one of the items under foreign trade services. Are we not discussing the general item of foreign trade services and then the details under item 863?
Supply-Trade and Commerce


William Henry Golding: This item deals with electricity and gas inspection services.


John Horne Blackmore: There were some matters I desired to discuss under foreign trade in general, and I suppose it will be in order to discuss them now, because we are dealing with the general item of foreign trade services. , I should like to ask a question or two as to what is Canada's ultimate objective with respect to trade, why she wishes to attain that objective, and whether she is giving any consideration to the probable international disharmony which may result from attaining it. I think matters of this kind should be considered for a few minutes, but if you rule against me I shall have to desist.


William Henry Golding: We shall have to deal with the specific item. There was a general discussion on administration, but we are now dealing with a specific item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion bureau of statistics-
86-J. Administration - further amount required, $5,810.
John Bracken: I should like to revert back to item 862. You are proceeding pretty fast; I do not object to that, but when you do I should not like to be denied the right to go back to some of the items that have been passed. Item 862 deals with the wheat and grain division, I should like to ask the minister a question with respect to a matter that was raised yesterday, the meeting in Washington of the preparatory committee of the international wheat council. The minister knows and the committee will remember that we now have a wheat agreement with the United Kingdom for a period of five years. In answer to a question I asked yesterday the minister intimated that an official of his department, Mr. Wilson, was now in Washington attending the preparatory committee of the international wheat council. I asked the miinster if he could tell us anything as to what was going on, and he said that he did not feel that he could. In view of the agreement which has been made with Britain and the discussions now proceeding, in Washington, can the minister not tell us something more about what policies are being advanced by our officials in Washington? Under the United Kingdom agreement this country has arranged to sell two-thirds of its wheat crop for a period of four or five years, and we now have an official in Washington talking with other nations about some other plans for wheat. Will the minister tell us whatever he can as to what is going on and what position our representative is taking before that committee?


James Angus MacKinnon: As I stated to the committee yesterday or the day before, the international wheat conference has been in session on and off for several years, in an effort to bring forward definite recommendations which can be made to the various governments represented at the conference to regulate the supply and price of wheat internationally. The countries represented there are the importing and exporting countries. I think it would be inadvisable at the present time for me to say just what are the bases of the conversations, but the representatives of the various countries are endeavouring to arrive at some international arrangement that can be recommended to the countries they represent.


John Bracken: Can the minister be a little more specific? The government is sending officials to Washington, and they cannot be going without some instructions. Are they just sent there and told to sit down with the other people to talk things over and then come back and tell what they hear? Or are they sent there with some definite instructions or objectives in mind? I do not want- to embarrass the minister, but this is an important matter affecting one of the major sections of the Canadian economy. With parliament in session the government has somebody down there dealing with our whole economy. Some action may be taken and decided upon before this house or the Canadian people even know what is going on. I would like the minister to tell us what he feels he can as to what instructions this official was given when he went to this meeting.


James Angus MacKinnon: The wheat committee of the cabinet are In frequent consultation with the present representative, the ch^rman of the Canadian wheat board, who also attends these meetings, and another official of ours at Washington. The progress of the discussion is reported to us and suggestions are made. It is inadvisable for me to say rnoj-e than I have said. An effort is being made by the representatives of the various nations to reach some conclusion which they can recommend to their respective governments on the matter of international wheat prices. I do not think I can say anything else, and I want the hon. member to understand that I am not trying to hold back anything.


John Bracken: Is it not correct that three or four years ago several countries agreed on a tentative international wheat agreement?

___________ Supply-Trade and Commerce


James Angus MacKinnon: That is the foundation of these present meetings.


John Bracken: An agreement was arrived at which was to be carried out immediately on the termination of the war, but something has happened. Can the minister tell us why there has been delay in proceeding with these plans as originally contemplated?


James Angus MacKinnon: Meetings have been held from time to time and adjourned because of differences of opinion. An effort is being made to bring the countries to a common understanding. The reason for delay is simply the inability to bring the different countries to some common understanding or agreement.


John Bracken: Then your representative is seeking to bring about something like what was proposed in the international wheat agreement of three or four years ago?


James Angus MacKinnon: He has no authority to bind this government, but he has instructions to continue discussions along that line.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Are the government elevators at the head of the lakes still being leased, and if so, to whom, and what is the term of the lease and the amount involved?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yesterday I had one of the members of the board of Grain Commissioners here with me just for the purpose of assisting me in answering such questions, but when the item was passed yesterday this supplementary was overlooked and I think the official went home last night.


George Hugh Castleden: What company is leasing the elevators?


James Angus MacKinnon: We called for tenders some months ago for leasing the elevator, and the only tender we received was from McCabe Brothers.


George Hugh Castleden: They had it before.


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes. The tender was not altogether satisfactory to us, and we negotiated with them and got a little better arrangement. Their tender was the only one, and the elevator is now under lease to McCabe Brothers.


George Hugh Castleden: At what price?


James Angus MacKinnon: I have not that before me, but I shall be glad to get it for my hon. friend.


John Bracken: One other question in regard to the matter I raised a few moments ago with regard to the tentative international wheat agreement which was proposed three or four years ago-five years ago, I am told.
Can the minister now say whether that pro-_ posed agreement had the approval of this ' government, I rather thought it had, but I am not sure-or was it just a proposal that was advanced by officials of different governments?


James Angus MacKinnon: Any reply I make on that is subject to correction, because I am speaking from memory. I do not remember any formal approval by this government of the result of the negotiations referred to. If there is some specific point on which my hon. friend wants information, I shall endeavour to give it to him.


John Bracken: My question is specific. I am asking, did this government approve the proposed international wheat agreement which was arranged in 1942, I think it was, by several governments? The minister said a little while ago that the officials had no power to bind the government, which everybody recognizes. But here was an agreement proposed and talked about as something good for the future, and I am asking whether it had the endorsa-tion or approval of this government. The minister does not need to answer now, but I should like an answer before the house adj ourns.


James Angus MacKinnon: I might as well answer now. I have no recollection of any formal ratification or adoption by this government of any arrangement made by the delegates at the international wheat conference. It is the w'ish of the government, though, that an agreement be reached between the exporting and importing companies that will guarantee the wheat economy of Canada.


John Bracken: Will the minister say whether or not that arrangement had the endorsement of this government?


James Angus MacKinnon: I have just answered that.


John Bracken: No, the minister said that he had no recollection of it.


James Angus MacKinnon: I am not trying to split hairs or avoid answering. I am telling the hon. member the exact truth. I have no recollection of that having been done. I do not think there was any formal acceptance by this government of any international wheat agreement or of the recommendations that were made, but I do not want to be too positive about it.


John Bracken: Is not that question capable of a definite answer? Can the minister not look back over his records and then state

Supply-Trade and Commerce

definitely whether the agreement proposed wa3 approved by the government or not? He has told us that he is speaking from memory, but surely he can ascertain definitely whether the agreement was approved by this government or not. I do not want to embarrass the minister, but I should like to have an answer later.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion bureau of statistics-
865.	Statistics - further amount required, 1196,718.
Mr. BURTON:: This further amount of S1E6,71S is in addition to the main vote we passed last night of 82,090,670 for statistics for 1946-47. Why does the minister find it necessary to ask for this further amount in ad*-dition to the large vote we passed for statistics last night, and which in itself was an increase of $4S2,070 over the previous year? Why was not this 8196,718 included in the main estimates tabled some months ago?


James Angus MacKinnon: The main estimates were prepared towards the end of October last, many months ago. The increase is largely accounted for by an item of $129,488 which the bureau of statistics requires for the preparation of an index of deaths as of January 1, 1925 to date and continuing.


Joseph William Burton: Did the minister not know last fall that this work was required to be done?


James Angus MacKinnon: No, the Department of Health and Welfare came to us comparatively recently and told us that they have found it necessary to have this index of deaths for checking purposes in connection with the family allowance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion bureau of statistics-
866.	Census of population-further amount required, $86,680.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I notice that SS6.6S0 is the further amount required in addition to the SI,2.19,685 that we passed in item 382 in the main estimates for a census of population, making a total of $1,306,365. Is a census to be taken of the population this year?


James Angus MacKinnon: The quinquennial
census for the three western provinces is under way now. That census has to be taken in accordance with the agreement made when these provinces were formed.


Mr. LENNARD:: Is this amount and the amount voted last year in connection with the census all required for the census in the three western provinces?


James Angus MacKinnon: That is correct.


Frank Exton Lennard: It is not for any other part of Canada?


James Angus MacKinnon: No, just the three western provinces.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: Last April I asked the names and addresses of the census commissioners in the three prairie provinces, which information I received. I asked also which of these are veterans of the first and second world wars. That question was not answered, but a note was added that the information was obtainable. I think I brought the matter to the minister's attention once since then. Has he the information now?


James Angus MacKinnon: I directed the officials of the bureau of statistics in charge of this census by circular letter to the census commissioners to obtain this information. The following memo was given to me. It is not a direct answer to the question, but I will give it as I have received it from the officials of the department.
The census commissioners must be carefully selected because of the importance of the work in their charge. Special qualifications are required. If the commissioners are well known and have numerous contacts, it facilitates the carrying out of the census, as people object to giving some information to enumerators. The right kind of commissioner can smooth out such difficulties. In consequence most of our commissioners appointed for the western census are men of quite mature years. There are fifty-six in all, thirty-three of whom are over fifty years of age, and eight between forty and fifty. A considerable number have been commissioners in previous censuses. Eleven of these men have had overseas service, seven of them in the first world war and four in the last. In addition, four served in Canada. Four were physically unfit and unable to take part in the war activities.


Mr. REID:: May I ask whether, when the census takes place in 1950, the western provinces will be again included, or will the census taken for this year stand until 1956?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes; the three western provinces will be included in the next dominion census. This special census is taken for a variety of reasons. The main one, I think, is that upon it is based the amount of money given to each of these three provinces by the dominion government in lieu of other considerations.

Supply-Trade and. Commerce


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: How are these census commissioners appointed? Is it through the civil service commission, or a matter of direct appointment by the department?


James Angus MacKinnon: These men are not appointed by the civil service commission. They are appointed by the department, or really by the minister in charge.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Is it the policy of the department in appointments of this type to give preference to veterans of the first or the second world war? I imagine that that would be the policy, but apparently in this case it was not, because it was not even known in the first place when I asked this question which of them were veterans and which were not, so apparently there was no thought of giving any preference to veterans. I have further proof of that by checking up from the local branch of the Canadian Legion at Dauphin, asking them if they had been consulted on this appointment in the Dauphin district. Their reply, dated June 17 and signed by the secretary of the branch, is that they had not been consulted in any way in the appointment of the census commissioner for that district. I do not want to kick up too much of a dust about it at this time,, because the thing is over; the census has been taken; it is a dead horse. But I do wish to lodge a protest. Here is one case in which the local branches should have been consulted and I think could have recommended to the minister suitable men who were veterans. To my knowledge there are men in the Dauphin district who could have served very well in that position. But the legion was not consulted, and in looking over the list I received in answer to question No.
1 I am inclined to suspect-I would not make this as a categorical statement-that the appointments seem to follow more or less of a patronage trend. The minister can say whether that is so or not.


Gordon Graydon: That would be an accident !


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: He said a moment ago that appointments are made of men who have "wide contacts" within the district. I must say that in Winnipeg North, for example, the gentleman who was appointed happened to be the defeated Liberal candidate-who, I imagine has fairly good contacts.


James Angus MacKinnon: I imagine he would have.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Although experience
showed, as an hon. friend suggests, that his contacts were not sufficient.


Gordon Graydon: He didn't make the best use of what he did contact.


Angus MacInnis: He just didn't have enough.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I find other instances of defeated candidates of the. Liberal party or other good wheel-horses who did very good work for the Liberal candidate. I do not want to mention any names, but that has happened close to my own district. I want to tell the minister, while I have the opportunity, for his own information that there is a considerable amount of resentment amongst veterans who feel that they should have been consulted and should have had an opportunity of recommending men for these positions, because the men are available, men who served in the first great war and in the second great war, who could have done that job just as well, and to whom, I believe, the preference to which they were entitled should have been extended.


Joseph William Burton: I would like to support what the hon. member has said, in the line of reasoning with the minister-and we believe he is a man one can reason with-that it does not tend to the credit of the government to have that sort of thing going on. While some of these men have done good work and carried out their job properly, the fact of the matter is that the way they were appointed leaves that stigma.
A moment ago, when the minister was replying to a question of the hon. member for New Westminster he explained that the five year censuses in the prairie provinces are necessary in order to determine payments of subsidies due to those provinces. I should like to follow that up a little farther.


An hon. MEMBER:: Don't go too far.


Joseph William Burton: Never mind; that is what we are here for, to go on to the proper conclusion, to get the proper answers.


An hon. MEMBER:: No; he is here to go home.


Joseph William Burton: It is quite proper to go
home when the work is done. I should like the minister to give the information, if it is available, as to just what benefit this has been in past years to these provinces or to the dominion government. I can understand that in the beginning, when the provinces were first organized and tremendous increases of population were taking place for a few years, these censuses were necessary. But is it worth while, now, after this period of time, to have a census every five years, and what action does the government take in respect to increases
Supply[DOT]-Trade and Commerce

or decreases in population in that period? For instance, if we have a redistribution bill passed at the next session-and it might have been passed this session-it would not take into consideration any decided increase that we might have in Saskatchewan, but would still use the 1940 census as the basis, with the result that so far as the redistribution is concerned the census would not amount to anything to any of the three western provinces.
I should like to know from the minister if the census at the present time every five years is worth while, or should steps be taken to make some arrangement with the provinces which we can get on the ordinary basis. I am not suggesting that we should; but I should like to know just what advantage has accrued to the provinces or to the dominion by having these censuses. .


James Angus MacKinnon: The taking of this census is a statutory requirement. I am told that in 1936 there was a suggestion that this quinquennial census be dropped. But it was retained, not only because it is a statutory obligation but because of the strong demands from the three western provinces for its continuance. Redistribution is based on the ten year census, not on the quinquennial.


Joseph William Burton: I am not saying it should be done away with, but I should like to know what the three prairie provinces have gained from the quinquennial census.


James Angus MacKinnon: I have not the figures in front of me; I can get them for my hon. friend.


George Hugh Castleden: I have been informed that the census commissioner for Yorkton is the president of the Liberal association. Does the minister know whether that is true or not?


James Angus MacKinnon: I do not know whether it is true, but quite possibly it is true.


George Hugh Castleden: Thank you very much.


James Angus MacKinnon: I can tell the hon. member that I listened carefully to the representations made by the hon. member for Dauphin, but in spite of that I have not had one single criticism from my province or from any other part of Canada as to the manner in which the census commissioners have carried on their work.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Since the minister has made that remark I want to make it clear that I am not complaining about the manner in which they are doing their work. I imagine that they do their work efficiently. I was complaining about the manner in which they were being appointed, because it smacks of political patronage, and I object to that.
 *
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions-Eastern local services-
870. Grand Manan and the mainland, service between-further amount required, $52,000.
Halifax, Canso and Guysboro, service between -further amount required, $16,000.
Owen Sound and ports on Manitoulin island and Georgian bay, service between-further amount required, $30,000.
Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, service between-further amount required, $45,000.
Saint John, Westport and Yarmouth and other way ports, service between-further amount required, $7,000.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: There is an amount in this item for the Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia service on the Wood islands route, where there are two steamers.


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The Prince Nova and the Charles A. Dunning; this service given by the Northumberland ferries is the very best service that we have with the mainland. They are giving a service to-day which is beneficial to the farmers, because their rates on automobiles and trucks with freight are common sense rates and not an overcharge in any way to be compared with those in effect on the Borden-Tormentine ferries. The rate is hardly more than one-third of that which is charged on the Canadian National Railway on the Borden-Tormentine ferry. Is that the limit that the minister is going to give to the Northumberland ferries for that excellent service. I suppose they have made representations to him. If they are satisfied with it I am glad to see it in the estimates this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to. '

[Stage Direction]
Customs and excise divisions-
247. General administration, $1,040,595.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will the minister tell us why there is an increase this year.


Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue):: This appropriation covers the general administration of the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Special War Revenue Act and amendments, the Civil Service Act, 1918, with amendments, the Civil Service Superannuation Act of 1924 and the regulations established thereunder. This involves the responsibility for the collection of customs and excise revenue and the authority for legislative expenditures and repayments. The main addition in the expenditures is due to increased personnel and the increase of S3S.720 in salaries. The cost of living bonus

Supply-Revenue
has increased by S3,200, and printing and stationery by $2,500. The total is $44,420, which brings the appropriation up to $1,040,595.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister did not mention the one item which brings the increase up, namely, the short wave station.


James Joseph McCann: That has nothing to do with this item. We shall come to that. The administration of the Canadian Broadcasting Act is not under the national revenue department; it comes under the Minister of National Revenue personally, and further items are provided for it. It will be time to discuss it when we reach that item.


Mr. IRVINE:: Will it be possible to reconsider the imposing of taxes on community groups which are organized for the chief purpose of developing the musical abilities of the individual boys and girls and young people in a community? I have particular reference to a group known as the Alcan Follies. The primary object of this group is not to provide entertainment but to educate boys and girls. To this end they have spent a good deal of their money to form their organization and get their instruments, music and so forth. We are at a loss to know why music festivals should not be taxed-and I do not think they should be'-whereas organizations of this kind are. Will the minister promise to give reconsideration to this point? I have already discussed it with him privately, and I should like him to express an opinion on the matter.


James Joseph McCann: The matter as it stands is that where an amusement of the type referred to is entirely for charitable purposes the amusement tax is not collected; but where part of the benefits accrue to an individual or to a group of individuals, the amusement tax is applied. Where they are strictly charitable and for purposes'that have been indicated by the hon. member, and where the money which is received does not accrue either to an individual or to a group of individuals, the tax is not collected. Further consideration might be given to what the hon. member suggests.
Mr. MACDOXXELI, (Muskoka-Ontario): Has any progress been made in the enterprise which the Minister of Finance outlined to us last autumn when he said there was to be a review of the whole machinery of taxation? He spoke strongly about it at the time. The minister will agree that there is a widespread feeling throughout the country that that should be done. I wish he would tell us just what progress is being made.


James Joseph McCann: I presume the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario is referring more particularly to the income tax.
Mr. MAODONNELiL (Muskoka-Ontario): More particularly, yes.


James Joseph McCann: I suggest that we delay that discussion until the taxation division is under review. We are now dealing with customs and excise.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I should like to get some information on a question I brought up under other departments. Probably I can get it in this department. In the exporting of goods to the United States, to what are called the free port zones, the customs department in Charlottetown last year did not seem to have any information whatever as to how to proceed with shipments. I recall one case in which a man came into the province with the intention of exporting a considerable quantity of goods. He was buying and exporting goods to the free port zone in New York, and the customs officer at Charlottetown, properly so, took the matter up on this man's behalf with Ottawa, but it took a whole day before the exporter could get his papers through. What I am coming at is this. The department should provide these customs officers with all the necessary information for shipments of that kind. I realize that such shipments are new; that is, shipping dutiable goods into a country and placing them in the so-called free port zones. They do not pay the duty until the article is sold. I would ask the minister to give instructions to our customs agents and other men in similar positions so that too much trouble will not be caused the exporter. The department has a customs officer in Charlottetown who cannot be surpassed for service to the people. I believe he extracts every cent of duty it is possible to get on an article but he takes it by the painless method. I do not believe there is any man in the customs department in any province who is held in higher esteem than Mr. Goodwin, and I am glad to say this on his behalf, because he did excellent work on the occasion I speak of. He used the telephone and telegraph, he got in touch with New York and Ottawa, and as I say, it took a day for the man to get his papers completed.


James Joseph McCann: What sort of commodity
was he dealing in?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Furs. They were dutiable and were going into the free zone.
Supply-Revenue


James Joseph McCann: The free zone would not make so much difference. Our department acts as agent for trade and commerce, and if the shipper had the proper export permit there would be no delay on our part. I am glad to hear the commendation of the officer at Charlottetown, and I may say that similar comments come from one end of the country to the other with regard to the service of all the officers.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The express company should know that the article is dutiable and that the ordinary export entry is not sufficient. If they knew this they would not carry the article. I suggest that instructions be given the officer down there when he issues the export permit so as to have it acceptable to the express company or whatever transport company it may be.


James Joseph McCann: We will canvass the situation and see if it can be clarified.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs and excise divisions-
250 Ports, outports and preventive stations, including pay for overtime of officers notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act and temporary buildings and rentals, 5J>o,ou4,oJo.
Mr. McKAY:: Is it the policy of the government now to reopen some of the ports of entry from the United States which were closed during the. depression years? Conditions have changed since that time, and the reopening of these ports would not only facilitate tourist traffic coming into Canada but would in the long run be a good thing for our economy, because it would make it easier for our own people to move back and forth between this country and the. United States and it would provide a certain number of veterans with employment, because at many of these ports of entry we have veterans who are doing an excellent job. I have in mind a certain port of entry in Saskatchewan which I know very well and which was closed. It is south of Weyburn at a place called Beaubier, which was closed in the depression years. There is a considerable demand that that port be reopened so as to facilitate traffic between the United States and Canada. The minister will no doubt say that when the traffic justifies the reopening of the port it will be reopened, but I would point out that there is no way of gauging what the traffic is, because many of these people go to other ports of entry and have to go many miles out of their way in order to move back and forth. Has there been any change of policy in relation to these ports?


James Joseph McCann: It is not contemplated that there will be any change in the policy with reference to the opening of ports that have been closed. As a result of an investigation by a royal commission some years ago the recommendation was made that many of these smaller ports be closed with a view to improving the appraisal system. We have found that sufficient service is being given all along the border line, and that service is improved because of the fact that we are able to get men who are: better fitted to make, the appraisal. It has been a matter of economy, without diminishing the service, rendered the country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs and Excise divisions-
251.	To provide for payment of expenses, law costs, refunds and awards arising out of seizures and charges of contravention of customs or excise laws, $300,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Are bequests made by
American citizens by will to Canadian beneficiaries duty free and tax free?


James Joseph McCann: There is a tariff item which covers that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Taxation division-
252.	General administration, including authority to create positions and make appointments within the division, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act and the said positions and staff so appointed are hereby wholly excluded from the operation of the said act, $955,695.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: In the budget speech last autumn the Minister of Finance said he realized there was a great deal of questioning in the country not only as to the taxation law, not only as to the amount of taxation fixed, but. as to the procedure, the machinery of collection. He said at that time, if I remember correctly, that he was proposing to see that a full inquiry and review into the whole situation was made. I am not so sure he referred to it specifically in his last speech, but I believe there: was a reference there, and I should like to know what has been done and is being done. Anyone will agree it is a matter of common knowledge that people throughout Canada are greatly troubled about the various aspects of the machinery and procedure, and have been longing for simplifications.


James Joseph McCann: I believe I can assure the hon. member that the matter is well in hand. The Minister of Finance in his budget speech said, I believe, that a departmental committee had been set up, and that the legislation is

Supply-Revenue-Taxation
now under review. The matter of administration was canvassed by a committee which worked on it for some time and presented a report which I tabled in the house at the last session, early in December. That had to do with the establishment of adidtional district offices in Canada. It is proposed almost to double the number of offices at present in operation. In adition to the main office in Ottawa we have nineteen regional offices, and it is proposed to add thirteen, bringing the total to thirty-three. Because of the scarcity of materials for construction we are having some difficulty in getting available accommodation in towns and cities in which we intend to open these additional offices. The Department of Public Works has had difficulty in doing any building. It rs equally difficult to lease premises. Then there is the matter of personnel. It is difficult to get a sufficient number of people with training as auditors or assessors or in other skills necessary in connection with income tax and succession duties. However this whole matter is under review, and progress is being made toward the objective we have in mind, "that of giving better service to the public.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister's statement seems both satisfactory and unsatisfactory. As to having more local offices and extending facilities, I should think that would be a wise procedure. I had not expressed any opinion on that, but it sounds reasonable. What I wish still to know is this. Is there any basic revision-and this is what the Minister of Finance suggested last autumn-or is the department just ironing out little inequalities which might occur here and there? My impression is that the last time this matter was considered, and when it was discussed in the press, the view was that it went very deep. It was not simply a matter of adding a few offices here and there, but rather one of going to the very root of our taxation procedure. Probably that is difficult at the present time, owing to changing conditions. But has there been a basic study, not of this or that detail in connection with offices or personnel, but of the whole taxation structure? I am not referring only to a routine review, because I know it is always being subjected to that. I want to know whether a basic review is being made, because nothing less than that was contemplated in the minister's remarks last October.


James Joseph McCann: I think if the hon. member will review what was said by the Minister of Finance he will see that the basic review has to do with the legislative side of the matter. That is being studied. What I referred to
more practicularly, and what I know more about, is the administration end of it. Progress is being made along that line. It is being studied from the legislative point of view, and ultimately will be reviewed.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister said he was going to open new offices; I hope one of them will be at Peterborough, because we certainly need one. While I am on my feet I should like to ask about inspection of income tax. The department sends inspectors to different offices. I have in mind an instance in which two inspectors went into an office while the man in charge was busy. They said, "We would like to see your books." He said, "I am busy, but you are welcome to them. Come into my inner office and I shall get them for you." He seated them at a desk, got his books, placed them on the desk and said, "Gentlemen, if there is anything further, just call me and I shall come out and check it with you." He was busy for some time, and upon returning to the office discovered that the inspectors had gone. They had gone through his books- and had also gone through his desk and taken a few odds and ends out of it, without his knowledge. I do not think that is proper procedure.


James Joseph McCann: I agree with the hon. member, one hundred per cent. That was malfeasance of office, and will not be condoned.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am glad to hear that, because I did not think the minister would stand for it.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I was pleased to hear that the minister is considering the opening of more regional offices. Last winter I had occasion to meet a number of farmers in my constituency who were going to the regional office in Saskatoon. They had to travel three hundred miles, and it took them four days. If there were more regional offices I believe the department would get more funds and the farmers would get more satisfaction. I met these men when they were returning from Saskatoon, and they felt that they had received satisfaction from having travelled to that office. Some of the difficulties which had been troubling them were ironed out. They did not hare to pay as much as they thought they would have to pay. When the minister is considering these new regional offices I hope he will put one in North Battleford. If he needs any help in securing a building, I shall be glad to cooperate with him.


Frank Exton Lennard: I do not believe the setting up of more regional offices will remedy the situation. I do hope that the new legisla-
Supply-Revenue-Taxation

tion being considered in connection with the collection of income tax will put that collection on a businesslike basis. There is nothing more inadequate than the present method of collecting income tax. It would be against the law for any private business to penalize a person for not paying a bill which had been rendered. In my opinion a taxpayer should submit what he considers is an honest return on his income during a certain year, and the government in turn should render a bill, and until such time as the government has rendered the bill, there should be no penalty. A private concern could not do it, and it is ridiculous for the government to impose a penalty in connection with income tax returns that are not made out correctly, probably through no fault of the persons concerned. This is especially so when the department itself is two or three years behind in checking returns. -


James Joseph McCann: There is no law that requires anyone to send a bill.


Frank Exton Lennard: You know what I mean.


James Joseph McCann: A notice of assessment is not a bill, it is statutory; it must be in by April 30 of the succeeding year for which a return is made. In essence that is the bill. The man makes out his own bill, which is examined and corrected and then the assessment notice is sent out.


Frank Exton Lennard: Does the minister consider it right that a man should be penalized when the department is three years behind?


James Joseph McCann: As a matter of equity any man who owes money to the crown for three years should not have the use of that money without paying for it.


Frank Exton Lennard: Yes, but he is not aware that he owes the money to the crown until three years after he is supposed to have paid it.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Has there been any improvement in the checking of income tax returns in order that a person may know before four or five years whether the return is correct or not? Perhaps there was some excuse duing the war for this delay, but in peace time the returns should be along before four or five years. As the hon. member for Wentworth has said, a man does not know whether his return is correct or not. Then when he is advised that there is an error and he owes the government so much money, he is charged interest and then on top of that a penalty is imposed. One case was brought to my attention in which a man was advised after three or four years that he owed money and that they would garnishee his wages if it was not

paid. He was able to show a marked cheque with which he had paid his income tax when it became due.


James Joseph McCann: The income tax officials are not infallible. You can pick out isolated cases in any business where errors occur. The matter of assessing is being much improved, but we cannot make the transition in the administration from war time to peace time as quickly as some people would like or as we would like. During the war years it was hard to get the proper type of official for the department, and as a result of that, and with the great increase in the number of returns during those years, there could not be anything but delay in making the assessments. We are on the road to bringing conditions back in conformity with normal business methods, and within a short time I think the public will see a considerable improvement.
There are some district offices in which the assessments are almost up to date for the preceding year. In the Ottawa office the assessments for 1944 are ninety-eight to ninety-nine per cent up to date, which is a good record. The 1945 return does not come in until the end of April, 1946; you have to have a period after that, and of necessity assessments are at least one year after the returns are made.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Does the minister think it fair that a man making a return which is correct to the best of his knowledge should have it sent back after a number of years with the statement that it is not correct and that he must pay a penalty? I cannot see any justice in that.


Frank Exton Lennard: A few moments ago the minister answered me by saying that a person who owed the crown money should pay reasonable interest. I agree with him, but I support the hon. member for Durham who contends that he should not be penalized on top of having to pay the interest.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister may be correct in saying that legally a man who owes should pay interest; if he has calculated wrongly I suppose it is presumed to be his own fault and he should pay. However, the crown is not following its policy of extremely low interest rates, and I agree with hon. members who have spoken that if you charge a good round rate of interest, that ought to be enough.


Eric Bowness McKay: Has consideration been given to increasing the exemption, if I may put it that way, allowed for a farmer's wife? I do not particularly like the word "exemption," but I

Supply-R evenue-Taxation
will have to use it. I know this matter comes under another department, but the administration is under the minister.


William Henry Golding: That would be under the Department of Finance.


Eric Bowness McKay: Administration would be
under this department.


William Henry Golding: That does not come under National Revenue.


James Joseph McCann: As every one knows, the Department of National Revenue is entirely administrative. No matter what the rules or regulations are, we try to carry them out. If the hon. member wishes to have something changed, he should take it up with the Minister of Finance.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: The minister did not answer my question. I asked him if he thought it fair that people should be penalized. Perhaps the Minister of Justice could give an opinion.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: As I understand it, there is no penalty. There is a statutory rate of interest charged up to thirty days after the notice of assessment is delivered to the taxpayer. It is only if he fails to pay within thirty days from the notice that there is an increase in the rate of interest. That increase is the only penalty I know of, unless there has been failure to comply with the requirements of the law in respect to the production of returns. As I understand it, the income tax is due on a certain date. A large number of the ratepayers are fortunate enough to be able to make out their returns in a manner that is not very much varied by the assessors when they go over the returns. Others, some no doubt in good faith and perhaps some who are not sure of their ground:, take the benefit of the doubt in their own favour in making up the statement of what they should pay. If it is found that they have made it up at too low an amount, there is a rate of interest charged to them from the due date to the thirtieth day after the delivery of the notice of assessment. That is supposed to be a rate of interest charged for their having had in the meantime the use of the money.


Frank Exton Lennard: Eight per cent.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is four per cent up to thirty days after the taxpayer receives his notice of assessment. Then, if the amount shown in the assessment is not paid within the thirty days, the rate goes up to seven per cent. I do not know of any penalty other
than that additional two per cent which is the extra rate for not paying within the thirty days.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: I have not a tax form with me, but I know I had to pay a penalty which was pretty near as much as the amount of the interest. I had no notification for three or four years after I made my return that it was not correct.


Mr. COYLE:: What interest is due the man who has overpaid his tax three or four years ago?


James Joseph McCann: It is a long established rule and custom that the crown does not pay any interest.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Taxation division-
254. District offices, $11,594,826.
Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Does the refundable
portion of the compulsory savings come under this item?


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Is it the intention to start paying back the refundable portion in the near future, and if so when?


James Joseph McCann: According to the law, the refund on 1942 tax must be paid by the end of March, 1948. That could be changed by order in council, but it has not been changed yet.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I had an experience with a case that was sent to me this year which I think I should mention. I finally took it up with the deputy minister. This man had not made any returns for about a year and a half; he neglected all the notices that were sent to him, and finally received notice that drastic measures were threatened. He got excited about that and started to write to the members of parliament in his district, including myself. I appeared before the deputy minister of taxation, told him of all the good qualities of this man that I knew of, and presented his case in a sympathetic way. The deputy minister then said, "Well now, let me tell you all the headaches this man has given me and my department and all the costs in connection with it." I listened to that, and it was all true. But let me tell the committee how the department treated that man afterwards. The deputy minister said, "You have heard both sides of the case. What would you say should be done? Whatever you say we will do if it is fair." I must say on behalf of the deputy minister of taxation, with whom I was dealing, that he settled that case very satisfactorily to that
Supply-Revenue-Taxation

man. That is the other side which I think should be told when we hear these complaints.


Frank Exton Lennard: The minister said that the Ottawa regional office is pretty well caught up, which I was pleased to hear. Can he say what other regional offices in Canada are in. the same position?


James Joseph McCann: I cannot give the figures, because they vary with the regional offices. The reason I mentioned the Ottawa office is that I am one of its customers myself, and when I happened to be in there the inspector proudly pointed out to me what the position was with respect to assessments in that office. Keeping up with the assessments is contingent, of course, upon obtaining suitable personnel and proper accommodation. Some of the offices are terribly overcrowded, and others are undermanned. It is hard to get the proper personnel for this kind of work. However, conditions generally with regard to assessments are improving.


Frank Exton Lennard: Would the minister
make a note of the question now so that he will have the information when the estimates come up next year?


Eric Bowness McKay: The 1945 income tax form was supposed to be in simplified form. Is the same form to be used for 1946?


James Joseph McCann: The form will be substantially the same, but every year the form has to be amended to conform with the amendments in the law. The 1946 form will contain the new table of rates.


Eric Bowness McKay: There will not be any radical change in the form?.


James Joseph McCann: We do not expect any radical change.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: In Toronto what wre need more than anything else is more space for the income tax office. The staff is very efficient, but you just cannot pile more and more people into a crowded office and expect results. The business of the office will be conducted far more efficiently if more space is provided for the people who have to work there. They are very much overcrowded. I compliment this staff on the work they are doing under such conditions. They are doing a real good job. The deputy knows the situation in Toronto, and I would ask the minister to take this matter under his wing and see if we cannot get more office space. Then wTe should need fewer people, they would all be happier, and a far better job would be done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

General-
256. Government office economies control division-administration, $10,910.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: This is a very important item, and I would like to hear the minister say something about it. I would like to know the scope of this new office and what has been the experience of the men in it. What have they been able to do in the important matter they have to deal with?


James Joseph McCann: The	government office
economies control was established in 1942 to examine and review' all requisitions in the public service for printing, stationery, office equipment and furniture before purchases are made, and in general to apply the terms and regulations embodied in P.C. 4428 and amendments thereto. Administration is centred in the director, whose duty it is to determine the necessity for the articles requisitioned as also the quantity involved. While records are maintained showing the number of requisitions dealt with and estimated saving in each instance as a result of revision, any attempt to show by figures the economies effected in monetary value would not give the full amount, as no indication could be given of recurrent savings. In addition to screening requisitions received each day a careful review has been made of over 12,000 printed forms in use in the departments of the public service, and through substitution, lower grade quality of papers, standard size cut of forms, considerable initial and recurrent savings have been effected. All free mailing lists in the departments of government have been curtailed to a minimum. Standardization of qualities of paper in public printing and re-use of envelopes many times over have been effected, as well as reduction in qualities of binding of periodicals, publications, and so forth.
Careful review is made of all requisitions for publications, journals and other printed periodicals required for use of departments, and approval is confined to periodicals and scientific journals of use only to departments and libraries of government.
The teletype system in the Department of Reconstruction and Supply has been extended to all departments of government through the efforts of the division, and is widely used by numerous departments, with an annual estimated saving of approximately $80,000 on telegraphic accounts alone. The amount of savings resultant by elimination of long distance phone calls cannot be computated.
Periodic inspection is made of all government stores at Ottawa to ensure that stock

Supply-Revenue-Taxation
is properly shelved and kept in clean and good condition. Inspection is also made of duplicating sections of departments of government and examination made of qualities of papers used on duplicating machines; furtherance of single space and narrow margin on copy and elimination of waste of paper and inks, et cetera, maintained.
Careful scrutiny is given to requisitions for office machines and a number of transfers have been effected where machines are known to be surplus in any department.
A general tie-in has been made with this division acting as liaison between departments of government and War Assets Corporation for all office equipment declared surplus.
Considerable study has been given by the director to the advisability of having dormant records microfilmed so as to save the purchase of filing cabinets and space entailed in the filing and storage of dormant and semidormant files, and all departments have been advised accordingly. Several departments have adopted this process, and from information and records gathered it is believed that many other departments will follow.
I can give the duties of the director.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. That is enough, thanks.


James Joseph McCann: I can give the hon. member some indication of the savings we have made.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I thank the minister, and I realize that I was wrong in my conception of the scope of the duty of this department. It is very much narrower than I realized. Perhaps I should have known that before. But it leads me to ask this question. At the time of the budget speech we on this side ventured to make some suggestions as to economy which the Minister of Finance, with unusual acerbity, said were very puny. The only thing I can say is that considering the actual economies which have been made they were like comparing a mountain with a mouse. I want to be realistic, and if possible even fair, and I know that reducing expenditures at this time is not easy. I know also that when you have a civil service of 150,000 it is difficult to know just where to begin, and I am equally convinced that unless there is somebody in a senior position who has the duty and the responsibility and the power, we need not expect any adequate reductions. I think we can also take it that when you have 150.000 people working, not all of them are working efficiently.
We all have the very greatest respect for a very large number of civil servants in all ranks. Nevertheless, I think I am correct in
believing-though I hope I am wrong, and that the minister will tell me if I am-there is no person with power and authority and responsibility to deal with the larger matters where millions and tens of millions of dollars are involved, and to come to a conclusion with an independent outside view whether this, that or the other department has enough people or too many. That should not be left to persons inside the department, or to an overworked finance department if it is in the authority of the Department of Finance. It seems to me, as I ventured to say once before, that we are in much the position the navy would be in if you put up a lot of admirals to try to reduce the navy: you would not get very far. You do not take admirals, you take somebody else. Economy, though the word is a tiresome one, is important. It is a pity there are so few people here to-day to consider this matter. In the small scope which the minister has described it sounds as if a fair job is being done. But I may interject this, that when the question of furniture came up under the Department of Public Works, the Minister of Public Works did not leave us with the impression that it had been dealt with necessarily in the most efficient manner. There were doubts left, even doubts expressed on the other side of the house.
I would put forward one point which I think is very important: have we any authority with independence and power to look in a detached way at these expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars?


James Joseph McCann: As the hon. member
realizes, when this division was set up it was for a specific purpose. As I have said, it was to review requisitions for printing, stationery, office equipment and furniture. Of course the biggest item of furniture that we have to deal with is filing cabinets.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am satisfied with the answer the minister made as to the scope of this authority. I do not want to press that further. I want to know if the broader situation is dealt with.


James Joseph McCann: I do not know that I can answer that question. I do know that it has been given considerable study. I understand what the hon. member has in mind is someone in the capacity, say, of an overall purchasing agent, to see if the purchases of the various departments cannot be interrelated and coordinated.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is something far beyond the matter of

Supply-Short Wave Broadcasting
purchase; it is the whole set-up of the business of the Dominion of Canada with 150,000 people carrying it on. It is a tremendous operation, where right scrutiny and decision might result in savings, not of a few hundred thousands, but of tens and tens of millions. That is what we are considering, and I am sure we should all have it deeply at heart. If not, we certainly do not express the views of the ordinary citizen of Canada in this matter, because they have it in mind in no uncertain way.


James Joseph McCann: I might say that the government has, too.
Mr. MACDOXNEI.L (Muskoka-Ontario): So far as I am concerned, the answer which the minister has given indicates that nothing adequate is being done to deal with the question of economies in a broad way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation shortwave station-
257. Maintenance and operation, $.1,232,700.
Ernest George Hansell: This, I understand, is an item for the operation of the short-wave station at Sackville. I am not opposing the item, because I think the short-wave station is an asset to Canada. But this vote with No. 258 and another supplementary item, amounts to approximately $1,500,000. One and a half million dollars is a lot of money to provide in one year for the operation of a short-wave broadcasting station from which we get no commercial return, or very little, and I should like to know whether this is to become an annual expenditure. I do not know anything about the technical end of radio, but it seems to me that $1,500,000 is a lot of money for maintenance and operation of a short-wave station for one year.


James Joseph McCann: I agree that a million and a half dollars is a lot of money for the administration of a short-wave station. I am afraid that it is going to continue to cost a lot of money from year to year. It was the general opinion of the house, and the matter was brought before the radio committee of 1942 and of previous years, that a short-wave station should be established. That was done. The capital expenditure was enormous. The position of the C.B.C. with reference to it is that they carry it on. The expenses are voted and will continue to be voted yearly by parliament for that purpose.
I can give the hon. gentleman something of a breakdown of the service and what it costs. The items of expenditures are as follows: Performers-these are the people who broadcast and make up the programmes, $475,000; sal-

aries, $335,000. We pay $40,000 a year for a news service. That goes to the news agencies of Canada. Publicity costs us $25,000. We pay $12,000 a year for transmission lines. General operating overhead is $124,000. Rental of facilities in connection with that costs us $35,000. Power costs us $30,000 a year; tubes and maintenance, $31,000. Crescent street Sackville line, $42,000 a year. We have made improvements to the properties that we have leased, for which we pay rentals of $25,000. Supervision charges cost us $58,000. That makes up the total of $1,232,700. The capital expenditure for this year is $75,000. It was estimated that for improvements to grounds, dikes, roads, new structures, technical plant and antennae, an amount of $125,000 will be required. Fifty thousand dollars was voted for the fiscal year 1945-46, but has not yet been expended because it was not possible to find materials and contractors to undertake the various jobs. This $50,000 is included in the supplementary vote for 1946-47. The major item in the new capital cost is 21 megacycle antenna, costing some $55,000, which will be required owing to conditions which are the result of sun spots.
I might perhaps give a little information which would be of some benefit to the committee. At the present time the international service schedule approximates a peacetime pattern and broadcasts forty-seven hours a week to Europe, an hour a day to the West Indies. Then there is a test transmission of one and a half hours per week to Latin America. In the European service twelve hours a week are devoted to programmes provided for the Canadian forces who are still overseas. This particular service will terminate this fall. The rest of the forty-seven hours is made up of daily programmes to the United Kingdom, France, Czechoslovakia and Germany.
The European service is being extended to include programmes to Norway, Sweden, Denmark Belgium and Russia. Plans also call for a daily service to Latin America, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. This proposed service will total 121^ broadcast hours per week. Because of the vastly greater audiences obtainable, the C.B.C. international service is making every effort to develop a relay system of broadcasting. A weekly programme from Canada has been relayed over one of the biggest stations in Rio de Janeiro since February. Other Canadian programmes have also been broadcast over local stations in that city. This fall a regular half hour programme to France will be inaugurated and will be carried on that country's national network. The B.B.C. are showing increasing

Supply-Short Wave Broadcasting
interest in Canadian programmes, and several regular series of relays have been arranged and are under discussion. Our West Indies programmes have been rebroadcast widely throughout the Caribbean.
The international service will concentrate on those countries in which Canada is particularly interested. While the programme budget will not permit of many expensive feature programmes, the C.B.C. believes that by exercising ingenuity and imagination, and with the help of the domestic service of the C.B.C., the funds requested will make possible a comparatively modest but nonetheless effective job of advertising Canada.
There were two purposes for which the international short-wave system was set up. First was the matter of urgency. It was emphasized that we should have a short wave means of communicating with our troops who were overseas. The job was finished in sufficient time to be of great use not only in bringing news to our armed services who were in different parts of the European continent, but in spreading propaganda to the people who were our allies over there, and even propaganda to our enemies. In addition to that it has the commercial feature that it will keep Canada before the different nations of the world. This is not a revenue-producing service at all. It was built primarily for the purpose which I indicated and with the object in view that we should keep the name of Canada before the rest of the world and advertise Canada to our potential customers, as well as the products and the other things that we had for sale.


Joseph William Burton: Just to follow that up for a moment, I would express the hope that the short wave station does not carry the soap operas across the sea that we have to listen to in this country.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: There is one thing that the minister forgot to say when he was speaking about the need of a high power short-wave station, namely, that a great many of us were disturbed in the early days of the war by the fact that the stations broadcasting in Great Britain would be bombed out.


James Joseph McCann: That is correct.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That was the real urgency in the matter. At that time I had correspondence from Great Britain along the lines which I have just mentioned. I mentioned it in the house and other members as well. One or two things disturb me about the maintenance of the short-wave station. Personally I think this station can be used to great advantage to Canada. Each department of government which uses the station should buy the time from the C.B.C. and put it in their own estimates instead of charging it up to the short-wave station. I do not think it is fair to have everything free over the short-wave system. I am not in favour of having a lot of this time free over this station.
The minister said that we have a news service which cost 840,000. I do not understand that. We are paying $70,000 to the Canadian Press for radio news. I think it is 840.000 to the United Press. I believe in that, but I do not see why we should have to pay another S40.000 for our short-wave station as well. I want to justify the expenditures on the short wave station. This station will be of great value in the future if it is properly handled and used, but it should not cost us nearly as much as it is costing to-day. If it were properly managed it should cost us much less than that.


Mr. STIRLING:: The minister mentioned $35,000 for rent. What premises have the C.B.C. rented for the short wave system?


James Joseph McCann: This item is covered by order in council of September 1, 1944. It is rental payable for the use of studios and equipment provided by the C.B.C. in Montreal, Crescent street. The international service, which is separate entirely from the domestic service, pays a rental to the domestic service for that part which is used for international purposes. The same obtains with reference to the news service. We do pay $90,000 a year for the domestic service and $40,000 for the international, the two amounting to $130,000. It does not make much difference whether you pay the $130,000 all to the one source and charge the $40,000 to this, or make it two separate items, because the same people in the main are supplying the news, the Canadian Press, the Associated Press and the news service.


Grote Stirling: Does that mean that the premises and headquarters of the short-wave system are in Montreal?


James Joseph McCann: No. The short-wave station is at Sackville, but you have your people who are administering it and your programmes originating not where the station is located. That is why you have to have expensive wire service from the place of production of the programmes to the station which transmits them.


Grote Stirling: What I was trying to ascertain was the wisdom of setting up in Montreal what is virtually the chief premises of the short-wave system, whose station is at

Supply-Short Wave Broadcasting
Sackville when the C.B.C. headquarters are at Ottawa. What is the sense of going to Montreal? Would it not have been better to have them all together at Ottawa where the C.B.C. is situated?


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member will appreciate the difficulty. From the administrative end, it does not make so much difference where you have your offices, but from the point of view of producing programmes you could not possibly have your programme, studios and facilities where your short wave station is, because you have no big area there, nor have you the people to call upon to produce the programmes. So that we try to get that talent in metropolitan areas like Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver, where the talent is available. As regards Montreal, the reason is that that city is closest to the large production centres of the short-wave station.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not want to see the C.B.C. charged, so far as short-wave operations are concerned, with a lot of expenditures which should not really be charged to them on their overseas broadcasting account. You have to have broadcasting in different languages, but you do not have to translate music, and you have wires there too. You also have your press service, and it should not be charged to the overseas broadcasting all the time. That is going to be the tendency if we do not look out. We shall have the operations in Canada charged against the short-wave broadcasting overseas.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is any revenue received at the moment from the short wave through advertising or otherwise, or is the policy against it? Is it anticipated in the future that there will be substantial revenue, or will it be entirely a voluntary service?


James Joseph McCann: There is no revenue at all from the operation, and it is not contemplated that there is likely to be a revenue, because it is not used by individual commercial people or firms. There are no countries that have commercial short-wave stations.


Ernest George Hansell: 
Mr. KIRK:: I take it that the station at Sackville is the only short-wave operated by the C.B.C. in Canada.


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


James Ralph Kirk: How many days a week are they on the air, and how many hours a day?


James Joseph McCann: The short-wave station is on the air every day in the week. At the present time they are operating 47 hours a week, and we propose shortly to increase that output 121 hours.


James Ralph Kirk: What is the policy of the C.B.C. regarding the insurance of the plant, towers, aerials and other equipment belonging to the C.B.C. at Sackville?


James Joseph McCann: The item last year for insurance was $1,402.


James Ralph Kirk: Is that the amount of
premiums?


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


James Ralph Kirk: What is the policy in the placing of this insurance? For some years I have been endeavouring to get the C.B.C. to place their insurance with maritime insurance firms. Finally after a good deal of correspondence and conversation with different ministers in charge of the work I got a letter, as far back as May 24, 1945, from the present minister. It is not marked as confidential, and I believe

Supply -Short Wave Broadcasting
I may be permitted to read it. I do this so that hon. members, and the people of Canada generally, will know the policy:
I wish to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of Hay 7 with reference to insurance on broadcasting station Sackville, N.B. It is your desire, I understand, that some of that insurance be given to a local firm.
I have taken the matter up officially with the general manager and chairman of the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It appears that the corporation have a definite policy with reference to the placing of their insurance. They have an expert who advises on the amount and the type of insurance to be placed on any plant, and they have found it most beneficial and economical that that business be placed with one large firm.
I say the department could still retain the expert, still get advice from him and still try to give some of those in the maritime provinces who are in the insurance business a chance to secure some of this business. Matters connected with price, and responsibility of insurance companies, could all be considered. But it does not appear right to me, and to those who have been talking to me, that this business should be centralized. There is too much of this centralization to suit some of us in the maritime provinces.
This is one place where the government can show the way. It is true they cannot tell private enterprise where they are going to set up business, but they can give a lead. If the government can show hon. members why it is better to place this business with one large firm, situated probably in Montreal or Toronto, I should like to hear it, and I know the people of Canada would, too.


James Joseph McCann: I have nothing to add to what was said in the letter. That is the policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I do not make their policy. For business reasons they have established that policy and are carrying it out.


William Irvine: 
Mr. COLDWELL:: I should like to place one further point on the record. This is not a C.B.C. station.


James Joseph McCann: Not at all.


Major James William Coldwell: It is a government-owned short-wave station recommended by a parliamentary committee, the recommendation being adopted by the House of Commons and put into operation so as to give Canada a voice in the affairs of the world. The C.B.C. operates only as agent of the government, does not own the station, and does not charge the people of Canada out of revenues received for any service rendered in connection with this short-wave station.


Ernest George Hansell: Since the hon. member for Cariboo has referred to some of my remarks, may I tell him that I am willing to accept this vote for chicken feed. As I said, I am not seriously objecting to it. However, I do want people to get the picture I have in mind which I believe is the true one. The hon. member has said that when a private broadcasting station operates it does cost the people something because advertising is charged in the price of goods. He says that does not fool anybody. The fact of the matter is that it has fooled him. That is not what happens at all. While that amount may be charged in the price of the goods, by reason of the advertising the manufacturer is able to sell in such volume that as a result the price of the goods to the consumer is reduced. If they did not have this advertising, the price of the goods would be higher because the manufacturer could not produce the goods in sufficient volume to put them on the market at an attractive price. So there are a few people who are not being fooled.


William Irvine: The hon. member has revealed how he has been fooled, in the last analysis, to assume that people do not know what they want unless they hear it blared at them ten or fifteen times a day. Such an assumption is ridiculous. I can get my soap without anyone telling me what kind I must get.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Broadcasting-Loans
[Stage Direction]
Loans and investments: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-
965. Loans to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation repayable with interest at a rate to be fixed by the governor in council on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine and to be applied in payment of expenditures on the construction, extension or improvement of capital works of the broadcasting facilities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Canada. Such loans, with interest, shall be a charge on the revenues of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation next after the charge imposed under the provisions of section 17 of the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936, $2,000,-
000.
Douglas Gooderham Ross: This is an interesting vote. Already we have had before the house a bill dealing with these matters; now we have something different. We have what I would call a subterfuge bill. It is just the same thing, but they are trying to make it smell a little sweeter by introducing it in this way. I do not wish to discuss the matter at length, but I should like to make some brief observations before this large amount of money is voted. This is your money, mine and everybody else's. It is the taxpayer's money. Before it is voted there should be more investigation of activities ,of this kind. The private corporations are willing to spend their own money to do a job which we are asking the taxpayers of Canada to put up the money for. These private corporations are also paying taxes into the treasury of Canada. We have no more need for another high-powered radio station in Canada than a cow has for a fifth foot. We are getting service there at the present time. Let the private stations do the job. Make them go up to their full power if you like, but do not spend the taxpayers' money.
It is all very well to say that we are going to have two voices in Canada, that we are going to have the trans-Canada network and the dominion network. The first thing you know we shall be spending more and more money. Let us have one really good network operated by the national corporation, and let us have another good network operated by the private stations. We shall then have two voices, and an opportunity to have two opinions. I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Macleod:
That vote No. 965, for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, be reduced to one dollar.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Ernest George Hansell: May I say to the hon. gentlemen who are crying "question" that they are a little previous.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Ernest George Hansell: No matter how much they cry it will not prevent one from saying what he wants to say about the expenditure of money.


An hon. MEMBER:: You have said it already.


Ernest George Hansell: I have not said nearly enough. If my hon. friends want to go out in the lobby and smoke-


An hon. MEMBER:: Or sleep.


Ernest George Hansell: -or go out to lunch or go to sleep, I do not care, but I am going to take up a little time to discuss a few things. This is an important item.


An hon. MEMBER:: Question.


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member who is making so much noise was on the radio committee and he should know the importance of this item. It is not merely the voting of $2,000,000; we are voting on a vital principle. If my French Canadian friends, whom I-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


An hon. MEMBER:: Easy on that.


Ernest George Hansell: -admire for their stand-


An hon. MEMBER:: Go ahead.


Ernest George Hansell: There is such a mass of hysteria over there that I do not quite understand it. I admire them for their stand on Canadianism; I am for them, but I say to them that I am pleading now for the preservation of that same Canadianism. It will pay them to hear what I have to say. Perhaps this speech should be coming from that corner of the house instead of here.
As I say, there is a vital principle involved. This tremendous organization has within it inherent and potential powers, unlimited powers, almost unthinkable powers. We have an organization here which can reach the ears of a quarter of a million people almost any time in the day. Tell me if that is not a powerful organization, a powerful medium for the dissemination of information and propaganda.
During the sittings of the radio committee there was presented a brief on behalf of the Canadian Association for Adult Education. I am not criticizing that association for one moment. I believe in education; a man is a fool not to believe in education. But there is a sense in which our educators can be wrong. They have not always been right, as history will prove. As I say, this organization came to the committee urging that the present radio set-up in Canada be maintained, in other words that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

Supply-Broadcasting-Loans
be not interfered with in respect to their authoritarian powers and their control of radio in Canada. I have no criticism to make of their advancing that argument, because it is the right of any man or any organization to come before such a committee to make his or their desires known.
In the course of the hearings on their brief I brought out the fact that I had received a number of telegrams and letters from several farm forums in my constituency and others, organizations affiliated with the Canadian Association for Adult Education, which put out over the C.B.C. networks various talks on farm problems. I am not criticizing those programmes because I think some of them are very good. What I am criticizing is the fact that these farm forums were circularized by Canadian Association for Adult Education. They were asked to send in resolutions supporting the present radio policy in Canada, supporting the present status of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. One might say they had the right to do that. I am not questioning their right to do it, but an incident arose in the radio committee to which I should like to direct attention. I desired to bring this before the committee but the circumstances were such that I agreed to leave it over until the bill was presented. Now we have the estimate. The incident was simply this. I brought out the fact that many of these farm forums which were sending out these resolutions were doing so without a full knowledge of the facts. I did use the expression that in one case these people did not know beans about radio, and of course that was put over the news wires. I am not objecting to that.


Mr. CLEAVER:: You should not. You
said it.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was your constituents who were objecting.


Hughes Cleaver: And you said it.


Ernest George Hansell: Certainly I said it.


Hughes Cleaver: Then why back up?


Ernest George Hansell: I am not backing up;
don't think I am. I know that a little smear campaign went on. I picked up the People's Weekly the other day. My C.C.F. friends may think I do not read the People's Weekly, but I like to read the funny papers occasionally and so I read that, and here on one page I saw in big type: Hansel! scorns his constituents -or something to that effect. I can go before my constituents any time of the year and I am not afraid to put all my cards on the table. The fact of the matter is that what
I said I repeat now, that many of the organizations which sent in those resolutions asking that C.B.C. maintain its present status do not know all the intricacies of radio and do not know the tremendous implications involved in Canada's radio policy.


Hughes Cleaver: Their judgment may be just as good as yours.


Ernest George Hansell: I am not saying that
there are not a good many people in the country who do know what it means but I am saying on the basis of the circularization of those petitions that people responded because they enjoyed the farm forum programme, not because they knew all that was involved in the future of radio.
Now I am coming to the point I want to bring to the attention of the committee. I asked in the radio committee if the Canadian Association for Adult Education might have circularized their organizations, and I got the answer: Yes, it was quite possible they had. I shall not take time to turn up the page of the evidence, but I was led to believe that a certain resolution was sent out, which resolution was all right. I am not criticizing the resolution that was passed by the Canadian Association for Adult Education, but what I do criticize is a letter that was sent out to the farm forums and was never brought to the attention of the radio committee. I want to read that letter now. The secretary of the farm forums is a gentleman by the name of Ralph S. Staples. Mr. Staples presented a brief to the committee as representative of the union of cooperatives in Canada. I have no objection to that, and no objection to the brief that he presented. But in the brief he claimed that those who were opposing the taxation of cooperatives were able to pay for broadcasts, while evidently the cooperatives could not get the same service in putting their arguments before the people. I have no particular objection to that, but this Mr. Staples is the man who sent out this circular letter to the farm forums. I am going to read the letter, and I will ask my friends over there on the Liberal side of the house how they like it. The letter is dated Toronto, June 19, addressed to the secretaries of farm forums in Canada and headed, "An Important Message". It reads:
National Farm Radio Forum could not exist without the tremendous contribution made to the project by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. As you know the C.B.C. produces the broadcast and provides the time on the air, including the network facilities and so on. The C.B.C. does this as a service to the people of Canada, a service which does not cost farm forum or the other organizations which sponsor farm forum a single dollar.
Supply-Broadcasting-Loans


Mr. MAYBANK:: That is right.


Ernest George Hansell: Some gentleman, says
"That is right". That depends on the kind of glasses you are wearing. While it is true that farm forum is not a direct charge on the Canadian listening public, it is also true that the Canadian public are providing the networks and are paying four or five million dollars in licence fees to keep the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation going, thereby enabling the corporation to put over the programme known as farm forum. That is point No. 1 that should be made clear in the first paragraph of this letter. The second paragraph reads:
The national executive on farm radio forum meeting here yesterday expressed great concern because the C.B.C. is at the moment under heavy attack. The attack comes mainly from two sources:	(1) the private radio stations
through their organization, the National Association of Broadcasters, and (2) from the newspapers in Canada, many of which seem to regard radio as a competitor and some of which are controlled by interests financially involved in radio stations. The reasons for the attacks are not far to seek. Some of the larger private stations are making huge profits out of broadcasting and hope to make more if they are permitted to operate a network for profit. It is apparent that there are in this country interests which act as though they would like to choke off free discussion.
I want the members of this house to analyse that paragraph, and believe me, you cannot analyse it with any degree of intelligence without coming to the conclusion that a socialist wrote it.


Hughes Cleaver: What a pipe dream!


Ralph Maybank: Suppose he did.


Ernest George Hansell: What is the situation? In the first place, where is the heavy attack coming from against the C.B.C. by press and radio? Apart from one or two editorials, which it is the freedom of the press to write, I do not believe the attack has been heavy at all-not nearly as heavy as I should have liked to see it. As for private radio making any attack on the C.B.C., the shoe is on the other foot. In the evidence submitted it was said that the most cordial relations existed between private stations and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. My criticism is of that sort of letter going out individually to farm forum organizations asking them to back the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in their present status. I am not saying that they have no right to be asked to do it; I am criticizing that kind of letter.
The third paragraph reads:
As is done at frequent intervals, the House of Commons has appointed a committee to make a study of radio broadcasting and to bring in

recommendations. This committee represents all parties. There are twenty-five members of the committee. The national executive of farm radio forum feels that the forum should support those members of this parliamentary committee who contend that radio broadcasting in Canada should continue to be carried on primarily as a service to the people of Canada and not necessarily for the money ivhich can be made.
Now, analyse that paragraph, and I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that that is one of the most insidious reflections upon certain members of the radio committee. Let me read it again:
The national executive of farm radio forum feels that the forum should support those members of this parliamentary committee who contend that radio broadcasting in Canada should continue to be carried on-
He does not say, by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
-primarily as a service to the people of Canada and not necessarily for the money which may be made.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is wrong with that?


Ernest George Hansell: There is a lot wrong with that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Explain.


Ernest George Hansell: My friend wants it explained. I was going to say, any stupid muttonhead could read the meaning of that paragraph.


William Irvine: Otherwise you would never have got it, would you?


Ernest George Hansell: The letter was sent to these farm forums; it was not sent to me.


Frank Exton Lennard: And to the hon. member for Cariboo.


Ernest George Hansell: It is saying that there is a section of members of the radio committee that are there for the specific purpose of seeing that radio is run-so that men can make money out of it instead of giving service to the people of Canada. I repudiate and refute that.


Ralph Maybank: He does not say it is you.


Ernest George Hansell: He says, certain members of the committee.


Ralph Maybank: You are not all those members.


Ernest George Hansell: Well, of course I am only one, but the intention of the paragraph is as plain as anything can be.


Mr. MASSEY:: Absolutely.


Ernest George Hansell: I say that every member of that radio committee was interested only

Supply-Broadcasting-Loans
in giving the best possible radio service to Canada, and at all times, commensurate with it, of preserving our glorious heritage of free institutions. Every last member of the committee -had that in mind, and that only.
I support the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I speak to service clubs, and I have spoken on the subject of radio in Canada and plugged for the C.B.C. Now, believe it.


Mr MAYBANK:: We do.


Ernest George Hansell: Here is another paragraph:
A dangerous proposal has been made-
Who said it was dangerous?
A dangerous proposal has been made, namely that the broadcasting act should be amended in such a way as to remove from the board of governors of "the C.B.C. the authority necessary to regulate radio broadcasting in Canada.
Here is a man who, with the .Canadian radio networks at his disposal, takes it upon himself to circularize the people saying that a proposal which might be made to have a separate regulatory body that will be perfectly neutr-al is a very dangerous proposal. Let me go on:
It is unnecessary to set forth what the results of such a change might easily be.
There is an insidious sentence of inference, the writer knowing full well that the people lo whom he addresses the letter are not cognizant of all the facts. And that is the thing I object to. Here is the last paragraph:
If you value a radio system that is not controlled by wealth-


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. It is one
o'clock.


Ernest George Hansell: Very well, Mr. Chairman. I thought may be I might finish the one paragraph.


Major James William Coldwell: Finish the paragraph.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I move, Mr. Chairman, that you report the resolutions and ask leave to sit again this day.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. gentleman had just a few lines in the paragraph to put on the record to complete what he had to say, and I think it would be well if he were allowed to do that.


William Ross Macdonald: Probably it would be better if the hon. member completed the paragraph.


Ernest George Hansell: I will just read this part:
If you value a radio system that is not controlled by wealth then we urge you to get in touch with your member of parliament at Ottawa by wire just as soon as you can.
As to that, Mr. Chairman, let me say that if you can prove to me that a socialist did not write that sentence, then-


Major James William Coldwell: Come off that! It makes no difference what a man's political views are when he writes a letter for an organization; and I don't know what he is.


William Ross Macdonald: Is the paragraph completed?


Ernest George Hansell: No. It continues:
A very short wire will do. All you need to indicate is that you like the C.B.C. and that you support it in its present form.
You might think he was writing to some school boys.
You should sign it as secretary of your farm forum. A copy of the wire should be mailed to Mr. Ralph Maybank, M.P., chairman of the special committee on radio broadcasting, House of Commons, Ottawa.
In matters of this nature the farm radio forums across Canada can have an influence far greater than their numbers would indicate.
Yours sincerely.


Ralph Maybank: Believe me, they did it.
Progress reported.
Resolutions reported.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I wish to move that these resolutions be read the second time and concurred in, so that they may be put in print immediately for the preparation of the bill which will be based on them.


Gordon Graydon: Before we go on with this, I am not at all certain of the procedure which is being followed, but I understand that we are not concurring in any resolution at this stage if it has to do with the matter now under discussion.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. That resolution has not been passed.


William Ross Macdonald: The resolution which was under consideration by the committee when the committee rose has not been reported.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I move:
That the resolutions considered in committee of supply this day and reported be read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to several hon. members and I have the impression that it would be their desire
6C40
Civil Aviation Agreement
[Stage Direction]
that the intermission at mid-day to-day be of only one hour instead of two. I would therefore move:
That, notwithstanding the terms of standing order No. 2 and of the resolution of January 22 last the intermission at mid-day this day be from one to two o'clock p.m. instead of one to three o'clock p.m.
Frank Exton Lennard: Might I suggest that "two o'clock" might be several minutes after two?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house having reverted to motions:
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copy of an agreement between Canada and Australia for air services between the two countries, signed in Ottawa, June 11, 1946, and effective of that date. I may say that simultaneous announcement is being made in Canberra and Ottawa on this day. I have a statement with regard to the air line which, if it is agreeable to hon. members, I will have printed in Hansard, to save time.


Gordon Graydon: On the understanding, Mr. Speaker, that after it is printed hon. members may ask any questions which may arise with respect to it, as is normally done when a statement is made in the house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Quite.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.
(The statement follows):
Canada has already signed bilateral agreements with the United States, United Kingdom and Newfoundland. The present agreement with Australia represents the fourth in a series which we shall be negotiating to open the way for the Canadian international air services we plan to operate in accordance with information I have on previous occasions given to this house.
The agreement with Australia follows the standard pattern of our other bilateral agreements,-a pattern which was approved for general international use at the Chicago conference on international civil aviation in 1944. It provides for an exchange of traffic rights between Canada and Australia so that an air line designated by the government of Australia may put down and take up at Vancouver passengers, mail and cargo from Australia, while an airline designated by the government of Canada, which will be Trans-Canada Air Lines, may put down and take up in Australia traffic to and from Canada. The route to be followed by the airline designated by Australia is via Fiji, Canton Island, Honolulu and San Francisco. The route to be followed by Trans-Canada Ajr Lines is not yet finally decided and accordingly is not specified in the agreement.
It is understood that the airline to be designated by Australia will be a joint company owned and operated by the governments of rMr. St. Laurent.]
Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. In order that arrangements may be completed for the Pacific route this will, of course, involve a further civil aviation agreement between Canada and New Zealand as well, and discussions to this end have already been initiated.
In order to provide for complete cooperation on the Pacific run, between Trans-Canada Air Lines and the joint Australia-New Zealand-United Kingdom airline, a special clause has been added in the annex to the agreement looking to a pooling arrangement between the two air lines and a reciprocal exchange between them of traffic rights enjoyed by each along the route. This complete and full cooperation will be in accordance with plans originally worked out at the commonwealth discussions on civil aviation held in Montreal in the autumn of 1944.
I am not at the moment able to give the house complete information as to when we may initiate our trans-Pacific air service. This will depend upon a number of factors such as the conclusion of other necessary bilateral agreements along the route and the availability of suitable equipment and facilities. It is my expectation, however, that the year 1947 may see Canadian planes making regular scheduled runs to the southern Pacific.

The house again in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at two o'clock.


Ernest George Hansell: Before the luncheon
adjournment I was dealing with a letter which was sent out to circularize the farm forums throughout Canada. I have finished with the reading and the explanation of the letter, but I should like to add that it is easy to see that the intent of the letter was to solidify the corporation in its present authoritative powers, and that at least by implication the letter would cause the farm forums to be alarmed lest their programmes be taken off the air by the coming into the picture of a private radio network.
I contend that there was no need for the letter, and certainly there was no need to imply that there was any such danger as was implied. Even if there were set up another network in Canada under the management of private radio, it would not render the corporation one bit less effective in the service that they are able to give to the country. The farm forum programmes would go over the air just the same, and so would the other educational features sponsored by the C.B.C. These features are going over the United States networks all the time as a service to the United

Supply-Broadcasting-Loans
States people, and there is no government-owned corporation there. I am not implying that we have to do away with the corporation just because some of us are recommending that there be a neutral regulatory body. It appears to me that the whole scheme and process of preventing that from happening is to strike fear into the minds of some people wrho are enjoying certain programmes, and by implication lead them to believe that radio service in this respect is to be curtailed.
I should like to ask the minister whether or not it would be possible to place on the record the names of the secretaries of the various farm forums. I do not wish to take up all the time, and it appears that my forty minutes have expired, but since the committee rose and reported progress, according to the rules of the house I could go on.
I should like for a moment or two to pursue another aspect of the matter and attempt to show the potential dangers which are inherent in the authoritarian powers now held by the corporation. When I was speaking on the first reading of the bill which was introduced the other day I likened the corporation to the possibility of a newspaper corporation under government ownership, should one be established. I tried to give an illustration to show that if the same thing were happening in newspaper enterprise which is happening to-day in radio, the people of the country would be seriously alarmed. I drew that illustration, but I want to go one step further. I did not have time to develop this particular point the other night, but it is well known, and we can put it down as basic, that radio is still in its infancy. It is a rapidly growing science, and there is now appearing in the field of radio a science known as facsimile. Hon. members of the committee are aware of just what it is, but should some who might occasionally read Hansard wonder what the term means may I explain that facsimile is a process of transmitting by the air waves over the radio the printed page. That branch of radio science is already an accomplished fact. It is true that in this development we in Canada have not gone so far, but two newspapers in the United States are, I understand, already giving that service. One of them is giving it as a service, and the other is in the experimental stage. The facsimile process simply means that one can tune in his radio, get the news as he does now, and at the same time the news is printed right there and then in front of him. After he has heard it he can go to his set and tear off the sheet just as you would tear a sheet of paper off a roll of wrapping paper, and there in front of his eyes is the record on the printed page. Not only is that an accomplished
fact but it may be only four or five years before the same thing can be done in pictures in three or four colours. The point I am trying to make is that not only are the potential powers now inherent in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation going to drive private radio out of business, but I sound the alarm that by the method of facsimile they are going to drive the press out of business. Someone will say you cannot arrest the progress of science. No. You certainly cannot, but the point I want to put before the committee is that facsimile is done by radio process, and there is now inherent in the present broadcasting act all the powers of the present radio corporation to control radio. You do not need to give them one iota more power to control facsimile.
Perhaps we do not need to be greatly excited if the press of Canada should sound an alarm at the growing powers of C.B.C.; neither can we afford to be too much excited when some of us suggest that there be a neutral body with regulatory powers and that these powers be removed from the corporation. It would not diminish in any way the service which the corporation gives the country. I sound that alarm because that is something that is coming. Make no mistake about it. It is not very far off.
I would make as a further argument that because we are still in the infancy of radio, together with the growing part of radio known as frequency modulation and the other aspect known as facsimile, and so forth, the C.B.C. would be far better off financially and otherwise not to take over these channels at the present time, but to bide a wee and let the thing rest for a couple of years or so. Let them tell these private stations CFRB and CFCN that they must step up their power to 50 watts. My information is that they are prepared to do it. We know by the record that they have repeatedly asked permission to do it, and I am suggesting that they be given that permission and thus the 50 kilowatt channels will be reserved for Canada. I might point out further-


William Henry Golding: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.


Ernest George Hansell: Very well, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps you are not aware that the committee rose and reported progress and asked leave to sit again, and this is the second sitting.	.


Ralph Maybank: May I break in for two or three minutes, thus giving the hon. member an opportunity to begin again? I am sure he will not impose upon the committee; he will take only the time which is really

Supply-Broadcasting-Loans
necessary for his case. After this interposition on my part, I submit that the hon. member has again the opportunity to speak, and I respectfully submit to the committee that he should be given that opportunity. I say that the more readily for the reason that the hon. member was very active in the radio committee and devoted a great deal of time to his labours. While he may have been in disagreement many times with most of the members of the committee, both his indefatigability and his persistence were such that I consider he is entitled to special treatment, if we ever give special treatment to anyone.


Ernest George Hansell: I wish to thank the hon. member, who was chairman of the committee, for these very kind remarks, and I can assure him, and you, Mr. Chairman, that I do wish to facilitate the business of the house. In fact, that is what I have done already, because I spoke personally with the Minister of National Revenue and the minister who is acting as house leader, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, when the bill was brought down, and made a commitment to them that I would not discuss the bill in the resolution stage. I undertook to facilitate the work if I could discuss the matter at a future stage, and this is the opportunity that offers now.
I do not ask all to agree with me. That would be an impossibility anyway. I would not want all people to agree with me because if they did I would have reason to think that I was wrong. However, I have serious convictions along these lines.


Ralph Maybank: I am wondering whether the hon. member is leading himself to believe that because he is in a minority he is right. That, I submit, is also a fallacy.


Frank Exton Lennard: I believe he is in the majority so far as the people of Canada are concerned.


Ernest George Hansell: That, I think, is a keen observation. It is possible for the minority to be right, but I do not believe that if the people of Canada knew the entire facts I would be in the minority. I do not think I know all the facts, because I do not believe it is possible to get behind the scenes and get all the facts. I am not now saying that there is anything which the officials of the corporation do not want to let us know, but I am saying when it comes to peace, order and good government, when it comes to running a nation in a complex world, there are forces operating behind the scenes, and they invade human experiences. Those forces mould public opinion and bring pressure to bear even upon officials. Governments are not immune from

that. Governments and organizations are dependent upon their advisers; and who are I heir advisers, and where does the advice come from? It is my conviction-it is not merely a passing thought with me, it is not a flash in the pan but a strong conviction-that there are forces at work in the world to destroy our Christian democracy, and these forces, believe me, have not overlooked and do not overlook anything. If you ask me to prove that, I must say that I may not be able to put my finger on a particular spot, but those forces, on the face of it, have not overlooked and would not overlook the most powerful medium for the dissemination of information, propaganda and education that exists in any nation. You have to accept that at its face value, and protect yourself against it.	[DOT]
I was reading the espionage report the other day. I brought the matter up in the committee, and therefore I do not believe I need to take a great deal of time in discussing it. But perhaps all hon. members do not read these reports; certainly the country does not have an opportunity to read them. At page 44 of the report of the royal commission on espionage we find this:
It became manifest at an early stage of this inquiry, and has been overwhelmingly established by the evidence throughout, that the communist movement was the principal base within which the espionage network was recruited; and that it not only supplied personnel with adequately "developed" motivation, but provided the organizational framework wherein recruiting could be and was carried out safely and efficiently.
In every instance but one, Zabotin's Canadian espionage agents were shown to be members of or sympathizers with the communist party.


Mr. JAQUES:: Fellow travellers.


Ernest George Hansell: And it continues:
Zabotin found already in existence in Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto numerous study groups where communist philosophy and techniques were studied and where writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and later authors were read and discussed. To outsiders these groups adopted various disguises, such as social gatherings, music-listening groups and groups for discussing international politics and economies.
In the light of that I would point out that the same communists, the same communist party, known as the Labour-Progressive party, are free in a series of political broadcasts to continue to broadcast over the Canadian networks. I know the argument is offered that it was a matter of government policy whether this organization constituted a political party, and that the corporation in a sense has washed its hands of that respon-sibiliy. But that was not the passage I had

Supply-Broadcasting-Loans
in mind. The one to which I would refer chiefly is found at page 49 of the report. It
states:
The evidence also discloses that secret members of the communist party played an important part in placing other secret communists in various positions in the public service which could be strategic not only for espionage but for propaganda or other purposes.
Does anyone suppose in the light of that that the communists forgot all about the C.B.C.?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: What about the private stations?


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend asks rvhat about private stations. They have not overlooked those, either. Here is the point I want hon. members to get: I pointed out in committee that if I heard a philosophy coming over a private station which tended to divide the loyalties of the people of Canada I would be just as much in opposition to the management of that station as I am to anything else. I oppose that. One must remember, however, that when an individual broadcasts over a private station he has an audience of perhaps several thousands of people, depending upon the size of the station. I wonder if hon. members are aware that when an individual broadcasts over a national network he has an audience approximating 1,500,000 people. I understand that is the approximate listening audience in a national network broadcast of talks.
The corporation are continually reminding us that they are the guardians of free speech, and they do so by saying, "We are desirous that all shades of public opinion be broadcast over the air." I have no quarrel with that; their intentions may be good. But if free speech means anything it means that I have. as much right to it as has any other individual. What is happening over the Canadian networks is that freedom of speech is confined to a handful of regular commentators. A commentator must be asked to come on the air by some official within the framework of the corporation. He is paid, and he is given the facilities of the network to talk to 1,500,000 people. How would my hon. friend sitting opposite like some time to talk to an audience of 1,500,000 people? It would be fine, would it not?


William Irvine: If he had something to say, it would be.


Ernest George Hansell: Let me ask the hon. member if he thinks he can get on the network and talk to 1,500,000 people.


Mr. HOMUTH:: It depends on what party
he belongs to.


Ernest George Hansell: Freedom of speech means this, that if one man gets on the air, or anywhere else, another person has a perfect right to answer him. If he has not that right, then we have not free speech. That is the position. I realize that where there are several millions of people in a nation we cannot have each of them saying, "I want to answer the commentator who was on the air last night." I know that would be physically impossible. But let us not accentuate the idea that the C.B.C. are the guardians of free speech because they say they want all shades of public opinion to be expressed. Free speech is free only when everybody has an opportunity to present his case.
I have two suggestions to make. The first is that they do away altogether with commentators. I do not think they are needed. But I am not offering that suggestion without making an alternative suggestion. In their place they should have weekly round-table discussions on the most recent topic, to be conducted by three or four speakers who would have directly opposite views. The discussions should be entirely unrehearsed. By this means the people could be told all about the particular subject. I would guarantee that such a programme would have one of the largest listening audiences in Canada. Often I listen to the town hall meeting of the air in the United States. That programme has prominent men taking part, government officials, heads of labour organizations and even governors of states. It is unrehearsed and is an extremely interesting programme. They stop at nothing-I suppose common sense would prevent a man swearing at another- in discussing the latest topic, whether it is politically hot, international or whatever it is.
I have a further suggestion to make. If the corporation is still bent on keeping this handful of commentators on the air, I suggest that no one commentator be allowed to stay on the programme for more than one or two months at the most, and then he should be heard no more for at least a few years. Surely there are enough well-informed men in Canada that we do not have to filter all this information through a dozen half pints of brain. Surely there are enough capable people in Canada to keep this thing going indefinitely. I could say a lot more about commentators, but I appreciate the courtesy of the committee in listening to what I have had to say, and I do not wish unduly to extend my remarks.
During the past year I have taken down many of the things that have been said over the air by commentators I am not going to
5G44
Supply-Broadcasting-Loans

take the time of the committee to read them all, but I think they would be found alarming, to say the least, as far as dividing loyalties in our own country is concerned. I am saying these things to the present administration in the hope that they will look at the matter clearly. I know they must have had conferences at times with their advisers, but they are busy men and cannot give their whole time and thought to these things. There is no question in my mind that they have been unduly influenced in connection with the radio policy.
I contend that it would pay us to revamp our whole radio policy. My Liberal friends may say they are sure that everything is safe in the present hands, but there is no guarantee in the world that things will always be in the present hands. We do not know who is going to take over in future years.


William Irvine: You may.


Ernest George Hansell: We might. If we do, and if I have anything to do with the Social Credit party, we will have a neutral regulatory body. I am not talking authoritatively, but I repeat that if I have any influence within the party that is what I will recommend. I do not want to deprecate the valuable services rendered by the C.B.C., but I believe radio should be run on a competitive basis. I did not say one system working in opposition to the other; I said we should have one system working in competition with the other. There is all the difference in the world. I despair of the future so long as these authoritarian powers are vested in the C.B.C.
I do not want my hon. friends to my right to take offence at what I am going to visualize as a probable future board of governors. Personally I would not want to see this happen, but it could happen. I do not think our C.C.F. friends will ever get in power, and I have my reasons for believing that, but if they did, could we assume that the present board of governors would continue indefinitely, or would they be replaced? '


An hon. MEMBER:: They would be
replaced.


Ernest George Hansell: Who is going to take their place?


Eric Bowness McKay: Trestrail would be a good man.


Ernest George Hansell: Trestrail would not be an appointment of our C.C.F. friends, I am sure. I should like to suggest the names of a few men who might form this board of governors. They should have a lawyer, so we would have Mr. David Lewis. Then I suppose we would have to have some one interested in education.


Humphrey Mitchell: Is that his right name?


Ernest George Hansell: That is the name I call him by; I do not know whether he would respond to any other. Then they will have to have some one on the board of governors who is interested in education, and I would suggest Professor Frank Scott. Then they would have to have some one interested in another type of people and I would suggest that Harold AVinch might be a good member. Then by the time they gained power the hon. member for Vancouver East will probably have long grey hair. As my hon. friends are going to do away with'the other place, he could not be appointed there, so perhaps the hon. member who sponsored Bill 37, making it a criminal offence to criticize a Jew, a Russian, an Englishman, a Catholic or a Protestant, would be a good man to have on the board of governors. Of course they should have a journalist, and perhaps Elmore Philpott could fill the bill.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Who is he? He is a Liberal supporter, isn't he?


Ernest George Hansell: Then of course, they should have a woman on the board of governors. Perhaps it might be the one who said that our greatest danger was our British connection.


Mr. LOW:: Agnes.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, Miss Agnes Macphail. That is quite a board, isn't it? Maybe they would do good work, I do not know.


An hon. MEMBER:: Are you on it?


Ernest George Hansell: They would not put me on it. Imagine a board such as I have mentioned governing radio in Canada and clothed with all the authoritarian powers that are now vested in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: You picked it yourself.


Ernest George Hansell: Does my hon. friend think that would be a good board of governors?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: You are talking; don't ask me.


Ernest George Hansell: All I am saying is that the future is uncertain, and while my friends immediately across the way may think everything is all right now, that is no guarantee that they will be all right five or ten or fifteen years from now. Men's minds can be swung overnight. In the early days of the war, when the communists were busy in Canada trying to sabotage our labour organizations and our shipping and our productive activities as we were trying to speed them up to full wartime capacity, we recall how often the old propaganda machine got busy and painted the

______________Supply-Broadcasting-Loans
communists as terrible-Russia itself was a terrible dictatorship. But suddenly Russia entered the war on our side, and overnight the old propaganda machine changed its tune: Oh, Russia was quite a democracy then!


Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: Not for me.


Ernest George Hansell: Not for you. The fact of the matter is that somebody lied; they either lied first or lied afterwards, one or the other. You cannot have it both ways.
What is happening now? The picture is beginning to change again, and I am with my friends right across from me on the Liberal benches in their views about communism. Believe me, any philosophy that goes out into the world and results in murder, the shooting of eleven thousand priests and nuns and the burning of about twenty thousand churches and hospitals, is a philosophy that I am going to fight and fight hard, and I am with my friends right opposite me on that, and I want them to know that. Some people might call me a protestant simply because I am not a catholic. I am neither a protestant nor a catholic.


An hon. MEMBER:: What are you?


Ernest George Hansell: I go by the simple name of Christian. But as a bulwark against ' atheistic communistic philosophy I bow to my hon. friends right opposite me, and that is why I say they should be making this speech instead of me, because nobody knows who will have charge of a machine like C.B.C. in a few years' time. I do not want to spread any false suspicions, but we do not know to what extent the communists have infiltrated into this organization.


Mr. McCUAIG:: Can you not trust the
majority of the people?


Ernest George Hansell: I trust the majority of the people when they know the truth, but my hon. friend knows as well as I do that mass psychology can work the masses up into a frenzy, and woe betide this country if that should ever happen.
Do not wonder, Mr. Chairman, that I am alarmed, because it is a conviction with me.
I say again that I want the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to remain a great and vital institution for the service of the people of Canada in the field of radio, but I am just as strongly convinced and determined that we must guard safely our free institutions which the present Prime Minister has so often boasted that he himself would do his best to preserve.


Ralph Maybank: 
Ernest George Hansell: Not entirely,


Norman Jaques: And the fear is well founded.


Ralph Maybank: That is a proposition to which he and his fellow Social Credit members have a right to subcribe. But if you are going to refuse the development of an organization because of the danger of some "ism" creeping into its workings, there are all manner of developments in this country which could not go ahead. The Canadian National Railways are in the same danger. Every other organization under the government is in the same danger. The government itself is in the same danger. If we were to follow that sort of doctrine, the easiest way would be to cancel out government altogether and settle down into the anarchy which I fancy the hon. gentleman would think is a sound and sensible way of living, because his own methods of reasoning and arriving at conclusions are themselves thoroughly anarchic.


Mr. McIVOR:: Paddle your own canoe.


Ralph Maybank: Surely this house is not going to refuse a reasonable and sensible expansion of a good institution by reason of the consideration of bogys of the sort spoken of at so great length and with so much misplaced fervour by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. I shall deal in a moment with one or two features of this expansion.
A few days ago the consideration in radio matters was of a different sort. We were discussing a bill, and at that time several matters were introduced which are no longer quite germane to the question. For example, there is the question about an independent court, the question about the provincial governments owning broadcasting stations, the question about the divorcement of radio from newspapers. I submit, sir, that so far as the report of the radio committee is concerned all of these matters were simply left in abeyance because there was not time to get the

Supply-Broadcasting-Loans

evidence necessary upon them all. For example, with reference to the question of whether governments should own radio stations, the leader of the C.C.F. party, I have no doubt, would be in favour of that. For my own part, up to date I can see no objection to it, but I do not think the time has come for a decision, because there has not been enough evidence upon it. Again, the gentleman to whom I have last referred would desire to see [DOT]the divorcement of newspapers from radio, and the hon. member for New Westminster indicated that he thought that way. So far I find myself in disagrement with that, but I do not think the time has come for a decision; I do not think sufficient evidence has yet been adduced for us to make a decision. It is true that if all newspapers owned radios there could come to be a combination that would keep people from getting news, and that they would have an improper control over the moulding of public opinion. But it would seem to me that before action along that fine should be taken there ought to be some evidence of that sort of thing developing. It is not quite enough, it seems to me, to indicate merely a possibility, as the hon. member who has just spoken did when he was crying out about communism, of something happening. It would seem to me that is one of the questions which should be deferred until we have concrete evidence one way or another. I have a friend who has a shot gun.


William Irvine: Bring it along.


Ralph Maybank: I do not think we should take the shot gun away from him on the ground that he will go and shoot his wife. He has not shown any tendencies in that direction, and until he does, I should be in favour of leaving my friend in possession of his shot gun.


Gordon Graydon: Of course if he aimed at his wife it might be different.


Ralph Maybank: If he were aiming the shot gun in this chamber at the present time and could scatter his shots to the point of hitting all those who join together to interrupt at the same moment, he would probably be doing a service. However, he is not here, he is not aiming, and the interruptions have stopped; so I will proceed.
These, I think, are the considerations to be kept in mind when we are talking about a separate court for radio. After all, there was but little evidence introduced to the radio committee pro or con with reference to the idea of a separate court, whether it be an appeal court or not an appeal court. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters indi-

cated that they thought there ought to be a neutral body. It is true that Canadian Broadcasting Corporation officers said the contrary. I believe they said that upon being asked their opinion. I do not think, by the way, that it is their business. It is natural that they should express an opinion, and particularly it is natural when they are asked to express an opinion. However, that is a matter for government and not for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. But I could not help being reminded that the whole framework of the Canadian Broadcasting Act developed as the result, first, of a very important and very good commission, and, second, was given a great deal of consideration by parliament in 1932, and that these principles in the main were carried over into the present act of 1936. It has seemed to me that these people in 1932, including the hon. member for Stanstead, who was one of the Conservative members of the house at that time and no doubt took an active part in coming to the decision underlying the bill of that year, must have gone pretty carefully into this question of control. Again, in 1936 the Tory party as well as all other parties joined in endorsing the principles which are thus put into statutory form. Now, to have the mere statement made that there ought to be a neutral court at this time, and immediately to accept it without again going into all the principles that underlay the legislation in 1932 and 1936, seems to me to be precipitate action, and as far as I am concerned I am confident I can keep an open mind upon the question until we can give it full consideration.
As to the theories which have been advanced with respect to an independent court, they strike me as reasonable, but I find myself checked by the fact that all this has been given careful consideration by such men as the present Lord Bennett, together with all of the members of his cabinet at the time, and again by the Bennett opposition of 1936, and again by this present government. I find myself checked when I remember that they went into this thing so carefully at that time. Hon. members may feel that the very moment something seems sound in theory it should be quickly adopted. I feel that it never does any harm to sleep on a proposition when you have come to a tentative conclusion that it is good; it is wise to wait a few more days before coming to a final conclusion. And that goes for the various things I have mentioned; they are all of the order, it seems to me, of matters which can properly be deferred.

Supply-Broadcasting-Loans
Now I come to this question of expansion which has been mentioned and which is all that is called for at the present moment by the $2,000,000 vote. The expansion of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been envisaged every year since 1936. It was part of the original plan; it was examined year by year from that time onward. Such expansion as could take place up to 1939 was necessarily interrupted by the war. Committees from time to time, unanimously I believe, have recommended that this expansion should go forward, and it is in this year that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation comes to the point where it can carry out the dictates of former committees and of parliament. That is our starting point this year. The expansion of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation calls for the operation of certain stations which are at present being operated by private broadcasters. It does not call for the corporation taking over the stations; it calls for them operating upon certain wave lengths. Canada was granted a certain number of clear channel wave lengths. This was done by the Havana treaty, an international treaty, which assigned these wave lengths to us. It is understood that they must be operated at 50,000 watt power. They are as follows: CKY at Winnipeg, CFCN at Calgary and CFRB at Toronto. It is not necessary that Canada herself should develop these channels up to 50,000 watts; it could be done by a private owner so far as international law and treaty are concerned. But if we are to have these clear channels it is necessary that they be developed.
We find ourselves in this position. We have to decide whether we shall allow some private owner to develop these channels up to 50,000 watts, or whether we shall do it ourselves under the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. When we obtained the channels it was intended that they would be developed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. That has been known by parliament from that day to this. The measure has been endorsed whenever opportunity arose to endorse it. Moreover, all persons who have private stations have them clearly upon the understanding all these years that the amount of power allowed to them was the same as would be allowed to every other owner of a private station. They have clearly understood that no private station would be singled out and allowed to raise its power up to 50,000 watts. If we were to grant to the present owners of CFRB, CFCN and CKY the right to raise their power up to 50,000 watts we would be rankly and grossly discriminating in favour of them as against all other private 63260-355J
station owners. With all the past behind us I do not think that as between the various operators it would be the fair thing to do.
It is clear that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation must have some further expansion if the people of the country are to be served by it. It has been asked why should there be another 50,000 watt station in or near Toronto. The hon. member who asked that question completely misunderstood the situation. It is not the desire to have another broadcasting station of that power in Toronto. That is not the point at issue at all. The main point is to have it as part of the broadcasting chain, so that the fine programmes which can be developed in Toronto-because it is understood and accepted that good programmes originate in the populous centres of Canada-can be given to Canada by a second network which' cannot be given by the present network. The question really resolves itself into


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Ralph Maybank: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the hon. member be specific in the statement he has just made?-because it seems to me to- be a crucial one. It was made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, who said that the present network of C.B.C. could not give national coverage. I understand it has been stated that C.B.C. now gives 94-7 per cent coverage. Will the hon. member make that clear?	[DOT]


Ralph Maybank: I shall do it now, even though it may cause some slight interruption in the connection of ideas that I was endeavouring to maintain. There is no doubt that at the present time the C.B.C. is giving 94 per cent coverage. There is no doubt that no matter how many stations are established in Canada, no more than 94 per cent of the people could be reached. If the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar expressed himself in the manner in which the hon. member just indicated, he was clearly in error, because an elementary knowledge of arithmetic shows that you cannot go much higher than 94 per cent. It is a fact that by taking over the stations and increasing the power some parts of that 94 per cent will be reached in a better way; that is, the signal may be weak in some places but the 94 per cent would1, by the development of station CFRB and these other stations and this general expansion programme, get a second network programme. It is not a case of giving the listener any more on the same network programme; that just cannot be done. It is
Supply-Broadcasting-Loam

rather a case of further developing this second network programme which has already been started but is running only a few hours a day.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the hon. member agree, and if so will he point it out clearly, that it is not a question of this second network not being developed; it is rather a question of who shall develop it?


Ralph Maybank: The hon. gentleman means that the second network can be developed by private stations; is that it?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is what I mean, yes.
Mr. MAYBANIv: There is no doubt about it that if private stations were allowed to do so they could develop the network. The crux of the whole question is whether the law will be changed to allow private stations to have this network. There is no doubt that if private stations were given full sway, physically they could develop the network; that is possible, although it has always been definitely against the opinion of parliament that they should be allowed to do so, and it has been written into the act since 1932.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Not the opinion of parliament.-the opinion of the Liberal government.


Ralph Maybank: Excuse me; it should have been a Liberal government in 1932, but the people went wrong a few years before. There were Tories here at that time and they wrote the act in 1932 which was modified in 1936. It is amazing how many people will forget even history which is so near to them. I do not know where the hon. member was at that time when his brethren were running the country and running it into the dirt.


An hon. MEMBER:: He was asleep.


Ralph Maybank: An hon. member says he must have been asleep; I do not know about that.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Ralph Maybank: When I was interrupted the first time I was about to say that it was a necessary part of the expansion programme of the C.B:C. to take over station CFRB for the purpose of building up a second network in order that the people may get fine programmes which can be obtained in the more thickly populated parts of Canada, in this particular instance in Toronto. That is the reason for it. It is not because Toronto needs it, or the area around Toronto. It is because it is the desire to bring these programmes to other parts of Canada. It is for that reason,

if for no other, that I submit this expansion should go forward. We must continue as much as possible to bring fine programmes to the people on the farms, in the woods, in the small villages and in all these places where they do not have the amenities of life that are possible in Toronto, in Ottawa, in Montreal and in Winnipeg and in various other places; we must strive to bring to these people all the amenities of life which it is possible for us to extend to them. We sometimes talk about the difficulties of unifying Canada. These are some of the things that tend to knit the country together. You cannot get the best development of the country unless the people in the hinterland, socially speaking, enjoy some of the advantages of those who live in the populous parts of the country.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: CFRB has done a great job, and the people in my part of Ontario are convinced of it. If they were given an opportunity to go up to full power, would the people not have just as good a service as can be given by the present system, without cost to the taxpayers?


Ralph Maybank: I have answered that question already, but I will go a step further. The question really is whether private organizations shall be allowed network privileges. I submit that they should not be allowed network privileges, for the reason that they are interested only in their stations as commercial concerns, and the result would be that they would bring the network service only as far as their advertisers, who pay for the programmes, would desire their advertising to go, and there would be no reason for those private stations to carry their advertising programmes to distant parts. They would only strive to sell what the advertiser thought was worth buying. An advertiser would not wish to pay the cost of programmes going to the hinterland, because there is no one there to buy his product.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That is a feeble argument for the socialist doctrine of the Liberal party.


Ralph Maybank: I have proceeded thus far, receiving from various parts of the house certain intelligent and always courteous questions, which I have endeavoured to answer in the spirit in which they were asked. I do not wish to reply to the hon. gentleman in the spirit which seems most common to him. If I have to stand for any more static from Waterloo, all right; I shall have to do so. However, I would suggest to the other members of the Tory party that they take in hand their brother from Waterloo and endeavour to instil into him some of the courtesy which they themselves usually exhibit. I am not hopeful

Supply-Broadcasting-Loans
that they can instil into him any of the intelligence that they themselves generally display.
I was dealing with the question of networks before I was so rudely interrupted.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You are just a spider.


William Ross Macdonald: I hope the interjections have been completed. There has been a generous number of them.


Ralph Maybank: The reason that the private network should not in general be allowed, although I do not suggest a complete prohibition, is that the advertiser would only carry that network to the place where his product could be sold, and thus it would come about that these private networks would only go to those places which were most thickly settled; and secondly, the network programme which it is desired to give to people less fortunately situated in Canada would not in fact be extended to them. The whole question is a social one. The question is whether or not we shall endeavour to give to the people in these outlying parts some of the benefits which are obtainable in the cities and in the large centres of Canada. That is the whole question.


Denton Massey: Has the hon. gentleman thought of the possibility, assuming the development of a privately operated network, of the C.B.C. picking up such fine advertising programmes as are put out by the private stations and putting them over the air?


Ralph Maybank: Yes. I had thought of that, and before long I hope to say a few words about advertising in general. If I forget to do so, I hope the hon. gentleman will remind me of it.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: May I ask a question-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: It will not take a second.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The chairman is willing to give the hon. gentleman time off.


William Ross Macdonald: I have no objection to allowing time off, but I must inform the committee that no questions can be asked without the permission of the hon. member who has the floor.


Ralph Maybank: 'Dealing with what the hon. gentleman-


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I simply wish to
say-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I must insist that the hon. member take his seat. Once
more I remind the committee that questions may not be addressed to the member who has the floor without his consent.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: And it must be through the Chair.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: May I ask Your Honour whether I may be permitted to ask the hon. gentleman a question?


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I understand that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre does not wish to be interrupted.


Ralph Maybank: It was not quite that, Mr. Chairman, though I do not blame you for thinking that was my attitude, because I could not make myself heard. I had intended to say to the hon. member for St. Paul's that I should be glad if he would wait a few minutes before asking his question. Obviously the question he wishes to ask is a very important one, because he is quite persistent. Perhaps, therefore, it would help all round if I took his question now.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The question I
wish to ask it this. Does the hon. member believe in good commercial programmes, and does he not believe that it is in the interests of Canada to have good sponsors? Does he not believe also that there is a lot of nonsense talked about commercial programmes? I know he agrees with me that good commercial programmes are desirable. Just before I sit down, may I say this-


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the question?


Ralph Maybank: The question the hon.
gentleman has just asked shows an entire misconception of any remarks I have heretofore made. For this I do not blame him. I may not have been very clear in my exposition, but I have not at any time decried the commercial programme. The hon. member asks if I do not agree that many commercial programmes are indeed very good. That, in effect, I believe is the sense of the question. Well, one has only to mention the programme Fibber McGee and Molly-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Who is Molly?


Ralph Maybank: -the best programme
there is, so far as I am concerned. That is a commercial programme. So I am not decrying commercial programmes at all.
I believe I have said about all I can say on the general network idea, as to whether there should be a network, or whether there should not be, and whether we should have a private network system. I come back, then, to say that the taking over of high-powered stations is in large part, indeed in the main, necessary
Supply-Broadcasting-Loans

because people in Canada outside the populous centres must have more than one choice of network programme. Those who would not permit what is called the dominion network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation really are saying this, that they do not believe the people in the distant parts of Canada should have two choices of network programmes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: No.


Ralph Maybank: It comes down to that.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Oh, no.


Ralph Maybank: I submit that is what
it is. I will agree that that is not what the hon. member for St. Paul's, who has interrupted me, has ever said in so many words. But when it is said that the dominion network should not be developed, then, under the present condition of the law, it comes down to saying that people in the hinterland may not have a second network choice. I know he would take care of that by allowing private stations to have the network.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That is not fair; that statement is not fair.


Ralph Maybank: I am afraid I had better not say what I am thinking with reference to the interruptions of the hon. member for Waterloo South. I guess if I said what I am thinking I would be thrown out of the House of Commons-or even out of a saloon.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It would be a grand idea if you were, because you have not added anything to this.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Quack, quack!


Ralph Maybank: It will be recalled that for a considerable time the hon. member for Waterloo South used to carry on like that- day after day after day after day after day. He would sit over there and annoy people. He never annoyed me very much. Finally some members of the house decided to interrupt him by calling, "quack, quack, quack"! Even he came to realize how apt was the description in that manner of himself.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I still did not hear what he said.


Ralph Maybank: There is but little more I desire to say upon this subject. Before discussing the matter of advertising I should like to advert to some observations suggesting that the private stations were not being well-treated. Only a very few sentences will be required to answer that.
In the first place anyone who will look up the records will find that these poor degraded stations, as the hon. member for

Stanstead described them, are multiplying. Every year there are new applications for private stations. And these new applications are made by keen-sighted business men. They know that the opportunities in radio for them, as the operators of community stations, are very great. Many of them have been licensed, and I believe very few refused. The list will be found in the proceedings of the radio committee, and will disclose that the number has been growing from year to year, until in the last few years it has grown quite large.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: In the last three years it has depended entirely upon what political party it was.


Ralph Maybank: That is why I am interested when someone suggests that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation desires to keep down the number of private radio stations. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, of course, has no power either to grant or to refuse a licence; but it is always asked for its recommendation. Day after day, as these have come in, far from recommending against them, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been recommending in their favour. So that it is a mistake to suggest that that corporation-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Then the hon. member has declared right now that the government has the final say.


Ralph Maybank: Oh, yes; the government has the final say.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: We wanted to find that out-to stop the independent stations.


Ralph Maybank: I did not think any member of the House of Commons would find it necessary to rise in his place and address a question as elementary as that one to anyone. Surely the world has known and the Canadian people have known that the Minister of Transport is the licensing authority. Surely everybody who has ever had any conversation with anybody about radio knows that. I have no objection to answering questions, but it amazes me that even the hon. member should ask that question.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Of course I only ask it as a question from someone who is less bright than I am.


Ralph Maybank: I do not know what the last question was, and therefore I cannot answer it. But if it was not any more intelligent than the other interruptions of the hon. member, it does not matter w'hether it i3 answered or not.

Supply-Broadcasting-Loans


Mr. FERGUSON:: The hon. member has said that numerous new stations were being licensed. I suppose he makes that statement with full knowledge of the number of applications, the number of acceptances and rejections in connection with new stations. Can he give me those figures?


Ralph Maybank: I did make the statement with some knowledge, although I would not go so far as to say that I had full knowledge at the particular moment I made it. Some of the facts are not in my hand at the moment. I cannot give the complete list just, now, but the hon. member will find the list of all those stations very close to page 741 in the proceedings of the radio committee. I have had the list among my papers right along, but it is not there just at the moment. However, perhaps the hon.. member will be content to accept that until such time as he can consult his own copy and read the proceedings, when I am sure he will find what I have said is correct.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I know the hon. member does not wish to be unfair. He has said that the licences are issued by the Department of Transport-and that is correct. But the last word as to whether any station is to be issued a licence or to have power to operate is with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Ralph Maybank: I thank the hon. member for the manner in which he prefaced his statement, because he said he knew that I did not wish to be unfair. Such indeed is true. Not only do I not wish to be unfair, but I should like to be as accurate as I can. And in regard1 to the statement with which he has taken issue I have been not merely fair but also accurate. The final licensing authority is the Department of Transport; but the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has the right to make recommendations, and does so. Sometimes it may, for all I know, recommend against-although I believe that has not been done very often. I do not make that statement with complete certainty, but I believe it has generally recommended favourably. I would agree this far with the hon. member, that the recommendations of the Canadian Broadcasts ing Corporation are very often, if not invariably, accepted; for that reason there is some warrant for his interrupting me in the manner he did. The legal position is that the Minister of Transport has the final word in licensing, but the influence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I should say, is very great. Perhaps that brings the two of us sufficiently close together on that point.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The reason I asked my question was that in the town of Barrie two returned officers with quite a war record were desirous of opening a station which the people felt was badly needed in order that they could have news of the activities of that town and the surrounding country. They appeared in [DOT]Ottawa on several occasions; they built up a sheaf of correspondence about two inches thick but they did not seem to be able to get anywhere with the corporation. Their application was virtually refused, and after spending several months trying to get a licence they found their money dwindling away and had to give up. That is why I asked if it was easy to obtain a licence, or whether the corporation had assumed dictatorial powers and would grant licences only to certain people under certain conditions.


Ralph Maybank: My hon. friend can hardly expect an answer from me on a particular case. I suppose there are many occasions on which delays occur. It is something like trying to obtain a route on a highway. When people desire a licence to operate over a certain wave length it gersrally means there is an engineering problem. I know so little about engineering that I do not like to say very much about it, but I understand you must be sure that the granting of the licence will not interfere with another wave length already operating, and no doubt there are many other considerations. One cannot expect to deal with a particular case with any sufficiency.


William Ross Macdonald: I must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I think the hon. member is entitled to extra time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


William Ross Macdonald: With the unanimous consent of the committee.


Ralph Maybank: I want to express 'my thanks to the hon. member for Waterloo South and the members of the committee.
I have just a few words to say with reference to advertising. Complaint has been made that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is entering the advertising field to a greater extent than in the past. It is said that private stations are being deprived of advertising because the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was taking it up. I suppose that would be true to the extent that private stations are carrying national advertising, but the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would have no effect upon local advertising. The only service the C.B.C. could give to an advertiser is in
Supply-Broadcasting-Loans

connection with national advertising. Except in a few instances the average private station does not handle national advertising. A station like CFRB in Toronto would probably serve 2,000,000 people in that area, and it has available a vast field of local advertising. I understand from people interested in private radio broadcasting, as well as from those in the-C.B.C., that this type of advertising is the most lucrative. As far as national advertising is concerned, the greater part of the revenue obtained by the C.B.C. goes to the private stations. This money simply touches the hands of the C.B.C. and is passed on immediately to the private stations.
Assume there is a station called XYZ in the town of A in Alberta, not on a network. When the dominion network ia established it would be included and would immediately benefit from any advertising revenue the C.B.C. obtained. I suppose in this development some private stations will he hurt by having their advertising intake reduced a little, but on the other hand many private stations will be helped by having their advertising intake increased.
Just a final word with reference to advertising. The Aird report stated that the national radio ought to go in only for indirect advertising, but that was in 1929.1 suppose programmes have changed greatly since that time, and advertisers have also changed their methods greatly. It would not be feasible for any organization to attempt to exist only on indirect advertising. Indirect advertising is of the sort where a programme is put on the air and an announcer says, "This is brought to you with the compliments of such and such corporation." That ends the advertising and then follows the symphony or whatever the programme may be.
As every person knows, direct advertising is advertising which may occur right in the middle of a programme, and it generally. occurs at the beginning and end. It takes the form of "Buy Camel cigarettes," or "Use Lifebuoy soap," and so on. We listen to hockey broadcasts which tell us about Imperial Oil. As I said, advertising methods have changed, and I do not see how C.B.C. or any other organization could continue to exist without that type of advertising. I mentioned Fibber McGee a little earlier. That programme could not go on a network if only indirect advertising was permitted, nor could we have these hockey broadcasts, because they are direct advertising.
We think we must have many of these programmes which we could not have if we had
fMr. Maybank.]
indirect advertising only. Long ago the public began to demand that they should have these programmes, and therefore reasonable allowance with regard to advertising in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation networks must be made. The hon. member for Eglinton wanted something included in the report, but later he withdrew his request, and following along those lines I would suggest a formula something like this: Direct advertising must always be such that it will not mar the programmes. That formula should appl}r to the private stations as well as to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Because of the ingenuity of advertisers, listeners to the radio feel that they must have the programmes of those advertisers. On the other hand the influence of radio upon the advertisers can be such that I think we can get good programmes with advertising, but not so much advertising or of such a nature as to impair the programme.
I did not intend to speak so long, Mr. Chairman, but you and the committee will agree that there have been certain interruptions which caused me to speak longer than I had intended. In closing I wish to thank you and the committee for its forbearance in listening to me.


Denton Massey: Mr. Chairman, unquestionably the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, the chairman of the radio committee, has made an excellent speech. He has placed before this committee the case of the C.B.C., and has given the reasons and arguments which have been put forward in order that Bill 391 may come to be. On the other hand I cannot help but feel that his arguments are as hollow as a drum, and I want to beat upon that drum for a few minutes. I do not for a moment wish to attempt to discredit his arguments from the point of view of the sincerity with which they have been put forward, first by the officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and now by the chairman of the radio committee. Nor do I wish to take up one by one these arguments. I will make my own speech in my own way, which I hope will cover, for the information of the members, the ideas I have in mind.
In the first place I should like to make my own position clear. For reasons sufficiently well known to the members of the house, and upon which it is not necessary for me to dwell, I have not been able to sit in this house until just recently. But I have been able to follow the deliberations of the house through Hansard and the reports of the various committees; therefore I have some knowledge of what took place in the radio

Sup-ply-B roadcastin g-Loans
committee. From 1935 to 1940 I was a member of that committee, and I have been interested in radio since its very earliest beginning. In fact I personally broadcast over the air as early as 1922; I was on the air continuously from 1925 to 1939 and frequently since, and for two years in the 1930's I was interested in the radio advertising business, with which I have no connection whatever to-day. It so happens that some of my closest friends are in th radio business, either with C.B.C. or with private stations.
I want to make clear what my opinion of the C.B.C. is. I think the C.B.C. is an excellent organization for the purpose for which it was designed. But when it goes beyond that purpose I feel it is time for this house to check its progress along channels through which it was not designed to go. C.B.C. is a body possessed of as fine executive radio talent as there is in this country. I have nothing but the highest praise for men in the radio game such as Mr. Ernest Bushnell and Mr. Charles Jennings, to mention only two who are completely outstanding and have the respect of radio broadcasters in all countries. Their service and the service of the C.B.C. in many of its specialized functions is a credit to Canada and has done Canada good. I think therefore, speaking in those general terms, I have made myself clear as to what I think of the C.B.C. as it was designed to be. I should like to add this further word, that it has always been very kind and considerate to me in connection with matters in which I happened to be interested or with which I was connected.
I said a few moments ago, "the purpose for which it was designed." I think it would do no harm. Mr. Chairman, to take a few minutes of the committee's time to make clear the purpose for which C.B.C. was designed. That takes us back-I do not want to immerse the committee in a bath of history-to the inception of the Canadian Radio Commission, which later became the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. There was a situation prevailing in radio at that time -which was most involved and from the point of view of solution, most elusive. We were young in radio in Canada, while immediately next to us tens and later scores and then hundreds of millions of dollars were being spent by that mighty nation, the United States, whose programmes were infiltrating Canada. There was no particular policing of Canadian broadcasts. There were no particular regulations, except in a loose and general way, and there was a definite absence of service of Canadian programmes to all parts of Canada. This situation was thoroughly 63260-356
covered in the Aird report, which has been aired so often and so thoroughly. Hence it was felt desirable that there should be brought into being a regulatory body which in its turn would bring to all parts of Canada a Canadian radio service.
I was interested in the formation of the Canadian radio commission. I knew its chairman intimately, the late Hector Charles-worth, and I know whereof I speak. Hon. members may wish to draw out and expand and make deeper and put implications into the formation of the Canadian Radio Commission which later became the C.B.C., but I am telling this commitee the facts, and that is as far as the duties of the Canadian Radio Commission originally went. It was designed to control, to police and to censor. It was to be a regulatory body composed of those who knew something about radio broadcasting. It was to protect the radio listener from unfortunate Canadian programmes which might be aired from time to time, and it was to put Canada on the air map in so far as special services were concerned which were beyond the power or the pocket book of the Canadian advertiser. It was, then, to regulate and supervise. It was next to give programmes to all of Canada, and as my hon. friend who has just taken his seat has said, especially to the more remote parts of Canada not served by radio. So it was that in 1932 there were those in parts of Canada which are not so remote who could get no programmes whatever, let alone from the United States. It was to give to Canada an impartial news service, not sponsored by any newspaper, which news might conceivably be coloured by the opinions of that paper, but a Canadian news service. It was to report on world events from its correspondents throughout the world, correspondents in the pay originally of the commission and later of the corporation, just the same as to-day the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Columbia, and other networks have their correspondents in all parts of the world. It was to -bring reports of special events of wide interest. It was to bring to the listener, therefore, a specialized service. It was to canadianize its own programmes, divorced from advertising. It was to give a short-wave service to carry the voice of Canada to all parts of the world. It was to give educational programmes of a kind and type that no commercial sponsor would ever promote. It was therefore to raise radio out of merely the field of entertainment into the field of information and, shall I say, education.

Supply-Broadcasting-Loans

I postulate, Mr. Chairman, that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as constituted to-day is virtually doing these very things. It may not be doing them as fully as is required by the listener; it may not be doing them as fully as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation themselves would like to do them, but within the limitations of the money at their disposal I consider the C.B.C. is doing an outstandingly good job. It can do better, and will. Then why this vote? Is this vote in order to employ more Canadian, talent in Canada? Is it to raise the basic scale of pay to Canadian artists? Is it for the purpose of giving better programmes? No, it is not. This vote is for the physical expansion of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In the face of the fact that 94-7 per cent of Canada is at present covered-which is virtually saturation-the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation wishes to expand network programmes, and the expansion of network programmes means perforce under this vote that monopolistic control will be totally, completely and finally in the hands of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
The hon. member who has just taken his seat has stated that the wave lengths provided under international agreement and at present in the possession of CFRB, Toronto, CFCN, Calgary, and CKY, Winnipeg, are wave lengths on which there must be broadcasting of a power of 50,000 watts. In spite of the fact that the possessors of those wave lengths have had them over a period of years and have given satisfactory service, as has been pointed out repeatedly, to the listeners in their community and within their range, they are not to be permitted to increase their power to the 50,000 watts because, were that permission granted, there would be discrimination against all other stations and discrimination in favour of them. That is the drum, Mr. Chairman, on which I am pounding. I think that is as hollow as a tympani. It is much better, therefore, in accordance with the arguments of my hon. friend, that these Canadian stations, giving a service to the people of Canada which-as has been pointed out too frequently for me to repeat-is a good service, should be put out of business. I asked the hon. gentleman if the facilities necessary for a privately owned network were made available to the private stations, could not the C.B.C. pick up the best of their programmes and air them through their own outlets? His answer was "Certainly." Well, then, why do we spend $2,000,000 of the taxpayers' money at this time when that can

be done and done successfully without it? Why not let the advertiser's dollar develop that network?
This history of radio broadcasting has proven beyond peradventure that government-owned, government-operated and government-developed broadcasting cannot possibly compete with private enterprise under the advertising sponsor.


An hon. MEMBER:: Soap.


Denton Massey: Whether or not one wishes to have, as the hon.- member who has just taken his seat said, a programme interrupted by somebody who says "Use Lifebuoy soap", or, "if you do not use our soap, use our perfumes", or something of that sort, the alternative is to go to a publicly owned system where it is public money which has to be spent for these programmes. Let us look for a moment at the wealth of the United States. We have become so much accustomed to dealing with millions and billions that I hesitate to use the figure which was given me the other day for the national income of the United States, but between four and five hundred million dollars are spent by -advertisers alone over the national networks; and how many more hundreds of millions are spent in the operation and maintenance of these stations? Do you think, Mr. Chairman, that any government is going to set aside a billion dollars for programming in the United States? I do not think so. And what has happened in the United Kingdom? Going back into the days before the war, in 1939, as hon. members of this committee who were in the United Kingdom know, the vast majority of listeners there, according to surveys, listened to Radio-Normandie and Radio-Luxembourg, because it was only through those two outlets-there was a third-that commercially sponsored programmes could be aired in competition with the B.B.C. programme.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that a network developed under private enterprise, permitted by the C.B.C., on which the Canadian advertiser can air his own programmes, will develop programmes which will be as much an advertisement for Canada in the United States as United States programmes are an advertisement for that country in ours. I should be much more interested in this vote if I thought for a moment that it was to give assistance to the creation of a network in Canada available to all.
Let us look at this vote in its true light. It is not for additional coverage. That has been clearly pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. The purpose of

Supply-Broadcasting-Loans
the vote is to create a monopoly, a complete and absolute monopoly in the hands of the government.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is absolutely
right.


James Joseph McCann: There is nothing in it.


Denton Massey: Will the minister permit me to develop my argument? May I say to the minister that the phrase I just used, "to create a monopoly", means that all power is placed in the hands of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; that private enterprise in radio will be entirely eliminated. That is the argument I wish to develop; that is why I made the statement. I repeat, the spending of S2.000.000 is the deathknell of private broadcasting in Canada. I ask all hon. members, no matter how they may feel about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as against private enterprise, or no matter how they may feel about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in conjunction with private enterprise, to realize before they vote for this item that it sounds the deathknell of private broadcasting.
I can support a vote for the betterment of the service of the C.B.C. This morning votes 257 and 258 for the increase of the facilities, the service and the maintenance of our shortwave station were before the committee. I heartily subscribed to it. If this vote of $2,000,000 were for the betterment of the service, for the employment of the finest news broadcasters who could be obtained as wandering reporters over the world for the C.B.C., I would vote for it, because that is the purpose of the C.B.C. Why should the end of private enterprise in broadcasting be brought about? I was about to deal with that point when the minister interrupted me a moment ago. I said that the purpose of this vote was to create a monopoly. Why should it be the end? I will tell him. Let me draw on my own experience in a practical way. He knows as well as I do that the success of any broadcasting station is based on the audience which it can acquire. The success of any newspaper is the extent of its circulation. Just as we have an audit bureau of circulation in the periodical and newspaper fields to study the circulation of a newspaper so that advertising rates may be based accordingly, so we have in radio. We have surveys. First it was comical the way they were done. Later on the methods were improved. To-day the chairman of the committee, the minister, the general manager of the broadcasting corporation or any one else can with great accuracy ascertain the audience of g,ny station.
63260-356J
Habits of listening change. Let hon. members remember this. In the old days it was fun to turn on one's radio, monkey around with the dials, and become what was known as a D-X hound. You would hear one programme for a few minutes, shift over to another and so on to see how many stations you could hear in an evening. Those days have gone. Then the listener went through the phase of picking out the programmes he liked on one station and the programmes he liked on another and in between times he did not bother keeping the radio on. To-day it is altogether different. The greatest proportion of radio listeners have their own favourite station and to that station they listen most of the broadcasting hours of the day. That station therefore has developed what is called its own audiences.
Let it be understood that in going out to sell their time to a would-be sponsor or advertiser these private stations can say that their audience is such and so, and they are right. On the other hand if you smother a station, if you blanket it, if you take away its traditional wave length and put it off in the cat-fight somewhere, the audience goes. And in the case of CFRB-let me speak of it-I know where it will go. It will go over to Buffalo, over to WKBW, WGRN and WBN. The C.B.C. is in competition with what the private station is able to offer without the ability to have a network. What the private station is able to offer is a local station. They cannot go out and sell time on a network. The surveys have shown that the C.B.C. cannot take competition. There are programmes of the C.B.C. which are listened to, as they should be; but throughout the day the C.B.C. has had to bend the knee to the private station even when that private station has not had the advantage of a network. Therefore I ask, do we want elimination of private broadcasting? Let there be no misunderstanding about it; if hon. members want the elimination of private broadcasting, vote for this item, which will accomplish that purpose.
I cannot overestimate the importance of radio. Sometimes I think it is possible for us, close as we are to the centre of things in Ottawa, to lull ourselves into a sense of misunderstanding. Radio is dynamite. It is not understood. Its power has had one dramatic manifestation in the course of the world's history. Had it not been for radio there would have been no world war II. Adolf Hitler would not have been possible. It was only through the magic of radio, that fantastic medium, that he was able to speak
o656
Suppl y-Broadcasting-Loans

again and again to the German nation all at one time, that he was able to rouse his .rabble and poison the youth of his own country so that world war II took place. It is a medium of entertainment; it is a medium of information; it is a medium of education. But we must remember that in radio the element of competition is keenest, for the simple reason that if you buy the Saturday Evening Post and take it all the way home on a dark and stormy night, settle yourself comfortably in your living-room with your pipe, and you do not like it, you do not put it down and walk out again in the storm to the comer and buy Maclean's magazine, come back to your quarters again, sit down by the fire and read it. You do not do that; but if you tune in the equivalent of the Saturday Evening Post on the radio and you do not like it, you just flip the dial over a little bit and you have Maclean's. Competition in radio is very keen. People listen to that to which they like to listen. There is no power in Canada, thank God, that can make me listen to any radio programme, or make you or anybody else, Mr. Chairman.


William Irvine: That is the weakness of this house.


Denton Massey: Let me say to my hon. friend that it is fortunate in many instances that the people of the country do not hear the debates here.


William Irvine: Hear, hear!


Denton Massey: There are no iron curtains on radio. The deputy minister of customs and excise may in his wisdom declare that this or that particular magazine, whatever it may be, is detrimental to the youth of Canada, that it is pornographic, lascivious, undesirable, that it shall not be brought into Canada. He may also say that it is a type of propaganda that is subversive and therefore has no place in our literature. It is therefore banned. But you cannot say to the radio listener, "You shall not listen to such and such a programme." You cannot say that, unless you want in Canada what Hitler introduced into Germany. The C.B.C. will become, through this vote, all-powerful, but it can draw no iron curtain along the 49th parallel of latitude, around the great lakes and out to the seaboard. It is in competition with the finest programmes that are aired in the world to-day, and in direct competition. Take Toronto, as I have suggested. Where CFRB under this vote loses its wave length, I think you can realize what will happen. Certainly I know what will happen. Hon. members realize that the audience for CFRB will not shift to CBL except

for specialized programmes; it will go across the lake to Buffalo. You can multiply that across Canada. I am saying to you, sir, with all the earnestness of which I am capable, that this vote is a vote for monopoly.
I should like to protest further that this vote is detrimental to the artists of Canada. We have developed in this country some of the finest talent in the world, out of proportion to the numbers of our population. This applies to the stage, the screen and the concert platform. Can you tell me that the expansion of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, with the salaries it is able to pay to artists, will promote the development of this talent in Canada? They may get their start here, but we will give those artists only their high school education, so to speak, and their university course in this respect will be taken in the United States. I could stand here for many a long hour giving you name after name and history after history of artists who have not been able financially to remain in Canada. Let me mention one. We hail the name of Ferdi Grofe and others in modern music as outstanding artists, Americans. But I stand here to hail the name of Percy Faith, a Canadian lad who worked for the C.B.C. and now has the Carnation Milk programme. He is internationally known, he is a coming young man whose name will be known throughout the musical world. Let me mention the name of Stanley Maxted. In my humble opinion he was the outstanding air reporter of this war. His record I need not recite here, but from D-day and long before that, anything of outstanding importance, including Arnhem, The Buldge, Wessel and even Tokyo and Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was reported by him over the B.B.C., to which he was attached during the war, and his reports were always the outstanding feature of any broadcast day. He is a Canadian. He came back to Canada after V-J day. Here was this wealth of talent, this magnificent record, and he was given a job in the C.B.C. I will not mention his salary, because that is not my business. Where is he to-day? He is in London, England, the advertising director for J. Walter Thompson, being paid a salary many times that which the C.B.C. could-I do not say would but could

pay him. My friends in the C.C.F. party who favour this vote, and the government and their supporters, will say, "We will pay artists what we wish to pay them and they will stay in Canada and broadcast and like it." Well, if they do, I think that our C.C.F. friends with their policy, and the government and their supporters, are hand in hand in this matter as never before.	.

Supply-Broadcasting-Loans


An hon. MEMBER:: No such thing.


Denton Massey: I thought I would evoke some reply. I am disappointed that it is not more than that. Can the C.B.C. pay what it is necessary to pay these artists? I am not saying that it is right to pay someone $10,000 a week to broadcast, or right to pay some artists $250,000 to make a single film, or to pay Toscanini, Fritz Reiner or other outstanding performers what they are paid. They are paid these salaries in the United States and the result of their artistry comes over to us. Can the C.B.C. keep up that sort of thing. We have to compete, and I postulate that the paltry four or five millions a year which the CJ3.C. obtains, not only for operation but for talent, is not sufficient to enable it to compete. Let the C.B.C. discharge the function for which it was designed. Let it give an excellent world news service, by first-hand observer, let it give cultural programmes and educational programmes, let it be the world reporter for Canada, let it be the propagandizer for Canada, if you like. But the C.B.C. at the moment wants the whole pie and not a portion of it. Let me remind those who would support government broadcasting that the B.B.C., with between fifteen and twenty millions to spend, with only one time, one language and land lines that do not matter, since they are insignificant, cannot do it. Do any members of this committee who have been in the United Kingdom and have listened all day, as attentive, intelligent listeners to the B.B.C. know why it is that English, Scotch and Irish listeners say what they do about it? The B.B.C. cannot, I say, do it under those circumstances that I have indicated, confined to one island, and with fifteen or twenty millions to spend. Can the C.B.C. do it in Canada with four time changes, two languages and thirty-five hundred miles of land lines? It is nonsense.
Now let	us compare	the C.B.C. with theB.B.C. for	a moment.	Here	we are	withfour or five millions to spend; there is the B.B.C. with between fifteen and twenty millions. The	news on the	C.B.C.	is very	good.I listen to	it whenever	I can.	Their	News
Round-up is excellent, and some of their men on the staff are doing a good job. The B.B.C.'s news is excellent in most respects. Their war reports during the war, to which I listened every evening at a quarter past nine whenever I was not on duty, I thoroughly admired and enjoyed. It was a magnificent round-up. Special events on the C.B.C. are in the main very well handled and reflect
credit on their programme directors and their engineers. On the B.B.C. they are usually excellent.
Educational programmes on the C.B.C. are fair. And if one were to resort to the language of the services he would use an adjective in connection with some of them which would be followed by the word "awful." Educational programmes on the B.B.C. are terrible. I am speaking now as a listener, and I am not attacking it politically. General programmes on the CJB.C. are spotty-very spotty. Some are excellent, others are the reciprocal of that word, one which I cannot use in the House of Commons. On the B.B.C. they are awful.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Use it; it is common among friends.


Denton Massey: On the whole, as I have said, the C.B.C. within its own field is doing a good job; but when the C.B.C. gets into the entertainment field and into competition with the United States programmes it fails miserably. It is not doing a good job; stay out of it. If it is going to stay out of it, then do not vote for this.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member has exhausted his time.


Denton Massey: I am virtually through.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


William Ross Macdonald: With the unanimous consent of the committee the hon. member may proceed.


Denton Massey: I thank the committee. What about the United States?-and I shall hurry on to the conclusion. Every hon. member knows that the United States is the best in the world in broadcasting. They have had their difficulties. They were having far more difficulty than we were back in 1932 when the Canadian radio commission came into being. But they did not nationalize or socialize their radio. The federal communications commission had its faults and its failings, and did not always do its job as completely as it might. It made mistakes. But would any average listener in the United States wish to have the class A programmes discontinued? I do not think so.
Well, in connection with all of this, if I may resort to the vernacular, what's all the shootin' for? I repeat that this vote will eliminate private broadcasting. Oh, it is not going to do it this afternoon; it is not going to do it to-morrow; but it marks the beginning of the end of private broadcasting in Canada. Let no hon. member deceive himself about that. If he supports this vote he is saying to his constituents: "I believe that all broadcasting in
Supply-Broadcasting-Loans

Canada should be under the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and that private enterprise in broadcasting should be eliminated." That is what his vote in this House of Commons will do. And so I say: Let us away with camouflage. Let us look at the bill. '


William Irvine: Will the hon. member make his point clear?


Denton Massey: Well, I thought most hon, members understood it.


William Irvine: He has not stated it clearly.


William Henry Golding: Order. I would call the hon. member's attention to the fact that the bill is not before the committee. We are considering item 965 in the estimates.


Denton Massey: I wish to refer to a matter contained, in the bill, if I may.


William Henry Golding: The bill is not 'before the committee.


Denton Massey: Then I shall say that the vote reads in this way:
-on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine, and to be applied in payment of expenditures on the construction, extension or improvement of capital works of the broadcasting facilities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Canada.
Let hon. members compare the language of the vote with the language of the bill. It is not identical, but it is virtually so. In other words, let us away with camouflage. Let us away with all that this vote is surrounded. The vote, is simply a substitute for the bill, and the government is holding up the bill and giving us the vote instead. I for one will not be hoodwinked by the vote; it is camouflage. Let the government shed its cloak; let us realize that this vote is governmental bureaucratic dust thrown in the eyes of this committee. I challenge any member in the house, I challenge any of our friends opposite to get up and say what this vote really says-"I am in favour of complete monopolistic control by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and I am totally and completely against private enterprise." Then, Mr. Chairman, that- member will be honest.


Mr. KNIGHT:: May I at the outset congratulate the hon. member who has just spoken, the name of whose riding I have not yet ascertained-


An hon. MEMBER:: Greenwood.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: -upon his vigorous speech, with which of course I cannot agree. With the exception of making statements, I cannot see where anywhere in his speech he proved

a single point. When I congratulate him, I am conscious that this business is new-well, perhaps not new, because I am sure he knows a lot about it-but it is at least new to him in this sense, that he is discussing it for the first time in the house.


Denton Massey: I discussed it years ago in the house.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Pardon me; I said that he is discussing it for the first time this session in the house.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The hon. member did not say "this session".


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: What I have said is still correct, despite the protests of the hon. member. I am not impressed by his statement that it was the use of radio that caused the rise of Hitler in Europe.


Denton Massey: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member does not wish to be inaccurate. I made no such ridiculous statement. He can put all the ridiculous statements on Hansard he wishes, but he cannot misinterpret mine. I said it made possible the rise of Hitler.


William Henry Golding: Order. The hon. member must not be interrupted without his consent.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I now continue by saying that I do not believe that the same process of radio, which was available to the fascist leader in England, had the same effect by any means in that' country.
Speaking of broadcasting, I would suggest that Mr. Speaker during the recess of parliament might profitably look into the matter of having some way by which speeches in the House of Commons might be heard by the general public. I shall say nothing more about that, more than to add that I wish some of the proceedings in the house might be broadcast to the country. If they were, it might improve somewhat the tone of the debates to which we must listen. It has been tried with success in one other place-in my own province, if I may be pardoned for mentioning it.


Denton Massey: Which province is that?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: To enlighten the ignorance . of my hon. friend I would say it is the province of Saskatchewan-and it has become very popular there. I am not suggesting all the debates in the house should be broadcast, but I do say that on certain occasions such a service might be made available to our constituents.

Supply-Broadcasting-Loans


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You don't think the
speeches made in the Saskatchewan house are so bright, do you?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Let us for a moment proceed to discuss the speech of the hon. member for Macleod, who sits to my left and who, although he said a lot, in my opinion said very little. I was not impressed by his attack on communism. It is all right to attack communism, and I have done so myself on many occasions, but I cannot for the life of me see how he connects his attack upon communism with the actions of the C.B.C. What point did the hon. gentleman make? He said that the C.B.C. spoke to one million people. Agreed. All I could get out of it was that his idea of freedom of speech is to put certain speakers off the air.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: He did not say that.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: He stated repeatedly that all sides of a question should be heard, and with that I agree. Then in the same breath the hon. member said that there were certain people whom he would rather not hear.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Mr. Chairman


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, m order that I may conclude without interruptions.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: May I say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I merely wanted to speak for ten minutes, unlike the hon. gentleman who spoke a moment ago.


William Henry Golding: I think it is the wish of every member of the committee that we make some progress and bring this debate to a close. The hon. member is not going to speak very long and there should be no interruptions by other hon. members. In that way I think we can make some progress.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member made certain references to what the hon. member for Greenwood had said and those references were not honest.


William Henry Golding: That is not a point of order. We are not going to permit an hon. member to be interrupted. Let the hon. member conclude his remarks and then my hon. friend may speak if he wishes.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Unlike the hon. member for Greenwood, I am not making my maiden speech in this house this session, nor am I making my first speech in regard to this question of radio. I have spoken already on the bill, but I wanted to take just about ten
minutes now and I hope I can get along with my remarks. There is one thing I am interested in in connection with radio, namely the matter of free speech. I agree with the hon. member for Macleod when he says that both sides of all questions should be aired, but, unlike him, I claim that the best way to have that freedom of speech, which I think is the desire of every hon. member, is by having some public vehicle over which that free speech may be transmitted.
As long as we have a publicly owned radio system subject to the control of the people through parliament we have a better chance to have free speech; we have a better chance to have both sides aired than we would by means of private companies whose main if not only aim is the accumulation of gain. You can buy time on a privately owned station in order to put your views on the air. The man with the most money can get the most time and there is no guarantee that the other side of the question will be represented. First, there may not be time available and, second, the opposing faction may not have the money to buy time on the air. So it goes on.
As an example I would refer to Mr. Trestrail, who was mentioned. We have some idea of his activities before the last election. Then there was the recent campaign against the cooperatives to which no effective reply was made because the cooperatives did not feel justified in spending money to reply to such twaddle. I ask the hon. member for Macleod in all reason and in all good friendship if these mysterious subversive forces to which he constantly referred1 in his witch-hunting speech could not work equally well over the private stations as they could through the C.B.C.? I do not think the C.B.C. is tied up in any way with any subversive element.
These private stations are run by good enough fellows, I take it, but I think we must admit that those men are interested primarily in the financial success of their stations. As was pointed out during the committee meetings, in some cases only about twenty per cent of their total time is devoted to such public service as sustaining programmes. It has been suggested here to-day that the C.B.C. is a giant competitor of these private stations, swallowing them up as it were, and that, therefore, they should be able to run their business without any grants of money. I would point out that the C.B.C. have other obligations besides making profits. One obligation of . the C.B.C. is the putting out of sustaining programmes for the people of tiiis country.
The private stations do not have any responsibility for the cultivation of public taste,
Supply-Broadcasting-Loans

and if you asked me I would say that is the main responsibility of the C.B.C., the cultivation of public taste in the matter of education, arts, literature and those things which make life worth while. Let me repeat: Freedom of speech can be guaranteed only by a radio system which can be controlled by a democratic parliament. The chairman of the radio committee when he spoke some time ago said one thing with which I do not agree. He referred to the dual ownership of radio and the ownership of radio by the great newspaper chains.
I believe that is a bad element in our national life. I believe it is a bad thing for a newspaper chain through the manipulation of funds or by the possession of funds, to provide itself with such a tremendous vehicle for influencing public opinion. Not that I am against their influencing public opinion all they can and in every way they can, but I do not think they should have an opportunity of ganging together, as it were, to put one particular opinion across in the country. For that reason I oppose, first of all, dual ownership and the ownership of radio stations by newspapers linked up in a single chain. I shall close by stating that I support the vote for the C.B.C.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I think I heard the hon. member aright when he said that this was guaranteed by a democratic party.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: On a point of order, the word was "parliament".


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Democratic parliament; that is quite all right. This democratic parliament, so-called, is dominated by the Liberal party which was elected to power in this house. My hon. friend says that the policy would be guaranteed by a democratic parliament. We have heard that word used so much and so often that I begin to wonder what it really means. I have begun to think that democracy is interpreted here as being a question of who is in power. I should like to, although I shall not take the time to do so, deal with some meetings which members of the Liberal party, the C.C.F. party, the Social Credit party and ourselves have had with the chairman of the C.B.C. I might be violating some of the little agreements we had if I referred to that; but I want to say this and I say it with all the emphasis at my command, that we tried to work out an agreement to give a fair apportionment of radio time to the different parties in this house. That was predicated entirely upon whether Mr. McLean, organizer for the Liberal party, and his friends would agree to it. There are members in this house who will

say that that cannot be true, but it is true. It was predicated entirely upon whether Mr. McLean, organizer for the Liberal party in Canada, and his friends would agree to that disposition of time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Did Mr. Bell have to agree to it too?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Mr. Bell did not have to agree to it, because we were representing our party as constitutionally elected members. But Mr. McLean was there, and he said that he could not say definitely because he did not have the agreement of such men as my hon. friend.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was never interested in that in my life.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: My hon. friend and others. Then two or three days later he came back. The truth was that the Liberal party did not know just where they were going.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We do not worry about it as much as my hon. friends opposite.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: My hon. friend and I can chide each other as much as we like, but Mr. McLean was terribly worried. He could not say anything definite because the minister had not told him what he should say.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the hon. member speak louder, please?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No one has ever asked me yet to use a loud speaker. Let me say seriously that in view of what was brought out in the investigation with regard to the money paid to the Toronto Daily Star, it is time that the country began to realize just what is going on. Surely no member of the Liberal party is prepared to rise in his place in this house and say the C.B.C. ought to be the mouthpiece of any particular party. But it is; it is to the extent that it gives the Toronto Star free time. That fact was brought out clearly.
In 1943 the Canadian Press contracted to make its complete news report available to the national network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The price agreed upon was $40,000 per annum. The news was to be delivered, by wire to five C.B.C. regional offices from coast to coast, namely, Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver. The term of the contract was to be the duration of the war and six months thereafter.
At the same time the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation made a contract with the British United Press for the use of the B.U.P. foreign news report. The price to be paid was $25,000. In its other details this contract largely followed the one made by the C.B.C.

Supply-Broadcasting-Loans
with the Canadian Press, except that the term of the contract was one year, automatically renewed unless certain agreed notice of cancellation was given by either side.
During 1944 the C.B.C. organized its second trans-Canada network, which became known as the dominion network. The corporation took the stand that it was unnecessary to make a separate purchase of news services for use on this new system. The contracts of both the Canadian Press and the British United Press were held to give the corporation the right to use the news delivered to it for any news purposes which the corporation might have and without restriction as to any specific network.
Shortly after the C.B.C. had thus established its right to use the news which it was receiving for its general purposes, it undertook on behalf of the government the operation of the short-wave broadcasting station at Sackville. Almost its first act of management was to purchase a news service for the use of the station. The contract was given to Canadian Press, not only without any competition, but also with the stipulation that no other news service was to be purchased. Remember, the short-wave station at Sackville was to use only one news service, and-let us be fair about it-that news service was veiy complimentary to the government. Although the news was only for use by this one station, without any transcontinental carriage or delivery at regional points involved, the price given to the Canadian Press was $45,000.
The contrast between what the C.B.C. was securing for its national and dominion networks combined for $40,000, and what it was spending $45,000 upon for the'single government-owned short-wave station is glaring. Quite obviously the corporation did not carry into its role as manager for the government the same financial thrift and close bargaining that it practised where its own finances were concerned.
During the past year, however, the C.B.C. agreed to increase its payment to the Canadian Press from $40,000 to $70,000 annually. This concession was made, regardless of the fact that, for purposes of government contracts, the end of the war has not yet been legally proclaimed. In other words, the contract ran to the end of the war and we have not yet legally reached the end of the war. So far as Canada is concerned, the war is not yet over, and yet C.B.C. changed its news contract and increased the price it was going to pay for it. These are the things we are worried about. We are concerned also about the power which we are giving to ministers of the crown and to the various bureaucratic organizations which they have created. The people of this country are finding that, no matter what move they make, what they do, what they say, they are responsible in some way or another to somebody who is an official of the government of Canada.
I can well remember back in 1917 and on to around 1930, at a time when everybody in the province of Ontario felt that he was under the eye of some spy, someone who was trying to find out whether he was violating the Ontario Temperance Act. I believe that one of the reasons which made the people of this province vote for the repeal of the Ontario Temperance Act was the fact that a spy system had been built up. We have done the same thing here. We have created organizations-the	Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation, for example, and the wartime prices and trade board-which have taken away from parliament the power to govern. Parliament has been deprived of its power to pass laws, to such an extent that it is a wonder to me how patient the people of Canada have been. We must be very careful before we continue along this course. I can readily understand why the C.C.F. party is supporting this bill, because it is just one more measure toward socialism, or communism-call it what you like. But those of us who believe in free enterprise, who hold that we have the right to live our own lives, to raise our children in freedom and enable them also to live their own lives, cannot possibly vote for such a measure as this.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I did not intend to say a word in this debate, because I am supporting this vote, although I am of opinion that the resolution should have been introduced much earlier in the session. But I rise particularly to protest certain derogatory references by the hon. member for Macleod to a great and gallant Canadian; I refer to Mr. Elmore Philpott, who, I am pleased to say, is a great personal friend of mine. Mr. Philpott has made a great contribution in this country. He served overseas with great distinction in the last war and was severly wounded and twice decorated for bravery. As a commentator he has the largest listening audience in British Columbia, and is respected by people, regardless of the party which they support. I am sure he would be an asset to any board. If all able-bodied Canadians were doing as much for the development and building up of this country as Mr. Elmore Phil-
Supply-Broadcasting-Loans

pott has done, under his severe and unusual disabilities, progress would be much faster in this country.


Norman Jaques: Progress where? Progress to Moscow?


Mr. LACOMBE (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of my remarks I wish to read to the house a letter which I received from the Catholic Commercial Travellers' Professional Association.
Montreal, August 22, 1946. Mr. Liguori Lacombe, M.P.,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir:
We have learned that Mr. Tim Buck, leader of the Labor-Progressive party (latest transformation of the Communist party) is scheduled to speak on the C.B.C. network on August 29 next.
Following the report of the Royal Commission and the statements in the house, the C.B.C. and the government have sufficient reasons for refusing the use of its network to a party which places loyalty to Moscow above that to Canada. Is it conceivable that complete freedom should be granted to people who want to overthrow our social regime and create confusion in our country for the benefit of another nation?
We hope that you will make it your duty to intervene in order to prevent the spread of subversive propaganda.
Yours truly,
Roger La Palme,
Secretary,
The Catholic Commercial Travellers' Professional Association.
That letter speaks for itself. The government should advise the C.B.C. to deny any broadcasting privilege to the labour-progressive party. The events which are occurring justify my intervention in this debate. Last winter there was held in Ottawa a communist rally at which Tim Buck, leader of the party, delivered an address. In view of the revelations made during the preliminary hearing of the people indicted for conspiracy and espionage, the government was in duty bound to prohibit that meeting. The infiltration of communist propaganda is continuing in Canada. How is it that at the very moment when the security of this country was threatened by traitors, the government should have allowed that revolutionary movement to hold meetings? What is the reason of their delay in outlawing the communist and labour-progressive party? On February 16, 1944, the day after the convention held by the communist party, under its new name of labour-progressive party, I called upon the government to outlaw the new-born group. They followed a laissez-faire policy.


Mr. LAFONTAINE:: A legitimate policy.


Liguori Lacombe: We are now witnessing
the disastrous consequences of that policy. It is better to suppress evil at its roots. Law-abiding Canadian citizens are alarmed when they think that the communist doctrine already has thousands of sympathizers in this country. Strong measures should be taken before it is too late.
A communist wave is overrunning the world. It threatens the very foundation of society. Religious and civil groups anxious to protect religion as well as the family feel justified concern. That is evidenced by this other letter I have received from the Catholic Organizations Committee of the Montreal district.
August 26, 1946.
Sir,
On behalf of the Catholic Organizations Committee of Montreal of the Sacred Heart leagues, of the Catholic Commercial Travellers Association, of National Catholic labour unions, of the Jeunes Laurentiens, and of many other associations, we ask you to intervene with a view to the banning of the addresses which the national leader of the Labor-Progressive party, Tim Buck, and the Quebec provincial leader, Guy Caron, are to broadcast over the C.B.C. on Wednesday next, August 28, in the interests of their party.
It is intolerable, after the investigation in Russian espionage activities and the serious charges made against the Labor-Progressive party, that its leaders should be allowed, at the expense of the taxpayers, to broadcast propaganda, in favour of a movement recognized as . subversive.
Yours very truly,
Roland Germain,
Secretary
of the Catholic Organizations Committee.
Therefore, the government should take the necessary steps to prevent any communistic broadcasts and propaganda in Canada.


Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I have followed very closely the remarks of the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe), but I noticed that the letter from Mr. Germain is dated August 26, while Mr. Caron and Mr. Tim Buck were to speak on the C.B.C. network Wednesday last.
Had the hon. member been present in the house before Wednesday last, he might have registered his protest at that time, in the hope that the government might have considered his request. Last Tuesday, the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond) asked the government whether the Right Hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) intended to allow these lectures to be broadcast. The Minister of Justice then gave his answer and, to my mind the hon. member from Laval-Two Mountains should have protested when it was still time to do so, that is before

Supply-B roadcasting-Loans
the lectures were broadcast. We were in the house when the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie registered his protests and requested that these talks be prohibited.


Liguori Lacombe: Will the hon. member allow me a question?


Pierre Gauthier: Surely.


Liguori Lacombe: Does the hon. member believe that it would have been proper and in accordance with the rules of the house to register my protests at a time when the debate did not warrant such a step?


Pierre Gauthier: Certainly.
The hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains stated in his speech that communism was spreading subversive ideas. Knowing that, he should have uttered his protests before now; the proper time for them was before the subversive ideas had been repeated over the radio. The protests should have been made before the lectures were broadcast. The hon. member should have been present, as we were, to state his opposition at the proper time, as the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie has done.
(Text):
I should like to say a few words to the hon. member for Macleod. During the course of his speech he pointed at the French-Canadians several times. Let me tell him one thing. We are all Canadians; he knows that. Be we of French, Jewish, Ukrainian or English descent, we are all Canadians. It is not because we are French-Canadians that we shall stand with my hon. friend who points at us especially just to give the general impression that we are idle. We protest against communism. We have been protesting against communism and against the spreading of these ideas as early as my hon. friend. We did it in 1936 and 1937.


Solon Earl Low: He said that.


Pierre Gauthier: And we
know that. We are against communism by tradition, mentality, creed and common sense. We do not speak as often as my hon. friend; that is all right, but we act.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Solon Earl Low: I have just a question or two
to ask for information before I say a few words. I do not intend to hold the committee very long, nor do I intend to repeat any of the arguments which have been advanced as to why we should vote against this appropriation.
Is the $2,000,000 proposed in vote 965 to be additional to the $500,000 which is the
maximum possible advance provided for in section 4, subsection 17, of the bill as it now stands? Perhaps the minister would like to answer these questions as I go along.


James Joseph McCann: It could be. There is nothing in the resolution which precludes the right of the corporation to borrow in accordance with the statute as it now exists.


Solon Earl Low: Therefore there is $500,000 already available which the corporation could use between now and next session for whatever purpose it requires, according to the statute? Are the class 1-A channels noy occupied by CFRB in Toronto and CFCN in Calgary protected for Canada's possession until the spring of 1949?


James Joseph McCann: No, just until 1947. The work must be well undertaken by 1947.


Solon Earl Low: That does not answer my
question. The minister says that the work must be well undertaken by 1947. Is it not true that according to the Havana international convention, these channels were to be protected for Canada until 1949? I may be mistaken, but that is what runs in my mind. If that- is so, it makes quite a difference to the argument-


James Joseph McCann: The original agreement was until 1946; it was extended until 1949, but the work must be under way by 1947.


Solon Earl Low: That is the answer I wanted to get. If Canada is protected in the possession of these channels until the spring of 1949, then I should like to ask the minister why the rush in the dying days of the session to put through a supplementary appropriation of S2,000,000, when it will be only a few months until the next session is cqnvened when hon. members should be given the fullest possible opportunity to develop and to debate this whole question, and not be hampered, we will say, by the desire of every hon. member to get away after having been here so long as we have? If the minister will answer that question I shall continue with my few remarks.


James Joseph McCann: The answer to that is
that it takes a long time to get the equipment which is ordered and to do the building which is contemplated. For these reasons it is necessary that the corporation be given such time to carry out these plans that they may be done successfully.


Solon Earl Low: I shall just take a moment or two to say a word in answer to the arguments which were presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. At the outset I
Supply-Broadcasting-Loans

should like to emphasize that we of the Social Credit group are not opposing the appropriation of $2,000,000 solely because of the "bogey" of communism, not by any means.


Ernest George Hansell: That was not my argument.


Solon Earl Low: No. The hon. member for Macleod did develop that phase of it somewhat fully, but we look upon this appropriation as something far beyond, we will say, creating the possibility of communism taking possession of Canada. We do not look upon communism as a bogey. The possibility of the destruction of Canada by communism is a reality and it must be faced. There is no bogey and we are not offering it as a bogey-


Ernest George Hansell: It is the government's biggest problem right now.


Solon Earl Low: Without question it is the biggest problem that Canada faces to-day. Here are the reasons, in brief, beyond what the hon. member for Macleod suggested this afternoon, why we feel so keenly about having this appropriation held over until another session when it can be debated fully. In the first place, I feel, along with the hon. member for Greenwood, who made a splendid presentation this afternoon, that passing this appropriation now, giving the C.B.C. the right to use $2,000,000 more for expansion, will certainly destroy competition by private stations in Canada. Social Crediters hold that a government monopoly can be just as vicious as a private monopoly. In fact I am convinced personally that it can be more vicious. I feel that the only proper safeguard against a vicious government or commission monopoly would be to have strong competition from private stations. I stand for that and I shall fight for it as long as I have strength.
I believe that in the interests of the Canadian people we should maintain strength on both hands. I am not opposing the continuation of the C.B.C. as a government-owned proposition. I made that clear in my address the other day. It has done splendid things, but it should keep its place within the framework of the policy laid down for it when it was formed. I believe there would be an obvious injustice to certain private stations which have developed a listening audience and have given good service for years to that audience, if this vote were put through and those private stations were forced out of the channels they occupy and have occupied for so many years.
The third reason why I oppose the vote is this. I believe that if the C.B.C. were to take over these channels, and particularly the one I know about and have known about for a good many years, the 1010 kilocycle channel 
occupied by CFCN Calgary, it would be a patent injustice to a large group of people who do not want that channel taken over by the C.B.C.
The fourth reason why I feel I must oppose the appropriation is that there certainly is no rush. Canada is protected in the possession of the channels of CFRB and CFCN until the late spring of 1949. While the minister has given a plausible reason why the C.B.C. should get busy on the building of their proposed new stations, I would point out that the private station now occupying the channel 1010, CFCN Calgary, has already indicated its desire to go ahead and step up the power of its station to 50,000 watts, and if and when the people have decided that the C.B.C. should occupy that channel they would be willing, so they say, to make the transfer to the CJB.C. But in the meantime they could keep the spot warm for Canada, so that we shall not lose the channels.
When the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre speaks of a shotgun, I would ask him whether he thinks it is right to allow anyone to point a shotgun at his wife and shoot her before we disarm him.


Ralph Maybank: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Solon Earl Low: Certainly.


Ralph Maybank: I would remind him that when I referred to the shotgun I was speaking of the question whether or not there should be a divorcement between newspaper and radio. That was the connection. I am afraid he misunderstood.


Solon Earl Low: I am pleased to be set right, but under the circumstances I can use the' illustration to good advantage-


Ralph Maybank: With my permission.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, with the hon. member's permission. I should not like to infringe his patent rights.


Ralph Maybank: Go right ahead.


Solon Earl Low: We must disarm the C.B.C..
now before we allow it to shoot the private stations, their competitors, dead; and we are-attempting to prevent that by opposing this appropriation.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre mentioned also that it was always well to sleep on an important matter before rushing into it. I agree with that 100 per cent,. and that is the best argument for holding this appropriation over until next session, which will begin a few months hence. That is not too long to wait, and I am sure that no damage would be done by waiting. In the

Supply-Broadcasting-Loans
meantime the people of the country might be allowed to give expression to their views. In my opinion the people now' served by these two private stations ought to have something to say in the matter. Surely the people themselves have rights, and it is the obligation and responsibility of members of this house to see that those rights are fully protected and that the people have a chance to express their wishes.
The hon. member's argument that it would be unfair to allow the private stations to increase to 50,000 watts has little or no force. If a private station has been assigned a frequency and has developed it in the interests of the people in the area-granted, in its own interest as well, though the same can be said of the C.B.C.-then the final indication of whether the station should be allowed to increase to 50,000 watts, or whether the C.B.C. should preempt the channel, is one that should be given by the people who have formed the listening audience in that area. I emphasize once again that the people themselves ought to have some right to express their views with respect to this appropriation. They have done so to me and to a number of other hon. members, and I suggest, with all deference, and with no malice in what I am saying, that the minister should hold the appropriation over and think the matter through for a while before he brings it in at the next session.


William Irvine: I know hon. members are all anxious to have the question put, but members from all sections have properly, I think, exercised their right to express their views on an important matter of this kind. It is regrettable that it should have to come befoie us in the dying days of the session ami I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible. I wish to answer some of the arguments that have been put forward by hon. members who are opposing the vote before the committee, and I refer particularly to the hon. member for Waterloo South, the hon. member for Greenwood and the hon. member for Macleod.
The hon. member for Waterloo South tells us that the C.B.C. is now dominated by the Liberal party. From the democratic point of view, even if that were true, it would not be too bad, because, after all, the Liberal party does represent the majority vote of the people of the country; and while that is so, under our constitution, it has the right to give some direction to things. But I do not agree that they do dominate. I believe that in so far as it is possible, having regard to the weaknesses of human nature, the C.B.C. is doing a pretty fair job.
The next point the hon. gentleman made was that he does not know what democracy means. He need1 not have spent any time in telling us that. That is quite clear, so that I shall pass on to the next point. He says he wants equal time on the radio. I do not disagree with him so much on that. I think it is going to be a difficult thing to please all parties in deciding what time each shall have over the national broadcasting system. Perhaps it would be better to allow my Social Credit friends more time than anybody else, because their troubles are greater than anybody else's. I do not mean by that to insult my hon. friends; I mean that their ideas are newer than any other ideas, and, therefore, they need to have more time for explaining them than other people require. I certainly would be glad to vote that the Social Credit party have at least its quota of time on whatever basis the house or the govern meet might decide political parties should be allotted time. I agree with that 100 per cent. And if it should be equal time, I agree to that, too. I am a believer in free speech; I am a believer in democratic principles, and, therefore, I will stand by that in this as in other matters.
The hon. member for Greenwood was answered pretty thoroughly by the hon. member for Saskatoon City. I suggest to the hon. member for Greenwood that it takes more than bald, unsupported statements to carry conviction. It is all very well for him to say, in his impressive manner, and with that fine personality of which he is the enviable possessor, that the CJ3.C. is going beyond the purposes for which it was designed. I asked the hon. member to make that clear, and to bring foroard the facts to support what he said.
I happened to be in the house when it was designed, and by one of his own leaders. I do not for one moment agree with him that the C.B.C. has deviated from its original purpose. But even if it had, that is no great argument against it, because conceivably it might have a better purpose still. He did not prove that if it has departed from its original purpose it is not now following a better one.
On his next point he declared most emphatically that this vote would mean the end of private broadcasting. That is another absolutely unwarranted and unsupported declaration. If it were taken logically it would mean that the defeat of this vote would be the end of the C.B.C. The logic in one is just a? good as in the other. I question whether either is true. So that when the hon. member attempts to build up an argument and to
Supply-Broadcasting-Loans

prove a point of that kind, I should like to have the point made clear. I want evidence brought out to show that he has justification for the point he attempts to make.
The hon. member who has just taken his seat reiterated the same position. He says that a government monopoly is just as bad as any other monopoly.


An hon. MEMBER:: Worse.


William Irvine: All right, "worse". As a matter of fact, it is a misnomer to speak of government monopoly at all. A monopoly means that an individual or a small group of them secure sufficient power to gain for themselves certain advantages over all the rest of the people. It is at that point that the government steps in and1 ends the monopoly, distributing the benefits to all the people. So that it is an absurdity to talk about a government monopoly. This is the thing which ends the evil effects of monopoly.


Solon Earl Low: That is what you think.


William Irvine: The evil effect of monopoly is that a small group or an individual may benefit at the expense of everybody else. But when a government is doing a thing in the public interest, while such government may have failings and may have made mistakes, yet the object is not monopoly for any group but, if you wish to use the term, monopoly for all the people. That is the very soul and basis of democracy.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the hon. member permit a question?


William Irvine: I shall allow the hon. member to ask a question when I have finished; at that time I shall do my best to answer him. But I do not suppose it would help either of us at the moment if I were to stop to answer his questions.
Much has been said about sleeping on the matter before we rush ahead. Well, this house has been sleeping for a long time on a lot of matters. I do not want it to sleep any more. I should like to see it wake up and take action immediately.
I have noticed that the hon. member for Peace River differs sharply from the viewpoint expressed by the spokesman for his party on the committee. He very properly, perhaps, says that when a decision.is to be made respecting certain airways or certain programmes concerning which a company shall have privileges in certain communities, such matters should be settled and decided by the listeners, the rank and file of the people. That sounds fine. But the hon. member for Macleod says they do not know anything

about radio and that he repudiates their having the say as to what shall happen with this or that in respect of radio.


Solon Earl Low: I qualified it by saying that they have the facts.


William Irvine: I shall allow the hon. member to qualify it now. I have no wish to indicate that he said anything which he did not say.


Solon Earl Low: Right.


William Irvine: I wish to answer the hon. member for Macleod a little more fully, because I think he covered the ground taken in opposition to this vote perhaps more comprehensively than any other hon. member who has spoken. I should like to compliment him as a most effective member in the house. While I disagree with him, I respect his^posi-tion and his point of view and I should hope that, while I know he disagrees with me, he will respect my opposition to his point of view. He has said very properly that there is a vital principle at stake in this matter of the C.B.C. He emphasized that by saying that it implied unlimited potential powers. He went, on to argue or to suggest, as an interpretation of that point, that the C.B.C. or any other national broadcasting system has the ear of vast numbers of the nation's people at any time of the day. That is true, and it does make radio a vital question. It is precisely because of that point that I am in favour of the C.B.C. If the public did not have control of such a master instrument as this it would pass into the hands of private monopoly.
Let me in that connection read a short extract from our great national magazine, Maclean's. Perhaps I need not mention the name of the gentleman who is the hero of this article.


Solon Earl Low: Oh, go on; name him.


William Irvine: I can name him, if necessary, but I do not want to give any unnecessary notoriety.


Solon Earl Low: Oh, go on.


William Irvine: Well, all right. He is Mr. Roy Herbert Thomson. I quote:
. . . a fast-talking Torontonian who traded mumbo jumbo for supersalesmanship, a magic wand for a fountain pen and proceeded to pull hundreds of thousands of dollars literally out of thin air.
A Social Crediter, per se.
Then it goes on:
Nobody, except maybe Thomson himself, would have bet that within a decade he would become a big voice in the Canadian radio and newspaper scene.

Supply-Broadcasting-Loans
To-day he directs the destinies of six newspapers and three radio stations in Canada, and has an interest in two other Canadian stations. He also owns the controlling interest in the only radio station in British Guiana, and has a newspaper in Jamaica.
He admits he would like to own a metropolitan daily, and rumour has it he wants to buy the Toronto Evening Telegram. Of this he says: "Everytime somebody is reported trying to buy something. I get blamed for it." But there's reason for it. A friend said recently: "He'd try to buy the B.B.C. if he knew Attlee a little better."
That is what happens when a master instrument of this kind is left to the grabbing of those who have the greatest brains, if you will, or the greatest pocketbook or the greatest agility or the greatest cunning or whatever particular factor enters into the successful control of an instrument of this kind. If it were not that we had the C.B.C. to protect the interests of the Canadian people we would find ourselves with the whole medium of public education passing into the hands of private monopoly. My information in this regard is that the privately owned radio stations in the United States of America refused, up until a few years ago, to sell time to the cooperatives. At that time they were forced by the government to extend that privilege to all classes in the community.
I finish that point by saying that the hon. member for Macleod is quite right when he says that this is important. With the private stations it is only those who have money who can buy any time. In that event I am afraid that neither my hon. friend nor I shall ever be heard. I have never been and I do not know whether my hon. friend has, but certainly neither of our parties would ever be if we had to buy time. I am glad that this control is in the hands of the C.B.C., which makes it possible for us to get at least a little time along with the other philosophies in this country. When you are buying services of this kind on a private basis it means whatever the traffic will bear, and there are two things that happen. First, you rule out to a great degree the large masses of people from having its benefits and, second, inevitably you build up a privately owned monopoly. Those are two things that come from youi so-called free competition.
My hon. friend took a gratuitous slap at the People's Weekly, a paper which opposes the ideas for which he stands and referred to it as a funny paper. If my hon. friend found himself on the pages of a funny paper, then for the first time in his life he was where he ought to be. He went on to say that, when consulted, the people did not seem to understand about radio. I would say to him that
no doubt the people understand as much about radio as they did about social credit when the Social Credit party came to power. I do not like the inference in my hon. friend's argument that some body somewhere must tell the people what they must do with respect to a technical question like radio.
If that is true, who is to do it? Is it to be a private corporation, or is it to be a body responsible to parliament? If any body is to do it, then I say that the people who control parliament should do it. Frankly, I have more faith in the people than my hon. friend has. I think he reflects on their judgment with respect to both of us, because they sent us here. I hope they did not make a mistake in both cases, but it is quite within the realm of possibility that they did. They have the right to make that mistake if, indeed, they made it.
I want to follow up a little farther the other argument of my hon. friend. He speaks of the board as being authoritarian; he laid emphasis on the authoritarian phase of the thing. There is no such authoritarian idea in the board. My hon. friend is playing fast and loose with a certain sentiment which is a hangover of a great world conflict. He is trying to scare the people into his way of thinking by utilizing an idea that has been scaring people very badly ever since Hitler began to come to power. There are no such authoritarian powers. This parliament is supreme over anything that this government handles. If it is not, we should go home; we should not be here at all. If I thought parliament was not supreme I would not stay here for two minutes.
It is supreme now, despite the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite are Liberals and despite the fact that they do things with which I disagree most sharply. Still, what they do is what this parliament says they can do, because they represent the majority. Every four years the people of Canada, have the right to say who shall represent the majority. While that is true, it is not true for anyone to say that a board appointed by this government and responsible to this government is exercising authoritarian powers.
Then he said he would like to have a neutral body governing these things. Where would he find it? What does a neutral body mean? Neuter is one of the genders in grammar. There is feminine, masculine and neuter. Two are virile, and the other is lifeless, a thing without life or sex. That is neuter, and my hon. friend would have a body governing our radio commission which would be a sort of polyglot, hermaphrodite conglomeration of something that stands for nothing in par-
Supply-Broadcasting-Loans

ticular and is entirely neutral. There is no such individual; there is no such body; it is just another word. People will have bias. Even judges on the bench will have bias without knowing it. We cannot make people without bias. To think that any body will be so absolutely impartial as to be described as neutral is going far beyond anything that I have ever met.
He spoke next about driving the press out of business through the development of facsimile news. I think we must give the hon. gentleman credit for at least going quite a step beyond anything we have been able to achieve in this country in radio development. But the same thing would surely apply under private ownership, no matter how far. he carries the development. My hon. friend and his party, just as I and my party, have often said that the press in Canada is controlled by the big interests. I think my hon. friend will never deny that the leaders of his party, if not he himself, have said that constantly. and I think they do yet. But the Social Credit government of Alberta, I would point out, is the only government that I know of in any British country that ever made any decided step toward the censorship of the press. Fortunately they were not permitted to do that.


Solon Earl Low: That is not true.


William Irvine: If it is not true my hon. friend can bring the legislation here and leave it exposed in parliament and leave it to the judgment of the house. At any rate there was a decided effort made to control the press in Alberta.


Solon Earl Low: No.


William Irvine: Call it what you like. What would you call it?


Solon Earl Low: I will tell you exactly what it was. It was an attempt to have the facts as the newspapers saw them and as others saw them presented in the pages of the paper, with no control whatever over what the paper should say.


William Irvine: I think the hon. gentleman should have used another word. I think he should have used the word "truth." Of course, "truth" is a very slippery word. It is difficult to tell who is telling the truth. I think I am telling the truth in this matter and my hon. friend thinks he is telling the truth. Everybody has a different concept of what is the truth, and if you ever set up an organization that says, "This is the truth and anybody who says anything different is telling lies, and we must not let him tell lies," then you have complete control of the press
(Mr. Irvin*1.]


Solon Earl Low: That is just your interpretation.


William Irvine: That was the legislation as I understand it.
Another point my hon. friend made was his expressed fear of Marxian and communistic teaching. He has every right to be afraid of what he must be afraid of and every right to oppose that with which he does not agree, but he has no right to prevent even the communists from having a say in this country.


Norman Jaques: Let them say they are communists. Put a label on them.


William Irvine: He has no right to say that
any private station which might give time to these people would receive his censure if he were in power. That remark of his indicates to me that it would not be safe to entrust the spirit of democracy in the hands of the Social Credit party. If that is his idea-


Solon Earl Low: That is not what he said. It is only your comment.


William Irvine: I am glad that the leader of his party has repudiated that. I think it ought to be repudiated. But that was actually what was said.


Solon Earl Low: That was not what was said.


Ernest George Hansell: I shall have a word to say after my hon. friend is through.


James Joseph McCann: This thing cannot go on forever.


William Irvine: No, it cannot, and therefore I shall endeavour to bring my remarks to a close as speedily as possible.
My hon. friend was also kind enough to set up a board of governors for the C.B.C. for the benefit of the C.C.F. He was gratuitous in his complimentary prophecy. He pointed out that if this government should always be there it might be all right, but some day the C.C.F. might get into power. Then he went on to say what kind of board of governors we might have then, and he named a board of his own, although none of these people are here to defend themselves, except one. The ones he named were David Lewis, Professor Frank Scott, Harold Winch, leader of the opposition in British Columbia, the hon. member for Vancouver East, Mr. Elmore Philpott and Miss Macphail. I appreciate that. It is a fine board. I would suggest that the present board is no better. I do not think anyone could have named a better board than the one which was concocted by my hon. friend, and I hope that some day they will actually be in control of the C.B.C. in the interests of the people of Canada.

Foreign Exchange
-Let me conclude on the note on which my hon. friend concluded. He protested that he was a Christian. Yet when he came to speak of Russia his remarks were surcharged with irrational bitterness. Whatever things he or I or others may think about Russia this is no time and no place and certainly no occasion for any member of this house to take a rap at an erstwhile ally when the world is now in such turmoil and we are endeavouring to find a basis for the future peace of the world. I hope my hon. friend will repress his noble rage until a more convenient season. There may come a time when it will'become necessary for him to criticize Russia, but at the present time the less he or I or anybody else has to say that will stir up animosity in the international field, the better. I want to say further with respect to his fear of communists controlling the C.B.C., and that communists are in control of strikes and communists are doing this and doing that, if all that is true the communists must be the most remarkable people in the world, and therefore most decidedly they should have charge because they certainly have competence if they can do all these things despite the opposition. I think that is all rubbish. To say that every strike is caused by communists or that everything Russia does is bad because she is a communist country-these things are ridiculous. The claim that the C.B.C. is controlled by communists or that it is in danger of being so controlled is untrue and has no basis in fact.


James Joseph McCann: I think it is the wish of all hon. members that we conclude this debate before six o'clock. I have not had an opportunity of saying anything in this debate-[DOT]


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If the minister has the idea that no one else wishes to speak on this question I think I should tell him that he is wrong.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: May I move to report progress and ask leave to sit again. There are certain items on the order paper which I should like to have called before six o'clock if it suits the convenience of hon. members.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think I would be meeting the wishes of all hon. members if I moved at this time:
That, notwithstanding the terms of standing order 6, when Mr. Speaker leaves the chair at six p.m. this day, the intermission extend only to 7 o'clock instead of 8 o'clock.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to bill No. 370, to amend the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940.
He said: Mr. Speaker, they are merely verbal changes correcting an erroneous reference in one section to another section of the act.
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to bill No. 195, respecting the control of the acquisition and disposition of foreign currency and the control of transactions involving foreign currency or non-residents.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Are we being asked to adopt these now?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Well, they seem to be multitudinous in number. Are we to have any chance of looking at them at all?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I understood that they had been examined.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have had these in my hands for an hour or two. But we have been busy here this afternoon.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not want to do anything which will inconvenience any hon. members; but it was the hope that we would, some time, come to the end of this session, and that this might be an opportune time for clearing off the order paper matters that will have to be dealt with before any arrangements can be made to close the session. If the hon. member wishes to have this deferred until a later hour I have no objection. I was prepared to state what the amendments were.


Grote Stirling: Will the minister do so? Will the minister explain what the amendments are and whether the government accepts them in toto?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The government had decided to accept them in toto. Most of them are amendments which consist of replacing the word "board" by "governor in council" with respect to certain things that could be
Foreign Exchange

done by regulation. There are certain other amendments. One is to provide that, subject to regulations, a person might have in his possession, without its being an offence, foreign currency not exceeding $100. Another is to replace the word "property" by the word "goods" in the section prohibiting exports without a permit. Then there is a provision made by the bill which it was intended to have made by regulation, that the requirements for a permit would not apply to travellers' or tourists' luggage or the things usually carried by persons passing from one side of the border to the border. Another, that subject to regulations, the requirement of being paid by nonresidents in foreign currency would not apply to personal or professional services performed in the ordinary course of everyday life by residents of Canada. Another one, to provide that the officers at the border would not be entitled to search a person without going before a magistrate if that person did not wish it done. Then the two most important amendments are:	one, that there be a time limit
placed upon the duration of the act, namely that it expire sixty days after the opening of the first session of parliament meeting in 1949; the other is the deletion of the provision in the act whereby the Minister of National Revenue might communicate information obtained from income tax returns to the foreign exchange control board.. This is something which had been done while the foreign exchange control board operated1 under the order in council. It proved to be of considerable advantage, and the government felt that it was a provision which was desirable. In the other place a majority came to the conclusion that the inviolability of the secrecy of the income tax returns should not be disturbed even for the purpose of the administration of the foreign exchange control regulations, and the government decided that it would not refuse to accept that amendment and would endeavour to see that the regulations were administered without it, but if it were found between now and the next session that the absence of this provision made it more difficult to track down evasions, a new bill would be brought in asking that the provision be restored.
These are the amendments that have been made.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, if I were asked now, if this came to a vote, I think I would be in the position where I would be bound to vote against this bill as amended by the other place. It seems to me that the most important protection they have given the people of Canada in regard to this bill is to protect evaders of income tax.

Personally I do not believe we should support that, but if the government is satisfied with it I will not oppose it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: May I point out to the hon. member that it is not a prohibition against the foreign exchange control board giving information to the Department of National Revenue in respect of income tax; it is the other way around. The foreign exchange control board will still be able to call to the attention of national revenue any matters which might affect the income of individuals, but will not be able to obtain from the Department of National Revenue information disclosed in income tax returns. It is not quite as serious as perhaps the hon. member felt. But the government still desired to have that provision, because it was a safeguard against evasions of the provisions of the foreign exchange control regulations, and if it is in a position to establish that there is prejudice we shall come back and ask that it be reinserted.


William Irvine: I just wish to say that I think the amendment which limits the time of the act is even more serious than the point referred to by my hon. friend.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is something which can be easily taken care of before the time expires.


William Irvine: The fact remains the opinion is left abroad in other nations that we may not take care of it. It expires on a certain date, and it may affect the very price of our currency, the thing we are trying to stabilize.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in, on division.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Acting Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to bill No. 372, to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
Grote Stirling: Will the minister explain the amendments?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): There are only two amendments. One is merely a clarification. It adds after the words "dividends" on page 1, line 15, of the bill "paid or credited to policyholders." This is what was intended and it spells it out in terms. The other one is to provide that where the tax is collected on an agreement for the sale of a security or the right to security it will not be paid again when the agreement

Supply-Broadcasting-Loans
is carried out. I do not think it was really necessary in order to avoid duplication of taxation, but there is certainly no objection to having it expressed that there would not be two taxes taken on the same transaction.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Acting Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to bill No. 392, to amend the Militia Pension Act.
He said: These amendments are merely to correct minor drafting points; there are no amendments of substance.
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at seven o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister): In view of the motion that was adopted at six o'clock with respect to the duration of the intermission, I assume that we shall have the unanimous consent of the house to treat this as the time when private bills and public bills of private members should be called instead of waiting until eight o'clock.
Mr. SPEAKER:: The list of public bills having been exhausted the house will revert to its business at six o'clock.



CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to bill No. 201, to establish the Canadian Commercial Corporation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am moving this motion if I may have the unanimous consent of the house. The amendment consists merely of putting a time limit on the duration of the act. It would, under the amendment,
come to an end on the sixtieth day after the opening of the session commencing in 1949 unless it is extended in the meantime.
Karl Kenneth Homuth: I realize that the Acting Prime Minister cannot tell us how long some hon. members will make speeches on certain subjects. I wonder if, by any arrangement with the whips, he can give us some idea as to when the house will get through. Can he give us some intimation as to what his hopes are at least?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is much easier for me to state what my hopes are than to make any prediction as to what the realization will be, but my hopes are that we may finish by twelve o'clock to-night and be able to send the appropriation act over to the other place for consideration. I understand they are meeting at half-past ten in the morning. If that hope were realized we could arrange to have prorogation about half-past eleven.


Gordon Graydon: Did I hear the minister aright? Is the senate meeting at ten-thirty o'clock in the morning?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The senate has
arranged to meet at ten-thirty o'clock in the morning and to adjourn on call until such time as this house will have provided .it writh additional work.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Thank you, sir.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.
William Henry Golding: The committee is considering item 965, loans and investments, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?


John Horne Blackmore: Not having been a member of the radio committee this year, and having had several other heavy responsibilities to discharge, I have had to depend in large measure on what I have heard on the floor of the house for an understanding of what this is about. I may say at the outset that the bill which the government presented was repugnant to me and, if that bill indicated the general policy that guides the CJB.C., I would say it is cause for considerable alarm throughout the country. However, perhaps it did not exactly represent the government's idea or that of the C.B.C. I should like to ask several pointed questions of the minister
Supply-Broadcasting-Loans

and have his answers to them so that I may be able to form some accurate estimate of just what the C.B.C. is aiming at.
However, before I ask those questions, may I say that I have had great admiration for the C.B.C. ever since it began its activities. I have appreciated the high quality of programme that it has given the Canadian people. I have always felt that the C.B.C. had its place, just as I have felt that the private radio stations had theirs, and I have been of the view that the C.B.C. should keep its hands off private radio stations, leaving them to discharge their responsibility in the country. The evidence which has been presented before the house rather fills me with anxiety lest the C.B.C. is overstepping its bounds. I understand that when a private radio station receives its licence it is taken for granted that every year when it applies for a renewal of that licence it will receive that renewal on condition of good behaviour. I look upon the C.B.C., in reference to this parliament, in very much the same way. When the C.B.C. comes to parliament for grants of money to carry on each year I feel that it should look upon this as an application for the renewal of its licence, and I feel further that it should receive renewal of that licence on condition of good behaviour.
Some of the evidence which has come before us indicates that the C.B.C. has been trying to kick some of the private stations around. If that has occurred, then I believe the C.B.C. should be warned in the matter, advised to reform its ways in the future and given another chance.
In order to satisfy myself, I desire to ask a series of definite questions, for two purposes. First, they will give me an opportunity of learning things about the C.B.C. which I believe every member of the house ought to know and the country has a right to know. Then, it will give the government and the minister representing the C.B.C. a chance to set it right before the country. If there has been misrepresentation, such misrepresentation can be cleared away.
I am sorry I have not a copy of all these questions, but I have a copy of the first nine of them, and I shall send it to the minister so that he will be able to answer the questions one after the other. I should think he would not require a copy of the last ones in order to be able to answer them. I shall send the first ones to the minister, and shall proceed to ask the questions.
Is the government aiming to encourage the development of private radio stations in Canada? I take it, if that is the aim, then the C.B.C. must be aiming to do the same thing.

Otherwise I must assume that it is beginning to act as though it were a law unto itself. If that should be shown to be the case, then I would suggest that the situation is not as it should be.
Is the government endeavouring to give the Canadian people what they want over the radio, or is the government aiming to give what the government, through the C.B.C., wants the Canadian people to hear?
If the government is trying to give the Canadian people what the Canadian people want, what steps has the government taken to make sure that it is doing this?
Is the government aiming to establish and maintain freedom of speech in Canada over the radio?
If so, what steps has the government taken -and when I refer to the government I would presume that we would mean the C.B.C.-[DOT] to establish and maintain freedom of speech over the radio in Canada?
Does the government believe that the majority of the people in any given area of Canada-say a province, section of a province, an audience listening to a given local radio station-ought to be guaranteed the right to listen to any speaker or programme of the choice of those people in that area?
If so, what steps has the government or the C.B.C. taken to see that this state of affairs is brought about?
What in the minister's opinion ought to be the aim of radio in Canada?-entertainment, culture (literary, dramatic, or musical), education, enlightenment? If there are any others, the minister would be free to specify them.
Has the government provided adequate safeguards to prevent the C.B.C. from (a) impairing the strength and efficiency of private radio stations; (b) destroying the strength and efficiency of private radio stations; (c) destroying freedom of speech over private radio stations? What are the safeguards the government has taken in each of these respects?
From this series of questions dealing with the general attitude of the government and of the C.B.C. which, of course, would constitute their policy in Canada, I pass on to some details. The minister, I thought, resented the statement by the hon. member for Greenwood that, if this item were passed, it would ensure the destruction of private radio stations in Canada. I thought the minister was desirous of rising to refute that statement. I trust he will be able to make a good case in refutation of that charge.
I am now going to ask a number of questions about a particular case, so that the minister may put the facts on the record for all who are interested to read.

____________ Supply-Broadcasting-Loans
These are the questions: Did CFCN, Calgary, 1010 kilocycles, ask permission in 1944 to expand its power to 50,000 watts?
Was CFCN refused permission to increase its output to 50,000 watts?
Who were the men who refused this permission?
Did the C.B.C. seek concurrence of the government in CJB.C.'s decision to refuse?
Did the government concur?
Was the concurrence the result of ministerial decision or departmental decision or cabinet decision? What were the reasons for the decision to deny CFCN the privilege of extending its power to 50,000 watts in 1944?
If the decision was made by the C.B.C. without the concurrence of the government, what were the government's safeguards against preventing the development of private stations, that failed of effectiveness in preventing this unwarranted blocking of the development of the splendid private station known as CFCN? That is, if the government has safeguards to protect private stations, in what respect did the government safeguards prove deficient in this case?
Did the C.B.C. force CFCN to sell $158,473.44 worth of time for $28,680.72? How can the minister justify this action by C.B.C.?
Did C.B.C. on April 18, 1946, notify CFCN that CFCN must give up the CFCN channel of 1010 kilocycles and that CFCN must take the channel of 1060 kilocycles? How can the minister justify this action by the C.B.C.? Will this displacement from the 1010 kilocycle channel to the 1060 kilocycle channel lose for CFCN much of CFCN's financial income because CFCN on the new 1060 kilocycle channel must protect Philadelphia and Mexico, thereby cutting off CFCN from the great bulk of the radio audience in southern Alberta, a relatively thickly populated area and one that CFCN has served and served well for years? How does the minister justify this action of the C.B.C. in weakening the financial position of CFCN a private radio station?
Will this displacement of CFCN from the 1010 kilocycle channel to the 1060 channel lose for CFCN a large portion of its audience, thereby impairing the effectiveness of this efficient private station CFCN? How can the minister justify such action by the C.B.C.?
May I comment here and say that it has been argued that C.B.C. has to take over the CFCN, 1010 kilocycle channel and protect it by raising the power to 50,000 watts to ensure that Canada will have that channel allotted to her at the 1947 international conference. May I point out that CFCN had
in 1944 sought to increase the strength or power of CFCN to 50,000 watts and was refused.
To go on with the questions. Is it proposed to establish in Alberta, at Red Deer or thereabouts, a 50,000 watt C.B.C. radio
station?
Does the powerful C.B.C. station at Wat-rous, Saskatchewan, not easily reach all of Alberta from the United States border to a point far north of Edmonton?
What possible justification can there be for establishing a 50,000 watt C.B.C. station in Alberta and taking away from CFCN its 1010 kilocycle channel?
Finally, will not a powerful C.B.C. radio station near Red Deer tend to overwhelm the CFCN station even on 1060 kilocycles?
It will be obvious to all members of the committee that, if the answers to the questions which I have asked pertaining to the way in which C.B.C. has dealt with CFCN are such as I fear they will be, it will be difficult for the C.B.C. to justify itself on the ground of good behaviour. I am giving the C.B.C. an opportunity to explain all these matters through the minister.
May I return now to the questions and ask them one by one, so that the minister can answer, after having had an opportunity to consider them.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.
Mr. BLACIvMORE: Yes, I know you wish it was carried.


An hon. MEMBER:: Question.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not blame you
for questioning it; it is getting pretty hot.


An hon. MEMBER:: We want to go home.


John Horne Blackmore: I want to go home
when the business of this house is finished. I shall ask these questions slowly, so the minister can answer them.
Is the government aiming to encourage the development of private stations in Canada? What would the minister say?


James Joseph McCann: Yes, we are.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Horne Blackmore: I am sure the minister would want to have his answers heard.


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Will the minister
answer loudly enough, because others are trying to answer for him. Is the government endeavouring to give the Canadian people what the Canadian people want over the radio?
Supply-Broadcasting-Loans


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: What steps has the government taken to make sure that this is being done?


James Joseph McCann: I do not know that this form of questioning is usual. If the hon. member wishes his questions answered we can answer them without his repeating them the second time. The first question which I have answered is: Is the government endeavouring to give the Canadian people what the Canadian people want over the radio? The answer is, yes.
Next, what measures or steps has the government taken to give the Canadian people what the Canadian people want? They have set up a corporation which is the trustee for the people of Canada as far as radio broadcasting is concerned and have attempted to carry out the wishes of the Canadian people in that regard.
The next was: Does the government mean to establish and maintain freedom of speech in Canada? The answer is, yes.
The next question is: If so, what steps has the government taken?


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to have the minister give an answer to the question: What steps has the government taken to bring that about? I wonder if he can tell us what steps the government has in mind whereby it will ask the people in Alberta or western Canada whether they would like to listen to CFCN or C.B.C.?


William Henry Golding: The hon. member must not interrupt when the minister has the floor. There is no place for two hon. members to speak at once.


James Joseph McCann: The answer to that question is that C.B.C. keeps in contact with and is informed of what the Canadian public wants with reference to programmes, and tries to meet those conditions.
The hon. member's next question was:
What steps has the government taken to establish and maintain freedom of speech over the radio in Canada?
We are in favour of freedom of speech, but not the abuse of freedom.
The next question was:
Does the government believe that the majority of the people in any given area of Canada-say a province, section of a province, an audience listening to a given local radio station-ought to be guaranteed the right to listen to any speaker or programme of their choice?
There is nothing to interfere with people listening to anything on the radio.

Another question was:
What steps has the government taken to see that this state of affairs is guaranteed?
The ordinary rights of the ordinary citizeD of this country secure that.
The next question was:
What in the minister's opinion, ought to be the aim of radio in Canada with respect to entertainment, culture, literary, dramatic or musical, education, enlightment?
The aim of the corporation so far as programmes are concerned is to give a diversified variety of programmes in education, entertainment, newscasts, sports broadcasts, and information. Freedom is given for the discussion, under regulation, of religious, educational and controversial subjects. That is fairly inclusive, but perhaps not all-inclusive of the various types of programmes offered. The corporation is always glad to hear suggestions from people from one end of the country to the other as to the particular types of programme they prefer. The desires and the needs of people in the agricultural areas particularly are met by farm broadcasts. We have also educational and school broadcasts. It is really a waste of time to go over all this, because the radio committee sat for three months; every phase of its activity was gone into, and there has not been one question asked here since this discussion started that was not fully answered and reported in the minutes of the proceedings of the radio committee, so that I consider it is an absolute waste of our time to have a repetition of this type of question at this stage of the session. I fully recognize the right of anybody to ask questions and shall always be ready to give a fair and polite answer, but, under the circumstances, when everything has been done already to lay before parliament and the people all the information sought in answer to every type of question that could be thought of with reference to radio broadcasting, it is only being repetitious to go over these questions again. However, I will finish giving the answers.
The next question was:
Has the government provided adequate safeguards to prevent the C.B.C. from impairing the strength and efficiency of private radio stations?
C.B.C. simply carries out the Radio Broadcasting Act and the regulations under that act which was passed by the parliament of Canada. That act has been reviewed every year for several years past, and one radio committee after another has endorsed the policies which are being carried out by the broadcasting corporation.

_____________ Supply-Broadcasting-Loans
The next question:
Did CFCN, Calgary, ilOlO kilocycles, ask permission to increase its output to 50,000 watts?
Yes, it did make that request, and it was refused on grounds of general policy, under which private radio stations are not given the right to increase their power to that extent.
The next question was:
Was CFCN refused permission to increase its output to 50,000 watts?
The answer is, yes. The question went on:
Who were the men who refused this permission?
The procedure is that the application is made to the broadcasting corporation, which reviews it and makes a recommendation to the Minister of Transport, who, under the Radiotelegraph Act has the power to issue a licence if recommended.
Next:
Did C.B.C. seek concurrence of the government in C.B.C.'s decision to refuse?
The government does not interfere in the management of C.B.C.
Next:
Did the government concur? Was its concurrence the result of a ministerial decision, a departmental, decision, a cabinet decision?
I have given the answer to that.
Next:
What were the reasons for the decision to deny CFCN the privilege of expanding its power to 50,000 watts?
The reason was the general policy with reference to increasing the power of private stations. The policy follows the recommendations of committees of parliament which have given study to this matter.
Next:
If the decision was made by the C.B.C. without the government's concurrence, what were the government's safeguards against preventing the development of private stations that failed of effectiveness in preventing this unwarranted blocking of the development of the splendid private station known as CFCN?
There is no attempt to interfere with CFCN, except that the frequency it occupies is now to be occupied by C.B.C. itself.


Gordon Graydon: That is really the whole point. The minister cannot gloss over it like that. When you take away the frequency of a station you take away its listening audience to a great extent, as the hon. member from Greenwood indicated.


James Joseph McCann: A greater principle is
involved there. The airways of this country belong to all of the people of Canada.


Denton Massey: And not to C.B.C.


James Joseph McCann: No. CB.C. acts as trustees of the airways for the people of Canada.


Denton Massey: Operators.


James Joseph McCann: I for one believe in state-owned, state-operated and state-controlled radio in this country, and that is the policy of the party to which the hon. member belongs, the policy which his party endorsed in 1932.


Denton Massey: No.


James Joseph McCann: Oh, yes. The then prime minister of this country, the leader of my hon. friend's party, brought in a radio act in 1932. Let me read what he said.


Gordon Graydon: At least you are going to a good source.


James Joseph McCann: A few days ago when speaking in this house the hon. member for Calgary West decried Mr. Bennett being quoted so often. I do not quote him because he was Mr. Bennett, or because I was on the intimate terms with him claimed by the hon. member for Calgary West. I quote him because he was the leader of a great party in this house, the only one in thirty years who was elected a member, leader of his party and prime minister. That puts him in a position where he may quite properly be quoted. In a speech that he made on May 18, 1932, on the second reading of a bill respecting radio broadcasting Mr. Bennett said, as reported at page 3035 of Hansard:
Secondly, no other scheme than that of public ownership can ensure to the people ef this country, without regard to class or place, equal enjoyment of the benefits and pleasures of radio broadcasting. Private ownership must necessarily discriminate between densely and sparsely populated areas. This is not a correctable fault in private ownership; it is an inescapable and inherent demerit of that system. It does not seem right that in Canada the towns should be preferred to the countryside or the prosperous communities to those less fortunate. In fact, if no other course were possible, it might be fair to suggest that it should be the other way about. Happily, however, under this system, there is no need for discrimination; all may be served alike. Equality of service is assured by the plan which calls for a chain of high power stations throughout Canada. And furthermore, the particular requirements of any community may be met by the installation of low power stations by means of which local broadcasting service may be obtained.
That speech was made after the policy recommended by the Aird commission, had been put into effect. He went on to say:
. . . I cannot think that any government would be warranted in leaving the air to private exploitation and not reserving it for development for the use of the people.


Gordon Graydon: That still does not back you up.
Supply-Broadcasting-Loans

Mr. MoCANN: Well, I can back myself up after I get through supporting you. The trouble is that the Conservative party show, by their whole attitude toward radio broadcasting, that they have repudiated the policies which were enunciated by a former prime minister and their former leader.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What was your attitude in 1932?


James Joseph McCann: I have heard no announcement from the leader of the Progressive Conservative party with reference to their policy on radio broadcasting, and I suggest to them that they might well haul down their flag and delete from the hyphenated name the word "Progressive", because they are now no longer progressive as far as radio is concerned.


Gordon Graydon: That is a good stump speech, anyway.


James Joseph McCann: It is time the hon. member knew something about it.


Denton Massey: Would the minister permit a question?


James Joseph McCann: 
John Horne Blackmore: Alberta can hear
Watrous very clearly.


James Joseph McCann: Not all of it.


John Horne Blackmore: North of Edmonton they can hear it.


James Joseph McCann: That is the very reason we are putting in another high-power station in Alberta, namely, that we have had so many complaints from Alberta that, although in the southern portion of the province they can hear the Watrous station, in other parts of it they can not. In addition to that, we want to build up a chain of stations, one in Alberta, one in Manitoba, one in Saskatchewan, two in Ontario, one in Montreal, and the one we have in Sackville, to carry out the policy which was recommended by the Aird commission, the policy which has been endorsed by every radio committee which has sat and made inquiry from that day, to this.
This is not a matter of new policy with reference to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. This appropriation, let me say, is not a matter of a gift or a vote; this is a matter of a loan. A loan to whom? To the C.B.C. on behalf of the people of Canada, for whom they are trustees. And I want to tell the committee that we are dealing with people who have on former occasions borrowed money and have paid every cent of it. The C.B.C. does not owe the people of Canada one five-cent piece. We have made loans to them on former occasions and on every occasion that money has been returned.


Mr. CASE:: Have they paid any taxes or fees or like charges such as private enterprise pays?	[DOT]


James Joseph McCann: They pay the same taxes as other public bodies do.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: That is not an answer to the question.


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member himself knows the answer.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: The answer is that they do not, and they should pay taxes.


James Joseph McCann: What this asks for is a loan, which will be repayable. All these discussions which have taken place upon the supplementary estimates might well have taken place had we gone ahead with the bill which was proposed and came to second reading. That bill was not dropped because

S upply-Broadcast ing-Loans
we have changed any policy; this method was taken of securing the money with a view to expediting the work of the session, and we thought it would probably take a good deal less time than if the bill were discussed in every detail.
I think we should proceed to pass this item and get on with the rest of the business of the house. I should like, if opportunity permitted, to review what has been done by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but I feel that we are on eminently safe ground and that we have the support of the great majority of the people of this country in carrying out the policies of a great nationally owned, controlled and operated radio system.


John Horne Blackmore: I appreciate very much the answers the minister has given. They are straightforward, and they give the point of view which obviously is actuating the minister and the C.B.C. The one great inconsistency lies in this fact. When I asked the minister if he favoured the development of private radio stations he said, yes.


James Joseph McCann: Yes, so I do.


John Horne Blackmore: Then he immediately sanctioned a policy which will result in the serious impairment, if not the ultimate destruction of CFCN.
An lion. MEMBER: That is a matter of opinion.


John Horne Blackmore: That is something which needs explaining. I will leave it to those who read Hansard and to the members of the committee to judge. The mere fact that statements were made in forecasts by the leader of the Conservatives back in 1932 which would seem to justify the policy that C.B.C. is following does not, in my judgment, establish the soundness of that policy.
There are one or two matters to which I wish to refer. I asked the minister if C.B.C. had forced CFCN to sell $158,473.44 worth of time for $28,680.72. The minister said, "The answer is, no". May I read from the minutes of the hearings of the radio committee, at page 566, where Mr. Love is giving evidence for CFCN. At the end of the third paragraph, about one-fifth of the way from the bottom of the page, he says:
In addition non-obligatory sustaining programmes carried by our station for the C.B.C., day and night, last year, if computed at our lowest rate, would amount to $61,800. Add to this the value of the commercial time used by the network for their commercials of $57,361.44 and it makes a grand total of $158,473.44. We received from the C.B.C. a total of $28,680.72, one-half of the commercial sponsors' money received by them.

That was the basis of my question. I leave it to the committee.
Now, as to the question whether the CFCN station will lose by the change-over, the minister expresses the opinion that it would not. That is certainly not what the manager of CFCN himself thinks about the matter, because he points out what the members of the committee will readily understand. CFCN is situated in Calgary. South of Calgary is the city of Lethbridge and a great number of small towns and Medicine Hat. CFCN has been serving these communities for many years. If CFCN is to screen its broadcasts in such a way as to protect Mexico and Philadelphia it has to screen out, according to my information, all these communities south of Calgary, which means that a large percentage of these towns will be lost. If I am correctly informed, that means that it would be less remunerative for CFCN to sell its advertising, because the rate at which people pay for advertising depends upon the listening audience. It may be argued that CFCN will not lose heavily financially by the change-over. I cannot say. The minister thinks it will not. The minister said that CFCN was offered a channel other than 1060. So far as I have gone into the records of the radio investigation, no mention was made of any other channel than 1060. If there were any other channel which has not the disadvantages which accrue to 1060 I would be reassured.
I have one or two other points. I could read a considerable section of the report of the committee, but I do not think I had better do that. In my judgment, the one important point that we have to determine is whether or not private radio stations are to be given the right to develop and make their contribution to this nation's thinking, its education and development, or whether they are to be submerged and reduced to relative colourlessness and ineffectiveness by the overriding C.B.C. If more stations like Watrous are to be established in every portion of Canada, then I would venture the supposition that in about fifteen years private radio stations will simply disappear. In other words, the move is one which will ultimately result in the strangulation of private radio stations, not necessarily because the C.B.C. will deliberately destroy them, but it will simply come in and take their business and allow them to die. That is quite evident from the answers which have been given to my questions.
I am not satisfied with the situation. Something better should be offered to the private radio stations. The fact that station CFCN was a pioneer, that it served the people of

Supply-B roadcasting-Loans

southern Alberta admirably for many years, and that to-day that radio station serves the people admirably, that the people of all over southern Alberta, so far as I know, are strongly attached to the station and would prefer to hear it rather than to listen to the C.B.C. programmes, makes it a serious matter for the C.B.C. to take any action whatsoever which will result in the impairment of that splendid radio station.


William Henry Golding: We have an amendment before the committee.
I am not sure whether it has been moved. It was moved by the hon. member for St. Paul's:
That vote 965 for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation be reduced to one dollar.
Is the committee ready for the question?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. I am conscious that no one would willingly take on this task at this time. I know the committee is tired and all that sort of thing.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Take plenty of time.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is going to snow.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The reason I am taking the time of the committee on this matter is very simple. I believe that, while nominally passing merely this item, what we are really doing is what the minister really indicated a moment or two ago. We are really settling an important question which is going to be irrevocably settled.
I want to say one thing, first, because of something that happened earlier in the day. I am far from criticizing the C.B.C. I wish to say this in particular-I do not think the hon. member for Waterloo South intended to suggest that the C.B.C. had dealt unfairly with our meeting. Sometimes he and I are a little prejudiced against the Liberals, and it may be that he suggested that the prejudice carried over. I wanted to say that in the presence of the officials of the C.B.C.
I now come back to what I intended to say. A bill came before the house which was discussed, There were only two speeches made on the other side about it. One was dead against it. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre to-day suggested that most of the things in the bill were better left over for consideration later, with which I fully agree. Yet we are asked to take action here which, I submit, will really make the other points largely meaningless, because, of the action which we are asked to take here. I submit this in spite of what the minister said about their wanting to encourage private radio. The important thing is not what people say but what they do. I believe that it has been

established in this committee to my satisfaction-and no satisfactory answer has been given-that this action will have the effect of destroying or at any rate so crippling as virtually to destroy these companies in question.
I want to go back to what the minister said about what was said previously in the house by a previous leader of this party. I am not afraid of it; I do not want to run away from it. Conditions often change. I submit that never in the history of the world have conditions changed as much as in the last fifteen years. I submit, further, that if you take the words of Viscount Bennett they make it perfectly clear what he was talking about was not the situation we have now, because he was talking about "leaving the air to private enterprise." That is what he was complaining about. But nobody to-day is suggesting that. What we are suggesting is that this house should take time before it irrevocably closes the door on a policy which was so well established on other occasions, notably in regard to the railways. In the railways we have two enterprises: the great public enterprise and the great private enterprise. I would think what they have done is a pretty good way to combine public and private enterprise.
Let me say again that I believe there are hon. gentlemen opposite who feel as I do, not including the minister because he plainly and clearly said what was to be his policy. He said he was for state control, and I assume he means right across the board. It is fit and proper for the minister to say that. That makes it perfectly clear that what we are doing is not passing an item; we are deciding a principle finally and irrevocably. I believe that there are hon. gentlemen opposite who feel as I do. They do not want this thing irrevocably decided. I think I am safe in challenging them and asking them to rise in their places and say they believe that. I think I can pretty nearly dare most of them except the minister. His statement was plainly and honestly given, for which I respect him.
I wish to recall the situation which we have before us. It is not disputed that if wre take this action it will result in the emasculation and virtual destruction of these stations. There are usually two reasons for mulcting or destroying or hampering private enterprise. One is that it is in danger of becoming a monopoly. That suggestion was made to-day-I forget by whom-and it seemed to me at the time that we might be saved from that kind of argument when we are having a serious discussion. The question is not whether private enterprise can create a monopoly; the real question is whether it can stay in the picture at all. The second

reason given for mulcting private enterprise is usually that it has been doing a bad job, that it has not been serving the interests of the public and that the public do not want it. I want to bring to the attention of the committee-and I know perfectly well there are hon. gentlemen opposite who agree with me-certain evidence given by Mr. Porter of Calgary, statements from farm organizations in Alberta. There is a long telegram, which I will not read, from the western stock growers association, but there is a short one from the Alberta farmers' union, comprising twenty thousand members. I quote:
This will give you permission to act in our behalf. Add the Alberta farmers' union to the brief presented to the radio committee tomorrow. Give you our moral support to establish a fifty thousand watt station in Alberta to be controlled by the people.
That is interesting, that we can get that in support of the application made by this private station in Alberta. I shall have some words to say about that.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Was the suggestion made that this station should be owned and operated by these farm organizations or by the so-called people, or was it not a regular joint stock corporation?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think it was a company, but they established close contact with the farm organizations and are working in happy relationship together, and this telgram speaks for itself. There is a longer one which I will not read. I will spare the committee that one because the time is late. I said that the reason I am arguing in this way is that this is not simply a matter of passing an item; it is a question of settling a great principle.
I should like to come back to the debate of a week ago, and notwithstanding what the minister said, I suggest that no one in the nouse, when that debate was going on, could fail to sense that there was a feeling in the house against what was being done. The strongest speech made against the bill was made by the hon. member for New Westminster. He was attacking the power being given the corporation to act as judge and jury, as well as plaintiff and policeman. Further, I come back to the speech of the. hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre today. He argued, I thought wisely, that in several of these instances we should delay, because delay would not hurt, and we could look at the matter in a wiser and more temperate way if we delayed it than we can at the present moment.
63260-357J
Supply-Broadcasting-Loans
Let me point out the alternative. These private enterprises are hampered. The field is left open for the C.B.C. As the hon. member for Greenwood said this afternoon, they are to occupy the field "totally, completely, finally and absolutely"; and someone else-I have forgotten who it was-said that they wanted "to have the whole pie". I contend that nothing can be injured if this matter is allowed to stand. Let me refer to what the hon. member for Calgary West said, namely, that nothing could be hurt until next January, that you have things on order now and cannot get them until then.
There is no reason why this important principle cannot stand until then, and as a matter of fact, if there were urgency, which there is not-the minister made that clear- we have until 1949. If there were any urgency, the private stations are on record as saying that they would go ahead and build, and, heaven knows, we have enough power to expropriate later, if necessary.
I wish now to come to another matter which has been lightly considered here, lightly considered by the minister, and rather scoffed at by the member for Cariboo. Indeed, I was amazed at the attitude he took. I refer to the question of concentration of power.. There seems to be an idea abroad that because power is in government hands it can never be abused. Twenty years ago that idea might have had currency; it might have been excusable. But how anyone can have such an idea in the world that we have lived in during the last fifteen years or so is something that I cannot understand. Yet steps are being taken to put this instrument of propaganda in one hand. The hon. member for Cariboo took the view, it seemed to me, that because it was under government control no harm could be done, but none of us believes that. We have all seen that harm can be done.


Mr. GILLIS:: That will be only because the members of this house default.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh, no. Let me develop my argument. May I give an illustration from a socialist paper in England, discussing an incident that occurred on the B.B.C. I gave this illustration last week.


Clarence Gillis: The Economist is not a socialist paper.	.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The item to which I refer did not appear in The Economist, but in The New Statesman, and that is as socialist as any you will find.


Clarence Gillis: I am sorry. I thought you were quoting The Economist.

Supply-Broadcasting-Loans


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No; I try to be accurate in what I say. I know The Economist is not socialist, but I am speaking of The New Statesman, and that is socialist. A writer in that journal referred to a certain decision made by the B.B.C. to keep a certain man off the air, for reasons which I will not go into.


Clarence Gillis: You are not quoting the article. If you are going to quote it put it on the record. You are only commenting on it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will quote the part which I wish to quote. The hon. member can check it up in Hansard of last Saturday. The writer, commenting on the incident in question, made this statement:
I believe in competition in the things of the mind.
I believe those are the right words. At any rate, the hon. gentleman can find the quotation given accurately last week.


Clarence Gillis: Is that an editorial opinion?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: This writer said, "I belipve in competition in the things of the mind." That was in a column which appears regularly, and to the best of my belief it represents the views of The New Statesman. There is nothing to indicate that it does not, and I explained all that on Saturday last. By that statement, I take it, they meant that it was desirable that no one body should have complete and exclusive access to means of propaganda which has such unbounded powers as the air now has. To me, the argument that is stronger than any other is that so expressed by this writer. To quote what was said fifteen years ago, in the light of all that has happened in the intervening years, is simply meaningless, because, I suggest, the argument which I have just quoted, in the words of that writer in The New Statesman, far outweighs all the others. That is the strongest argument in my opinion for accepting the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and allowing the matter to stand along with the other items in the bill until we can deal with them all together next session.
What is the reason for the urgency? I cannot find anything in all this debate that indicates any urgency. I have already indicated the suggestion of the hon. member for Calgary West that the matter should stand until next session. I do not believe there is any difficulty in the way of that proposal. If work needs to be begun-
[Mr. Gillis.)	-


James Joseph McCann: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman to say that there is great difficulty, because equipment is ordered and will be here this fall.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am surprised that the minister should say that, because apparently the hon. member for Calgary West had an entirely different idea, and I assume he did not get it out of the air. He says:
You have already your material on order for the stations you intend to build. You know you cannot get it yet, but the time will come when this material can be obtained. So why not let this matter rest? 'Remember that all the Alberta members-I am glad the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) is not here because lie might not concur-at all events, all of us who are here will agree that we do not want this thing.
But if that is not so, and there is danger of time being lost, the private stations say they will do it and, as I said, you have plenty of power over them, so you need not be afraid.
I am going to tell the committee what I think is the real reason for this, and this is a reason which I submit most earnestly to hon. members. I think the reason is-and I say this with all due respect to the C.B.C.-that the C.B.C. feel that now is the time to get this power, and they do not want to delay. They do not want to run the risk of any further consideration, and perhaps by next session a different view arising, a view whereby perhaps we would decide that radio should be put in the same position as the railways, and that we should have two great institutions-which I think we should have-one national institution and one private institution.
At any rate, all I am asking is that we should use our time to look at this, and that we should not, in the dying moments of this session, and under the guise of voting an amount of money-take a step which will be irrevocable and which is so unfair to radio.
So I say again-and I am pleading as earnestly as I can-that no harm will come, and that if we debate this matter next January or February and reach the conclusion that we should follow the minister's advice and have state-operated, state-owned and state-controlled radio, then it will be all right with me. If that is decided by parliament, then I shall abide by it.
But what I point out is that if we are to decide on a vote to-night we shall come together next session and begin to talk about this, but by that time the private stations will be down the drain; the C.B.C. will have gone ahead, and everyone will say, "Oh, what's the use; it is all done? You are talking about water that has gone over the dam."

Supply-Broadcasting-Loans
So I say, do not let us do this; there is no need of doing it. There is no emergency. It should be left to rest now, and the whole thing can be considered next session.


Ernest George Hansell: I wish to ask the minister a question with respect to the matter of time. Do I understand that a meeting was held in Washington-I believe it was in February of this year-in which the terms of the Havana agreement were extended until 1949? Is it not so that there was an interim agreement drawn up extending those terms? If that is so, why does the minister claim that they must start work on this by 1947, when we have until 1949 to do it?
If he persists in saying that they must start work in 1947, would he kindly tell me the article in the agreement which so states? I am not talking about the Havana agreement, but rather about the interim agreement drawn up in Washington last February.
While he is looking up that information, I should- like to say one further word. This afternoon the hon. member for Cariboo delivered what I would call a colourful speech. I am not going to answer it-not because it is unanswerable. I will say only that he certainly is a past master at twisting that which other people say to suit his own argument. I shall leave it at that. I shall leave his speech and my speech on the record. I will leave it with people in Canada who know radio from the ground up; I will ask them to read those two speeches and I am willing to rest my case with those who know.


James Joseph McCann: The Havana agreement has been extended to 1949; but it is on the understanding that the channels which are given to Canada shall be occupied and completed by 1947.


Ernest George Hansell: My answer to that is that the channels are occupied now. I w'ant to know what clause in the interim agreement says that the work must be started on them by 1947.


William Ross Macdonald: Is the committee ready for the question?


John Bracken: No.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I have one word to say. I do not wish to hold up the committee, but I would repeat that I see great dianger in the monopolistic control we have at the present time. If we vo-te this money we shall make it worse. Not only that, but the situation to-day is detrimental to the future of radio.
We have, for instance, the matter of television; no one can get a licence for television. We have facsimile, but no one can
get a licence for facsimile. There are other enterprises going on, but no one can get licences for them.
It is just the same old story. Perhaps hon, members have heard about the dog in the manger. Well, he is here. The old dog in the manger sits over there. He will not let you do anything; that is that. That is the C.B.C. at the present time. I feel strongly about this matter, or I would not have moved the amendment,
Mr. HOW'E: Don't cry about it.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Let them talk as they like; but there are many in the House of Commons who do not know anything about broadcasting. We see private enterprise willing and ready to go ahead with the development of radio for Canada; on the other hand, wre see the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation jealous of its position-. And the reason they are jealous is that the government of the day wants to keep controls for itself. I hope every hon. member who believes in free enterprise will vote for my amendment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Don't be in too big a hurry. After all, I think we are all anxious to conclude the session. This is an item of considerable magnitude and the results would be far-reaching. As the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has said, we are really determining policy; I believe that was admitted by the minister.
He has quoted from Viscount Bennett. I can say that I happened to be in a position where I was not a follower of Mr. Bennett, so that I do not necessarily approve what the minister has read. I am one of the newcomers to the Progressive Conservative party-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Whom did1 you follow then?


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I am over here as a matter of conviction. I certainly am not prepared to join with the minister when he suggests that we should remove the word "Progressive" from the name of our party. I believe all and sundf-y in Canada will recognize that we have progressive idleas. Among them is a means whereby we can preserve that one great measure of efficiency, and that is the old law of competition.
I am going to be brief, and say this


Douglas Charles Abbott: Take your time.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I thank the minister. I am glad I have his support.
I believe that the only method by which we can measure the standard of efficiency is
Supply-Broadcasting-Loans

by competition-. As the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has said, that applies to our railroads. I suppose I might be in the wrong if I attempted to apply that yardstick in a limited way to the present administration of the C.B.C. I know that, according to the record, they are losing money. They receive all the licence fees and the licence fees from the private stations and they are still unable to make ends meet. I hope we shall have some regard for the future and make it possible that there will be paralleling this great government system a private chain of systems, so that we can vie with our neighbours to the south where they have more than one network, all privately owned and, as far as I know, all making money. Why is it that, once you introduce government ownership into anything, you seem to lose that standard of efficiency? I do not say that unkindly, because it may be that more is expected or that people lean too much on it.
I am opposed to monopoly of any kind and I have heard a lot about monopolies from my hon. friends to my left, the C.C.F. socialists. I am more unalterably opposed to a state monopoly than a monopoly of any other type. I say to hon. members opposite that the day may come when they will remember my words. Some day we may be occupying the treasury benches and then they will say that we are using the radio as a propaganda machine. That is what it has developed into at the present time, and I say that advisedly and sincerely. I do not know whether it is because of any sense of direction, but those who are in the driver's seat at the present time are certainly those who understand propaganda better than we who are sitting opposite.
I felt that I should make my position clear on this important item, and I join with the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario in appealing to the minister to lay this to one side until we can deal with the whole bill and accept the consequences in the session of next year.


Norman Jaques: I assure hon. members that I am just as anxious to get home as they are and I have a much greater distance to travel. When I left the house this evening what did I see? Right across the front page of the evening paper were these words, "House voting millions in rush to close." That sounds very well to the public, I should think, especially since we have voted ourselves an extra $2,000 a year so that we can
fMr. Case.]
carry out our duties. It would be interesting to have a vote to-night to see how many hon. members have gone home.
I put it to this committee and I should like to put it to the people outside whether it is fair to bring in a motion like this in the last day of the session. Those people who feel very strongly about it are shut off, because the incessant cry is "carried". That is the atmosphere of this house.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Norman Jaques: Yes, it is. I have listened carefully to this debate, but I have not heard one argument to show that there should be government control of radio any more than government control of the press. Reference was made this afternoon to an alleged attempt by the Alberta government to control the press. There was an immediate outcry from the veiy people who are now clamouring to have monopoly of the radio. What was the proposal of the Alberta government? Without going into details, it was simply that the government should reserve one corner, less than one-half of one per cent if I remember correctly, of the space in order to make sure that their statements appeared as they were made. The press could then have all the rest of the paper to tear them to pieces, but the government wanted their statements shown correctly. That was the so-called control of the press and there was an outcry from one end of Canada to the other.
Here is an item which proposes a complete government monopoly of radio. That includes news, but news is the least part of it. The part I object to is that the government-I do not know what the government is these days as a matter of fact-is to have a monopoly, not just over giving out the news, which they cannot alter if they stick to the truth, but of interpreting the news and moulding public opinion. That is what I object to. If I could stop it by staying here until Christmas I would do so.
It has been said that this is a Conservative motion. I have no objection to the C.B.C. as a regulating body.


George Alexander Cruickshank: C.B.C. or C.C.F.?


Norman Jaques: Both. What I do object to is that, if this goes through, it will be not only a regulating body but a controlling body, and I know very well where the control will come from. The other day I mentioned General Chisholm who, I understand, has a good international job.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What did he say about Santa Claus?

Supply-Broadcasting-Loans


Norman Jaques: The remark I made about General Chisholm was that, if he had mentioned the passover instead of Christmas, he would not have got the job. I leave it to the committee to interpret what I mean. I have had a number of abusive letters from the supporters of General Chisholm, and who are they?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Read a couple.


Norman Jaques: Every one of them is a communist. Don't forget that the Labour Progressive-


William Ross Macdonald: I think the hon. member is getting away from the item under discussion.


Norman Jaques: I am sticking to it. My point is that the Labour Progressives supported the government in the election of a year ago. They are behind the radio bill too.
Another defender of the radio bill this afternoon mentioned a shotgun and said that people would not take away your shotgun until you started to use it. He missed the point. There is no objection to the shotgun because everybody can see it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Fathers use a shotgun sometimes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Norman Jaques: If this were the flag question we should hear plenty from the other side of the house, and I would have a great deal more respect for the views of those in that corner of the house on the flag if they would only think more of Canada and not be so willing to hand it over to international control.	-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. There are so many members interrupting that I can hardly blame the hon. member for digressing, .but I would ask hon. members not to interrupt and the hon. member who has the floor to confine his remarks to the vote.


Norman Jaques: I will if hon. members will confine their remarks to themselves.
Yesterday the empire's greatest soldier made the statement that the country's first defence was a strong national feeling. That is the truth. But if anyone can tell me that the C.B.C. stands for nationalism, then all I can say is that I have not heard what they said. If there is one thing that the Canadian people are being taught by the commentators of the C.B.C. it is that nationalism is isolationism, or fascism, and that we have all to be internationalists.
I am going to ask a question. I have asked it several times. Why is the communist Labour Progressive party, which has not a
single member in this house and is not represented, so far as I know, in any provincial legislature, given the same amount of time over the air as the Social Credit party? That is what I want to know.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is a good question.


Norman Jaques: Yes; why is it? Until that question is answered, and so long as the time given to the Labour Progressives is as much as that given to the Social Credit party, I am going to oppose the C.B.C. in every way I can.


Mr. MICHAUD:: You said that before.


Norman Jaques: Yes, and I will say it again. I would make this suggestion to the C.B.C. Instead of building more high-powered stations-I have heard hon. members speak about radio in Alberta, where I have lived right in the centre of the province since 1901, and so far as I know Alberta is very well covered by radio to-day; I have heard of no demand for a great big station to be built out there by C.B.C., because we have all the radio we need-I would suggest, if C.B.C. has money to spend that it make a beginning on building a first-class symphony orchestra. The B.B.C. has one, and of course there are symphony orchestras on all the big networks in the LTnited States. Why should we not have one? We have plenty of talent, and whatever may be, the opinion of some members I think that good symphony orchestra music is a great deal better and more intelligible and more wholesome, if you like, than crooning and jazz. I hope the minister will take a note of my suggestion that the C.B.C. make a start in building up a first-class symphony orchestra. It could give concerts in our various cities and also broadcast, so that people would have the advantage and pleasure of hearing really great music played in a really great way.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The train does not leave until 11.45 p.m.


Mr. KUHL:: Don't miss it.


Norman Jaques: I have had to raise my voice more than I like to. I do not want to take up any more of the time of the committee. I agree with the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario that this radio vote stand until we come beck next session. No harm would be done. In the meantime we can think the matter over and be in a position to have a proper discussion when we come back next year. I do not like speaking at this stage; yet I cannot avoid doing so. I could not go home with any satisfaction if I did not
Supply-Broadcasting-Loans

do it. I hope that the committee will allow this item to stand until January or when the house next meets.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak solely because I believe in competition. We have had competition here since early this morning between those who favour government ownership of radio broadcasting and those who are opposed to it. That is the issue which is involved. I am one of those who favour government ownership.


An hon. MEMBER:: How about monopoly?


Angus MacInnis: I am not masquerading in false colours. I am opposed to competition just, as my hon. friends say they are opposed to monopoly. As a matter of fact no one is in favour of competition.


An hon. MEMBER:: No?


Angus MacInnis: No. No one is in favour of competition. You may favour competition in the abstract, but the moment you begin to do something for yourself you want a monopoly. Is the C.P.R. in favour of competition? Does any business in Canada favour competition? It is in favour of competition in other fields but not in favour of competition in its own field. It is all tommyrot to say you favour competition-


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Your argument is tommyrot.


Angus MacInnis: You haven't brains
enough to understand it.


An hon. MEMBER:: That's the boy.


Angus MacInnis: This is the kind of argument that we have here. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin said he was opposed to the C.B.C., and would oppose it at every opportunity-


Norman Jaques: It is a monopoly.	.


Angus MacInnis: -and the very next moment he said, why not leave this over until next January when we come here? He would be opposed to it next. January. I am as anxious as anyone to go home. I have a nice home which I have not seen lately; I have been away from this house only three days since we met here on March 14. But I say this to the government, let them resolve that they are going to deal with this matter however long it takes, and that we shall stay here until we deal with it, and not try to get these things done in a hurry and be stampeded into doing something which we do not approve. As I said, I am as anxious as any other member of this house to get home, but I am prepared to stay here until we finish our business in an orderly fashion. There is no substance in the argument to leave the matter over until next TMr. Jaques.]
session. The people who oppose it now will oppose it next session, so that if we are going to debate it, let us have a full debate on it, with those who favour government ownership taking their share, as well as those who are opposed. In my opinion we have a much better case.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: When I hear the unnecessary noise and shouting from other quarters of .this chamber, I can hardly believe that a matter affecting $2 million of the public's money is under discussion. I remind hon. members that this is a serious problem; it is not in the main their money, they are only small contributors to the $2 million involved. They are treating this matter as though they had nothing to do with it, but they are supporters of the government, and should not forget that the government in power is the only means through which this $2 million of the taxpayers' money can be spent, and the government insists on rushing this through, although we have asked that it be put over. It is verging on-[DOT]


An hon. MEMBER:: A filibuster.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Liberalism, communism, nazism-


An hon. MEMBER:: Toryism.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: -all these isms which depend on government control. Let me remind my French-Canadian friends of this house, who are giving wonderful support against communism in Canada, that this is a direct step toward communism. The government benches to-night are treating in the most flippant manner a huge expenditure to do away with private and public corporations and replace them by government rule. That is the first and decisive step on the direct road to communism.


Mr. WHITMAN:: Approved by a viscount.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mark well when you read the daily paper to-daj' of the objections by Russia to the great United States sending a battleship to a port in Greece on a friendly visit.


An hon. MEMBER:: What has that to do with radio?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: In a few years this country may be -in the same position as Russia is in, luled by a regime of public ownership, of communism, with a government in power using this vital and powerful instrument of radio to control this country, and the very people who are footing this bill of S2 million will have nothing to say about it, because the way this government is headed it will control Canada by radio.

Supply-Film Board


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh,


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Hon. members on the government benches should remember that people in the visitors' gallery of this house do not come here to hear them laugh and treat lightly the expenditure of S2 million of their money.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: No; it is not carried.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Let us build the ferry or the tunnel or whatever they want, and' get on with the business of the house.


Frank Exton Lennard: If you are going to adopt that attitude we won't wind up as soon as you and I might want to.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The government is asking this committee to make an investment in a kind of crown corporation. In other words, it is asking this committee to give dictatorial powers to a corporation in order that it may eventually push private enterprise in radio out into the deep. I was not a member of the radio committee, but I had the privilege of reading the evidence produced before that committee.. Now, in this item presented to this committee we have this government anxious to put this vote through the house in the dying days of the session, and without due consideration.
In this item the government want to lend to or invest with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation $2 million, to give the C.B.C. the most high-handed power that can be given to any company, namely to have an exclusive monopoly of broadcasting.
The introduction of the item before the committee shows plainly that the government is lavishly buying its way into socialism, and doing so with the taxpayers' money. The Canadian people have little conception of the extent to which this government used the radio to mould public opinion during the last seven years. During that time they had a stranglehold on this great medium of propaganda. I admit that there is a definite place in this country for a national system of broadcasting.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What are you quoting from?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: If the hon. member would only stand up and look at himself he would not have very much to say.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You don't know him.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: But there is also a definite place for the privately owned station. In a country such as ours, a country of freedom of 63260-358
speech, it would not be well to have our air channels entirely taken over by a government radio monopoly. Canada's well-being and enterprises spring from the private enterprise system and not from bureaucratic fiddlers. Instead of improving by assisting our present system of broadcasting, the government proposes to unloose further hoards of businessbaiting bureaucrats who stifle rather than assist the efforts of thrifty and industrious citizens to improve the material well-being of Canada.
In the light of demonstrated records of failure of experiments in this country in the direction of the totalitarian procedure, it is to be hoped that this committee will insist on a restoration of the people's own freedom of action and the right of private enterprise to get the green light. In my opinion it would be much better to grant some ray of hope to that hard-working group of patriotic citizens who comprise the membership of the Canadian association of broadcasters from coast to coast. I understand that the Canadian association of broadcasters this year asked for a simple amendment to the Canadian Broadcasting Act of 1936, namely, for an appeal court before which they could appear when they might have an}' grievance against the rulings of their big government competitor, the C.B.C. This was flatly refused.
There is much more I should like to bring before the committee with regard to this item, but I am not going to delay the committee. Let me say that the whole situation is so ridiculous that I cannot comprehend that this committee, supposedly representing the people of a democratic country, will concur in the vote; therefore I am opposed to it.
Amendment (Mr. Ross, St. Paul's) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to, on division.

[Stage Direction]
General-National film board, including the motion picture bureau-
216. Production and distribution of films and other visual materials, $860,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to make one comment on this item. I am in favour of this vote; I am in favour of the film board; I am in favour of the work they do. I want to make this request, that the department should seriously consider whether the film board cannot be made a much more self-sustaining organization; whether it cannot get its affairs on a much more businesslike basis, and whether when they come back a year from now with an item in next year's estimates it cannot have been advanced a considerable extent.

Supply-Old Age Pemions


Mr. BRYCE:: I wish to ask the minister a question about the franchises which the film board issue to different people in the country.
I am talking about a section of my own constituency, namely, the district of Stonewall. In this district they have given the franchise to the gentleman who runs the theatre in Stonewall, and the ladies' organizations and the farm organizations cannot participate in the benefits of the film board films. I have taken this matter up with the minister and nothing has been done about it. I want to see something done about it, so that these organizations can have the use of the films which are produced by the film board. I do not mean the "March of Time", or any of these other films that are shown in the picture theatres.
I am speaking of the films which are of an educational nature, films on health and that sort of thing which are suitable for farm folks.


James Joseph McCann: The wrong item was called. We shall have the film board estimates after these. We want to deal with the health side first.
Item stands.
Welfare branch-
799. Old age pensions (including pensions to the blind)-administiation-further amount required, $6,285.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Will the minister- make a statement on government policy regarding what has developed since the old age pension item was before the house the last time. Hon. members will recall that the collapse of the dominion-provincial conference made it impossible for arrangements to be worked out in detail so that pensions could be made available at an earlier age and in a more generous amount. At that time the minister was not in a position to indicate just what the future plans of the government might be. Several weeks have passed since the matter was before the house. Can the minister indicate just what has to be done to make it possible for the people in the old age pension bracket to meet the rising costs of living which are prevalent all across the country?


James Joseph McCann: I might explain that this additional amount of $6,000 odd is required to pay the travelling expenses of the members of the inter-provincial body in connection with a meeting arranged for September, 1946, estimated at $4,000; also to provide an additional amount of $2,000 to pay travelling expenses of the members of the old age pensions division in connection with the examination of provincial old age pension records. There has been a considerable increase in the number of new cases, and, in addition, increases as a

result of orders in council passed under the authority of the War Measures Act. The increases are shown by the following items.
With reference to the question by the hon. gentleman which was what arrangements have been made so far as the old age pensions go to meet the increased cost of living, I cannot give him a positive answer, but I shall bring the matter to the attention of the officials. I am taking these estimates only in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Thomas Reid: At this late hour I am reluctant to bring any special case before the committee, but since there is not any likelihood of a dominion-provincial conference being called at this late hour, I say that a definite change is required in the old age pension regulations, particularly in the light of a case which came to my attention just a few days ago. This is the case of a man eighty-two years of age who went to visit his daughter in the United States, and an irresponsible driver of a car hit him on one of the streets in a city of that country and fractured his skull. He was taken to a hospital. After being in the hospital for sixty days, the doctor advised him that he had better stay in the home of his daughter and not return home. Lo and behold! on his return home he found that he could not get old age pension because he had been outside the country a certain number of days. Here is a man who has been in the country since 1885. He decides to visit his daughter and, through no fault of his own, he meets with an accident. Copies of the certificates were sent to him and also a copy of the ruling of the board in Vancouver which tells him that, according to the regulations of the Old Age Pensions Act, he cannot come under the provisions of that act until June, 1948. Since he is now eighty-three, he has a slim chance of ever getting the old age pension, because he has passed the allotted span by some years. I suggest to the minister that he take note of the case and, when the provinces meet with the dominion, regulations of this kind be amended. It seems to me that there is great injustice in the case I have stated.
The question I wish to ask the minister is this. Have representations been made to the various provincial governments, who seemed willing to accept the offers put forward by the dominion government in regard to old age pensions? We know there are two provinces that have remained aloof, but I understand there are some provinces that are ready to accept at least a part of the social legislation outlined by the dominion, and I am asking, therefore, whether the minister

Supply-Old Age Pensions
can give the committee some information on this question. I will not go into the subject of old age pensions, but I think everyone agrees that we must revise the entire act and bring it up to date in the light of present-day conditions so as to afford a decent standard of living and to enable our aged citizens to carry on. Can the minister give any information as to the attitude of the provinces?


James Joseph McCann: The question which the
hon. gentleman asks has reference to the dominion-provincial agreements as far as they affect social legislation, more particularly old age pensions. The proposals put forward have not dealt with that particular phase, but I am taking note of the questions asked by the hon. gentleman and they will be brought to the attention of the department.


Mr. MENARY:: I wish to say a few words in this debate on estimates, and I trust that what I have to say will be constructive and to the benefit of all our people in this great dominion. I desire to speak on annuities at the age of sixty. What I shall say will not take up much time but I believe that this subject merits our earnest consideration. As we all know, Canada has enjoyed great prosperity. When we look back and recall the amazing sums raised in the various war loans; when we remember the interest rates on these loans and note the steady increase in the price of these bonds, we say to ourselves, this truly is a new era. Yes, truly it is a new era, but perhaps not for all. It is not for the people who had retired, say, ten or fifteen years ago, or immediately prior to the war. To-day, if you wished to retire and had invested $100,000 in government bonds for the past five years, your annual income would be only $3,000. We will say that you live in Ottawa or Toronto, or in any other city where homes are scarce. If you wish to rent one you will want a home such as, I presume, a person of this wealth is accustomed to. Such a home would cost, I imagine, $100 a month or more. If you try to live in your former style and if you have dependents, the upkeep of a car, medical and ordinary living expenses, et cetera, may make it difficult to live on this interest. Your net income, if you are single, after taxes would be $2,024.75; if married, $2,250.
Now let us compare this man to a farmer, who has retired possibly at the age of sixty, because he has a boy at home who wishes to get married and start'out in life for himself. We will say this farmer owns his farm and has $10,000 invested in bonds. The son 63260-358J
agrees to pay the father $5,000 for the farm at an interest rate of three per cent. That will give the father an income of $450, but the taxes on his new home in town will probably be $75, his hydro, water rates and insurance on the house, at the very least $25. This man will have $350 to live on, buy coal, milk, food and clothes. He will contribute to his church. I ask this committee, can this man live on this income?
Then we come to the working man, say a white-collared one. We will say he has earned from $2,500 to $3,000, has lived in the city during the war, and has raised a family of three and tried to educate them. His savings would be small and he must still struggle to live. In the smaller town where there is usually a garden and rents are much lower, we drop into a lower scale, but here we ever have the increasing cost of living pressing heavily on his shoulders, as on the shoulders of all our citizens and especially on the people in the low-income brackets.
Then take the worker in a factory, or a store, a road builder, a street-car conductor, or any other worker with an average income. Take anyone working in a store or an office. When these people have raised their families and saved what is left for old age, and the time is approaching when they must retire, I ask, will they have sufficient to care for themselves after the age of sixty?
I have had some sorrowful letters from men on old age pensions in my riding. One case is that of a man of seventy years of age; his wife is sixty. How can this man live on $25 a month with the laws now framed so that under the means test he can earn only $100 a year? Even at that, his income would only be $400. I have another case where the husband is on the old age pension and his wife, who, I would say, is aged about sixty, is not eligible. This couple cultivated a garden and sold a few vegetables. The wife helped out by doing housework, washing and so forth. The husband, who was formerly a carpenter, filed a few saws. He could not do much of this work because he lived in a very small village. However, this became known to the inspector and deductions were made from the pension which this man receives. Consequently, this couple were without any income from December to February the following year, when representation was made to the pension board, who agreed to deduct the amount due by this pensioner in payments of $5 a month. Here is another case where the government penalizes thrift, I investigated these cases and know they are true.
Supply-Old Age Pensions

*There is only one remedy, and that is a form of old age .annuity starting at sixty years, without the means test, contributed to by the pensioner from the age of twenty-one. This will not be called an old age pension, because the beneficiary would contribute to this fund as well as the government. If we take, for example, and only for example, that each person pays $1 a month, starting at the age of twenty-one, these payments over thirty-nine years, with compound interest" at three per cent, would amount to $892.81. We will say that the government duplicates this amount. This would mean $1,785.62.
With living, rents and education for one's family, it is impossible for the average wage-earner, farmer or citizen of any group, to educate a family and keep enough for old age. The government can borrow money at three per cent-and now we hear that it may be less-but one can hardly live on the income on $10,000 invested in government bonds. For that reason and for humanity's sake, something must be done for all people, when they reach the age of sixty.
Then, again, to carry the idea one step further:
1.	To ensure employment for others, it would be advantageous for the government and a benefit to the country to reduce the available labour supply in a few years by providing adequate security that will permit people to retire at the age of sixty. Toward this objective, people could start now to contribute to such a government pension fund and then, in years to come, they would themselves provide for their future security and not, as is the case now, have to look to the state for aid.
2.	The government would have the use of the huge fund and save on money they have to borrow.
3.	The security policy could be enlarged to include medical benefits and hospitalization.
4.	The policy would be contributory for the group under sixty at the start, and would absorb all over this age who apply.
5.	The insurance companies would still compete in the field, covering largely the deathrate element.
6.	This rate of a $1 a month to be uniform throughout all Canada.
Last, the administration of this act, if passed by this house, could be administered through the county councils cheaper than in any other way and the county council is closer to the people.


Mr. KNOWLES:: 
Humphrey Mitchell: Take a look at your own party; lots of your people are away.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Our party cjpes not
happen to be in the position of responsibility that members of the cabinet are.


Humphrey Mitchell: Thank goodness, for the Canadian people.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Canadian people will express themselves about that in due course.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They did, in 1945.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, in 1945 the Canadian people gave the Liberal party and the government now in power a job. They thought that one of the jobs to which the government was going to give its immediate attention was the improvement- of old age pension legislation. Correspondence we are receiving and views being expressed across

Supply-Old Age Pensions
the country make it clear that the people are amazed and disappointed at the excuses found for delaying action in connection with this matter. I would urge that the government get its ear to the ground, so that it may realize what people are thinking about this matter, and that it ought not to delay any further the necessary increase in the amount of old age pensions.
There are other matters which could be discussed, including the eligible age, the means test and various other provisions. I would remind the government that, in discussing these matters, we are not now comparing their performance with standards which some of the rest of us might set; rather we are comparing their performance with their own standards as set out in the proposals they have made to the dominion-provincial conference. They have set the standard-the minimum standard at any rate. Some of us are not satisfied that that goes far enough. But at least they should not be allowed to rest until they have measured up to their own intimation that the old age pension ought to be at least $30 a month, without any further delay.
Mr. MaeINNIS: Before the session closes, I wish to say only one brief word on behalf of old age pensioners. During the last two sessions of parliament we have made provisions, first of all, in the matter of our own indemnity, in salary boosts for various civil servants, if not for all of them. Only recently the cost of living bonus was increased for those who had been receiving increases in wages. Throughout the country organized labour and other workers are receiving increases in wages, all of which results in the meagre pension paid to old age pensioners being worth less than it was before.
It is the duty of the government not only to look after those 'who can look after themselves, but also to see that those members of the national family who are not able to look after themselves are provided for in as large a measure as the country can afford. T submit that this country can afford a much better pension than is now provided. I suggest to the minister and the government, if no other way can be found, that they add a cost of living bonus to the old age pension in order to remove some of the poverty from those who must subsist on the income provided by these pensions.
Mr. BLACIvMORE: Once more I wish to point out to the government that the amount this country can afford to pay its aged people, the senior citizens, does not depend upon the amount of money that cau be wrung out of the people; it'should depend upon the goods and
services which this country can produce. There are four or five ministers in their seats at present and may I point out to them-


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said there were practically no ministers in their seats, so that I am glad to hear the hon. member for Lethbridge say what he has.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not what I said;
I referred to the large number of ministers who were out of the country.


Humphrey Mitchell: On very important government business.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is important business also.	_


John Horne Blackmore: Since the minister has raised the question I think the matter should be recorded in Hmisard. The ministers who are away from this country are on very important business. Every person in this committee who faces facts realistically knows that, and I want the government to have credit for that fact. We hear silly talk once in a while, but let it be borne in mind that never in the history of this nation has it been so important that Canada be represented in so many different places by strong men. Of course those men have to be away to take care of the interests of this country, and that explains the absence of so many ministers.
I was referring to the number of ministers in their seats at present. I urge on them that, if they are to save this country from calamity, they must begin to realize that the amount this country can pay to its old age pensioners, to its labourers in industry, depends upon the goods and services this country can produce [DOT] and not upon the money that can be wrung out of the people by taxation. When we approach the economy of Canada in a realistic manner we shall see that the old age pensioners, the senior citizens of this country, are in receipt of a sufficient income to support them in dignity and comfort for the remaining days of their lives. The longer this country neglects these senior citizens, the longer it will continue to cast reflection upon those in power in the country and upon the country itself.
I have stated on several occasions that a pension of not less than $50 a month at sixty years of age should be paid. That is an exceedingly moderate amount for the elder citizens of Canada. Once more I wish to put myself on record and, through me. the Social Credit group, as favouring the payment of at least $50 a month to all senior citizens of Canada sixty years of age and over.
Supply-Old Age Pensions


Mrs. STRUM:: I want to add my voice to those of the hon. members who have spoken for the last time on this important matter. We have heard from all sid/es of the house about the importance of establishing markets for Canadian goods in other parts of the world. I submit that here is a market which we do not have to seek. A few million dollars paid out in the form of old age pensions would immediately create that much demand for Canadian goods. It would be good economics as well as humanitarian. I think this government owes it to the old people of Canada to see that at the beginning of next session this matter is dealt with realistically.
I hope to heaven we shall not have to wait until we sign up every province individually in a separate agreement before anything is done about this group which is now living below subsistence levels. I wish all the ministers would take $25 and try to live on it for one month. They would find out how often ithey would eat. I suggest that until they have -done that, they cannot begin to understand [DOT]what it is like to be old, most likely sick and with the weather of the next few months, cold, ^because these people will not have sufficient "to obtain heated quarters. Many of them will Sbe hungry because their money will not spread [DOT]over the thirty days. We have raised our own salaries, we shall be comfortable, but I hope our consciences will not be dead, even though we have failed to deal with this matter at this session.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-National film board, including the motion picture bureau's. Production and distribution of films and other visual materials, $860,000.
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I should like the minister to explain this decrease of $39,500 and state if it is not due to a cut in trade union and industrial showings and in the production of films.


James Joseph McCann: The answer is that the films formerly produced under this vote were designed to supplement departmental films intended to stimulate industrial production and contribute to the maintenance of morale in war industry. It is expected that films to be produced under other votes and for other government departments will provide for the necessary programmes during the fiscal year 1946-47. There was an increased expenditure to meet the needs of war industry and now that the war is over the needs in peace-time industry can be met by a lesser expenditure.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The Saskatchewan allotment is cut by twenty per cent.. Last year I understand that the national film board had twelve men in the field in Saskatchewan and this year
.
I understand there will only be three. Perhaps the minister would say whether my information is correct. While there is a distinct economy in reducing the number of field men from twelve to three, I think the expenditure for the province is still needed for the production of films, and I should like to see the appropriation for Saskatchewan as great as last year's. That is not merely based on wishing. The appropriation was formerly $75,000 and it is now $55,000. I would base my request for a grant equal to last year's upon the coverage given in Saskatchewan. I think the money saved by reducing the field men from twelve to three, if that is to be done, should be spent in the province, which I understand is providing out of its own funds this year for a large scheme of audio-visual education through the showing of films. Let the money saved on the salaries be spent on the production of more films to help out that programme. It would mean that more people would see more Canadian films; it would be the means of getting more information to the people of Saskatchewan. I understand that Saskatchewan is giving greater coverage than any other province. They will need part of the appropriation for school films. The national film board releases will receive greater coverage in Saskatchewan. My information is that in Saskatchewan they exceed the combined showings in all the other provinces. If that is true, they will need a good deal of money for the production of films to carry out that ambitious and, I think, worth-while programme.


James Joseph McCann: I am advised that the number of men in Saskatchewan will be substantially the same as last year. Although the amount here is somewhat less than the corresponding item last year, it will be increased by an item in the supplementaries with which we shall be dealing shortly.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am given to understand that, while there will be more men in the field this year in Saskatchewan, they will be provided by the Saskatchewan government through its department of adult education and audio-visual education, but I understand that the field men of the national film board in Saskatchewan will be reduced from twelve to three. If that is true, my point is that the salaries which would have been paid if the number of field men had remained the same be spent in the production of films to enable the province to carry out its programme.


James Joseph McCann: I am informed1 that my hon. friend's information is not correct and that the number of men in the field will be

Supply-Film Board
substantially the same as last year. In addition, there will be a large number in Saskatchewan.


William Scottie Bryce: I have received a petition from the Stonewall district in my constituency where the people have trouble in getting the national film board to include Stonewall in their circuit. Stonewall is only twenty miles from Winnipeg. The trouble seems to be that to show the national film board's films would infringe upon a franchise held by a commercial exhibitor. The national film board exhibits its films free of charge. They are of an educational nature, and I would ask the minister to see if the local women's clubs and other groups cannot be allowed to see these educational pictures which are not now shown in Stonewall. They are shown in Winnipeg, where there is any amount of commercial pictures, but apparently there is an agreement between the national film board and the film industry that the film board will not exhibit its films within ten miles of a commercial motion-picture house. I think our farm people have the right to see the film board's pictures in the local school house or the community hall, where there is no charge, because the film board renders that service to the community free. That should not be prevented by the whims of any commercial organization. It is the right of the people to have an opportunity to see these educational films, and they should not be deprived of that right.


James Joseph McCann: That matter is being canvassed, and the suggestion which the hon. member has made will be taken into consideration.


Clarence Gillis: I wish to pursue a little farther the question raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon City. I was not quite satisfied with the minister's answer, which was to the effect that during the war considerable visual education was carried on in war industries and that now it was not necessary to carry on that work to stimulate morale. I notice by the details that there is a decrease of $30,000, and it would appear that visual education given among the trades unions is to be discontinued entirely. At least there is no money shown here for that purpose. If that is so, I shall have a little more to say.


James Joseph McCann: I do not think that is correct.


Clarence Gillis: There is no mention of it here, and the minister has already stated that the showing of films in war industries was not being continued. I think that was one of the important features of your educational
work, and that now, at this period, it is more important than it was during the war. Am I correct in assuming that you are discontinuing all their union education?


James Joseph McCann: No.


Clarence Gillis: I am not correct? There is nothing in this vote for it.


James Joseph McCann: No. I am informed that we are developing a much more cooperative scheme with the trade union people than we have had.


Clarence Gillis: If that is so, I am quite satisfied. I understand there is something in supplementary estimates.


James Joseph McCann: Yes. That is what I said.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
356. Departmental administration, $106,210.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to make a few remarks on this item, although I will try t.o condense them because of the other business which we wish to get done. What I have to say is in connection with the Doukhobors of Kootenay West.
I think most hon. members know that some time during 1898 and 1899 some 7,600 Doukhobors came to this country and settled in the prairie provinces, after negotiations between their representatives and representatives of the Canadian government. Commencing about 1902, a more extreme sect of the Doukhobors known as the Sons of Freedom commenced to give trouble not only to Peter Verigin, their leader, but some trouble in the district in which they were located, and about the fall of 1907 this culminated in somewhat less than 100 making a trek to Fort William and staying there doing casual jobs until the winter months, and then, on January 1, 1908, staging a nude parade in Fort William. There was some discussion of the matter between Peter Verigin, who disowned what he termed "these mad brothers", and the dominion government, and finally the dominion government returned these Sons of Freedom in two Canadian Pacific colonist cars to Yorkton. The Doukhobor community continued to grow, causing the authorities and Peter Verigin the first, some difficulties. They refused to register births, marriages or deaths and to comply with the Homestead Act of the Dominion of Canada. So Peter Verigin began to look for another district to take them to-the promised land- and came out to Kootenay West, surveyed the country, realized that it was one of the most beautiful districts in Canada, and decided
Supply-Secretary oj State

that he would move some of his followers to Kootenay West. I might say that after a survey of the district Verigin reported as follows:
In British Columbia we will buy our land and own it so it will not be necessary to be subject to the English king, and keep our land. No schools are there. The air is very pure, like Switzerland. So we will live in good health in the Christian way -with no government to bother us, no rheumatism and few mosquitoes. Slava Bohu.
Peter Verigin was a capable person, and realized that he had found a good country. His visit resulted in the spring of 1909 in some 800 persons arriving on a special train at Brilliant. In 1910 another contingent arrived, and in 1911 a further thousand settled in the Kootenay West and Grand Forks district. At that time they purchased 14,403 acres of land on an agreement of sale for $646,000. They were very industrious, and by 1912 they had reduced the amount owing on that agreement of sale to 8325,000. The virgin forest gave way to orchards. They built a jam factory and sold jam in western Canada which became quite famous-the Kootenay Columbia brand of jam. They established an irrigation system and erected sawmills. At the end of 1912 in Kootenay West we had over 5,000 Doukhobors, and out of those 5,000, were over 700 children who had never set foot in a Canadian school.
What was then known as the Christian Community of Universal Brotherhood continued to prosper. The industry of these people was, I remember very well, admired by the people of the surrounding districts and their neighbors; but because of the failure of these people to register births, marriages and deaths, protests were made to the provincial government, and the government of British Columbia was asked to take some action in this respect. I might say in regard to this matter vigorous protests were registered by the Doukhobors because of the gaoling of some of their people. Right at that point, about 1912, is when the first serious trouble commenced in Kootenay West. Trouble has continued over the years by a series of burnings of school houses, community halls and, in some cases other buildings. As a result of the protests of people in the district, in 1912 the provincial government established, on August 24, a royal commission, and Mr. William Blackmore was named commissioner to inquire into the organization, habits, .customs and practices of the Doukhobors, and make recommendations. Very little was known about the Doukhobors, their habits, customs and practices, at that time, and the

commissioner had no previous experience in this type of work. Really, the findings of the commissioner only resulted in causing the Doukhobors to lose confidence in our government institutions and our ideas of keeping an agreement, because the commissioner's major finding was that the order in council granting military exemption be cancelled. That caused considerable disturbance amongst the Doukhobor people. The difficulties in the districts surrounding their communities continued and schools continued to be burnt.
Then we come to 1914-18, war years, and there was considerable trouble at that time. The dominion government recognized the agreement of 1898 and they were exempted from military service, although there was some difficulty as between the Christian Community of Universal Brotherhood and what were known at that time as the independent Doukhobors. On April 28, 1917, the Christian Community of Universal Brotherhood was incorporated with a capitalization of $1,000,000, although as a matter of fact at that time, I believe, their assets were worth three times that in value. On October 28, 1924, Peter Verigin was killed by an explosion while on the Kootenay express at Farrow. Usually we do not. exaggerate things in Kootenay West, but I think the term "Kootenay express" is an overstatement.
In the fall of 1927 Peter Verigin II came to Canada after considerable consultation between the various groups in Canada and certain representatives of the Doukhobor community in the Soviet Union. While Peter Verigin n openly supported the government, there is no question about it that behind the scenes amongst the Doukhobor community and the Doukhobor factions he held the government up to ridicule. From the time of his assuming leadership the community got into financial difficulties and interna! dissention developed. About that time the Sons of Freedom, who were becoming stronger, developed the nude strategy, and that is why over a period of years, on occasion, we have had parades of nude Doukhobors protesting against some difficulty within the community or some laws of the land.
In 1932 Peter Verigin II was sentenced to three years for perjury. This sentence and conditions arising out of the mismanagement of the community and the depression caused the Sons of Freedom to stage their first large-scale nude parade. As a result, hundreds were arrested in Kootenay West in the fall of 1932 and interned on Piers island; some of them were released during the summer of 1933, but some were not finally released until 1935.

Supply-Secretary oj State
Finally Peter Verigin II died on February 11, 1939, leaving the community in an extremely bad condition financially and rent with internal dissensions. The community was in debt and the Sun Life Insurance Company and the National Trust Company held large mortgages on their property and were threatening to evict the Doukhobors. Prior to the war and during the early part of the war the government of British Columbia, in order to avoid the social difficulties that would surround their eviction, bought the Sun Life and National Trust Company out, so that at the present time the Doukhobors in Kootenay West own no land or property as a community. These properties are now held by the land settlement board of British Columbia on behalf of the government of that province. Since that time, under the direction of the supervisor they have tried to sell back individual blocks to these people, but with little success. A few blocks have been sold, but the great part of the property remains in the hands of the land settlment board of British Columbia.
Just at this point I want to pay a particular tribute to Mr. Ralph Macintosh, supervisor of the land settlement board, for his work in connection with the Doukhobors and provincial constable I. Deboiu. Both of these men have a thorough knowledge of the situation and have been most capable, painstaking and patient.
In 1939 the war came along and the government again recognized the agreement of 1898. From that time on there has been a change in the actual conditions in the communities as regards the attitude of a large number of these people toward Canadian institutions and the Canadian government. I might say that in this war some 130 of these people served in the armed forces and some in the Pacific coast militia rangers. Arrangements were made for contributions to the Red Cross on quite a generous scale, and many of them worked in war industries and in the lumber industries But during the war the cleavage between the different groups further developed. I might say that at the present time the former Christian community of the universal brotherhood is now' known as the spiritual community of Christ. Then we have a large number of independents; and the faction who cause the trouble, the Sons of Freedom. There have been recent attempts by a core of these Sons of Freedom to terrorize the majority of the Doukhobors who wish to live as good Canadian citizens. In the last two or three months some fourteen hemes have been burned down in Kootenay' West; a cooperatively owned community hall has been burned, and a large irrigation system has been damaged. The
people of the district of Kootenay West are anxious that something be done to stop this incessant lawlessness of a few people who bring disgrace upon a whole community and their race.
There are some factors which exist to-day, favourable factors which never existed before, in my opinion and in the opinion of many people of the district, which make it possible for us to do something to solve this question on a permanent and satisfactory basis. The first is the experience of these young Doukhobors who served in the recent war. These young men have returned to the communities and they are having a good influence amongst the people who remained at home. The second is the experience gained by men and women who worked in war industries. Large numbers of these people have worked in the industrial plants at Trail, with the Kootenay engineering company in the construction of the east dam on the Kootenay river, and in other projects throughout the district, and in the lumbering industry. To a greater extent than before they have associated with the people who work in industry generally'.
Then we have their experience in trade unions. In recent years quite a number of these Doukhobors have joined trade unions, and have begun to understand trade union principles and to see the benefits which derive therefrom. Then, again, quite a number of them are joining cooperative societies, in which the majority of the members are people of another race. Here, again, they are learning to work with other people and are gaining experience. I might say that at the present time the great majority of the y'ounger people are attending school. I find that, on account of the work in industry during the war and association with other Canadians in trade unions and cooperatives, many of the younger people have developed a much higher standard of living than existed prior to the war. These people have now had a taste of what the Canadian standard of living is for workingmen generally, and they want to maintain that standard of living. These young people Ho not want to return to the poverty and the destitution which they experienced for some years prior to the war.
In conversation with Doukhobor boys who have returned from the forces, men and women who have worked in trade unions and in the cooperative movement, and who have worked in industry in large numbers-and I know' hundreds of them-I find a general desire to maintain the Canadian standard of living, accept Canadian institutions and live according to Canadian standards. Within all these groups there are large numbers of Doukhobor
Supply-Secretary oj State

people who are anxious to cooperate with the government in an effort to solve this problem for the benefit of their own people and for the advantage of the community as a whole.
I have hastily sketched the situation, but I want to say that we consider this is a joint problem of the dominion and provincial governments. We believe that the time is opportune for action on behalf of the people of the district. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I urge that the Secretary of State bring this matter to the attention of the government. I know the Minister of Justice has some knowledge of it, and on behalf of the people I represent I urge a joint inquiry into the whole Doukhobor situation and problem in an effort to work out a solution which will be satisfactory to all. I think at this time that is possible under the most favourable circumstances that have existed since the community came to Canada. I suggest that inquiry be made into the lawlessness of the small minority and that action be taken to prevent it in the future. Second, I suggest the education of the children of those who refuse to obey Canadian law. There are still some children of the sons of freedom living particularly in the small village of Crestova, and at Gilpin, which is in the riding of the hon. member for Yale, who do not attend schools. I think that is a situation which has to be taken up and corrected. Then there is the question of the ownership of land and the possibilities of satisfactory settlement. While at the present time the land is held by the land settlement board of British Columbia and the Doukhobors have no legal title to it, during the years of mismanagement under Peter Verigin II many of these people paid hundreds of thousands of dollars into the community which was wasted by mismanagement. They feel that they have a moral right to the lands, and they resent being asked, as it wore from their point of view, to pay twice for these properties. When we consider the amounts spent in other directions, I think it would be a good investment for British Columbia and the Dominion of Canada to make some arrangement to let these people have some of these lands at a reduced price. It would assist in the solution of the question. They feel keenly in this connection, and I suggest that the matter should be investigated and something done along these lines to meet the situation.
I come now particularly to that branch in which the Secretary of State is interested, especially since the passing of the Citizenship Act, and that is the question of instructions in the principles of citizenship. In that

community the Secretary of State has a splendid opportunity, within one group and by cooperation of many within the group, to instruct these people in the principles of Canadian citizenship.
Then there is the question of the franchise. The Doukhobors were able at one time to vote in provincial elections in British Columbia, but this was changed by law, and then later in the federal field', the Conservative members, led by the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett, argued that the British Columbia act should be extended to dominion elections. I am glad to say that at that time the present Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, said that he did not think it advisable to go back to Old Testament times and seek to visit the iniquity of the fathers upon their descendants unto the third and fourth generations; and the members of the C.C.F., including the late Mr. J. S. Woodsworth, made a strong protest against taking the franchise away from people in a wholesale manner. Legislation was passed and the Doukhobors were then prevented from exercising the franchise. I am not suggesting that all these people are capable of exercising the franchise at this time, but how can we build them up into Canadian citizens with such a law? What do we offer the hundreds of these people who have gone and purchased properties and are now living as Canadians? What do we offer them under this legislation now existing on the statute books if we continue to prevent them from exercising the franchise and, according to the law, prevent their descendants also from exercising that privilege for all time?
As a matter of fact, we have Doukhobors who served in the Canadian forces and who, by reason of that service, were given the right to exercise the franchise; but the wife, because of this legislation, has not that right. I emphasize again, I am not suggesting that all these people are capable of exercising the franchise at the present time, but I say that the present arrangements are not ethical and do not demonstrate common sense. I suggest that provision should be made whereby all those who wish to live according to Canadian law and by Canadian standards and in support of Canadian institutions, should, after qualifying for citizenship, be granted the franchise.
In conclusion, on behalf of my constituents I urge this government, in cooperation with the provincial government of British Columbia, to give immediate consideration to the wishes of the people I represent with a view to solving this long-standing social problem. I am certain that, if the problem is approached with determination and understanding, the

Supply-Secretary of State
result in the very near future will be satisfactory to the people I represent, the people of Kootenay West, and will cause the great majority of Doukhobors, who wish to live according to Canadian law and Canadian standards, to say in their usual way: Slava Bohu.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Patent and Copyright office-
S6i. Administration division, $35,630.
Mr. RICHARD (Ottawa East):: I wish to call the attention of the Secretary of State to the fact that there is room for improvement in the patent office, system at the present time. Hon. members know that the patent office is a revenue-producing department, but it should not be so, when . that involves the risk of providing fewer facilities to the public. Patent applications have been lagging for a great number of years owing to understaffing and lack of facilities. I am not going to go into all the details. An investigation was made some years ago and a report was prepared by Mr. Ralston of Montreal in 1940. It is a very good one, and I suggest that it be implemented at this time. No doubt the reason it was not implemented was the fact that we were at. war.
The first need of the patent office is, of course, proper housing facilities. The office is now distributed in three buildings, and that makes it difficult for coordination and also for those who practise before the patent office. The second difficulty is lack of staff. A great number of examiners have died and others are just about at the retiring age. In view of the fact that the Patent Act is a highly specialized act, the patent office should as soon as possible acquire a great number of assistant examiners, who should be trained for this work. I am afraid I am only repeating a complaint which has reached the patent office from time to time, that patent applications take too long to be examined.
Another thing I would bring to the attention of the Secretary of State in a few words is lack of facilities for those who practise before the patent office. We have not a decent search room; we have not a library containing patents of foreign countries readily available for inspection. Then, of course, above all that there is the question of obtaining prior Canadian patents. As hon. members no doubt know, Canadian patents are not printed. Various systems might be considered. They have all been found to be expensive, but this government will sooner or later have to realize that an initial capital expenditure must be made to create these facilities for the benefit of the public. I urge the Secretary of State, if at
all possible, to appoint a committee at the next session to look into the Patent Act, both as to legislation and also as to facilities within the patent office. Now that the war is over, we shall no doubt have a greater number of inventions both from foreign countries and from people at home, and no doubt our patents will be only as good as the facilities of the office will permit.
As a suggestion, I would say that the income of the patent office could be increased by raising the fees. Our fees are at present low as compared with those of other countries, $15 for filing and $20 for the final fee. In most other countries the fee is over $30. If our fees were raised to that level the income of the patent office could be almost doubled and proper facilities provided and better patents obtained.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask a question about the item dealing with translations, as to why so large an amount is shown for temporary assistance, and whether it is really temporary or not? Is it an emergency situation which will disappear?


Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Secretary of State):: The reason is that a large number of the male employees are temporary, and cannot be made permanent because of the veterans' preference provision.
We are now dealing with item 364. The hon. member for Ottawa East, who has given a great deal of thought to this matter and who, in the practice of his profession, is a patent solicitor, has made a number of suggestions which I feel have considerable merit. As he has said, there is much to be done by way of stream-lining the patent office at the present time. If there is some tardiness-and there is-in the disposition of applications, this is largely due to the fact that the applications are almost thirty-eight per cent more now than they were in the immediate year preceding the war. However, the closest study is being made of the problem, both with a view to trying to increase the staff of examiners and others, and to see if we cannot accommodate the great demand being made upon the patent office.
Not a little of our problem, as the hon. member has said, has to do with the fact that the patent division is handicapped by lack of space. The Minister of Public Works is engaged in trying to remedy that situation. I may say that every one of the suggestions made by the hon. member for Ottawa East, a number of which he has discussed with me privately over the last few months is, as he knows, being given serious consideration. And

Supply-Secretary of State
when I say that I mean that we hope, before parliament next meets, to be able to remedy many of the current inadequacies.
The type of questions he has placed before the committee to-night were put to me earlier in the evening by the hon. member for Peel, who had to leave the house and who asked me if I would let the item stand. Since I did not wish to accede to that request, it was suggested that- he might leave the questions with me in writing, and that I would make replies forthwith.
His first question is: What is the lapse of time between the arrival of a patent application at the patent office and the issue of the official filing receipt? The answer is, about two years. This includes delays of replies by and to solicitors in answer to letters which have to do with patent applications. The statutory period for answering letters is six months. There is also a delay of six months in the payment of the final fee before the patent is issued. There are about 20,000 applications now before the patent office, and these are being actively prosecuted.
His second question is: How many applications now in the patent office have been there for (a) three years or (b) for four years or more? The answer is that there are over 10,000 applications at present in the patent office which are three years old. The proportion that have been in the patent office for four years is difficult to estimate, since all secret applications filed during the war could not be examined, for security reasons. These applications are only now being released from secrecy. There were between 4,000 and 5,000 secret applications filed, most of these emanating from Great Britain and the United States. The patent examining staff was reduced by twenty-five per cent during the war, on account of examiners being lent to other war departments, and because a number of the staff went on active service.
The third question is: How many applications have been in the patent office (a) for four years and (b) for five years or more? As I have already said, secret applications could not be examined during the war years. There are between 5,000 and 6,000 applications in the office for over four years. For over five years, these consist principally of secret applications, of which there are probably about 4,000. They are now being withdrawn from secrecy and being examined as quickly as possible.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not thoroughly familiar with this. There is reference to applications which have been there four or five years. Does that mean

that probably some important business operations are being held up because of the delay in issuing patents?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, an effort is made to deal with the more important applications. But I am frank enough to say that there are delays; and these delays are due to the fact that the applications require very close atttention on the part of the examiners. When I point out that at the present time we have thirty-eight per cent more applications than we had in 1939, with our staff twenty-five per [DOT] cent reduced, the hon. member will understand our present difficulty.
I am faced with the difficulty of trying to meet a legitimate request for economy in expenditures. One is tom between that very proper desire at this time and the necessity for meeting a growing demand. However, we shall have to increase the staff; there will be no alternative.
Steps have already been taken. The civil service commission is advertising for some special technicians who will serve as examiners, in an effort to meet this growing problem, one which, I may say, is not found only in this country, but is common to Great Britain and particularly the United States.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Did I not understand the hon. member for Ottawa East to say that the patent office is self-sustaining?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Up to S350.000 this year.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It pays its way?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is a revenue-producing department.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then surely the argument for economy is almost in reverse. However keen one may be for economy, one does not wish a profitable business to be held back.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I may say the hon. member's observations are most helpful.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Printing and Stationery-
270. Departmental administration, $10,490.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Earlier in the session, on another item, I asked a number of questions of the Secretary of State respecting the work of the printing bureau. In a number of instances he said consideration was being given to the matters concerning which I had questioned him. Has anything come from the consideration being given to the use of the union label on government printing?

Supply-Information Service


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; there is no change in that.


Frank Exton Lennard: While I appreciate the fact that some statutes may demand that copies of divorce evidence be printed, I cannot see any use 'in having all these copies of evidence, simply to be thrown in our waste-paper baskets. It is a waste of paper and of valuable time in the printing office.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member realizes that assignments of that kind are not within the jurisdiction of the king's printer. He carries out the orders of the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is considerable
opinion in the country to the effect that a wider reading of Hansard might be a good idea. Some members are not so sure of that; but there are those who feel it would be, and I am one of them. Has consideration been given to the possibility of reducing the subscription price from $3 to a lesser figure? This involves consideration of what it is costing for the extra copies which have to be printed to meet the subscription lists. Has this matter been considered?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It has been. One is faced with the same problem I mentioned a minute ago. We could give these things free, thereby adding to the cost of operation. However, the matter is now under serious consideration, not only with regard to Hansard, but in an effort to try to set up perhaps a more effective agency by which government publications generally might receive wider distribution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the Secretary of State say how many copies of Hansard are printed, and then break that number down into the number circulated and the number subscribed for at the $3 rate?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall be glad to give details later on to my hon. friend, since I have nothing here except that it is around 9,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-Civil service commissionis.'/. Supply of personnel for demobilization and reconversion services, $658,508.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: What is this for?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is t d cover the expenses of civil service operations in connection with demobilization. The hon. member will note that the details are to be found on page 261 of the main estimates.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is rather odd that the same figure of
$658,508 is arrived at, and the reason would seem to be that they have adjusted the amount for sundries. What kind of way is that to make up an item?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the total figure.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is arrived at by just putting in an amount for sundries. I do not want to be meticulous. about the matter, but it looks rather silly. You have $658,508, which does not mean a thing because it is only arrived at by putting in a sundries figure which gives you that amount. I am not making heavy weather about it, but it is not a sensible way to make up an estimate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If I could bring down the ledger which would be a much larger book than I have, I could give the hon. member the items for telephones, telegrams, travelling expenses and so on.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
850. Canada Temperance Act, further amount required, $1,000.
Frank Exton Lennard: What is this for?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is the cost of enforcing the act in the county of Beauce.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do you not have to enforce it in other counties?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; only the one.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and Reconversion-Privy Council Office-[DOT]
591.	Canadian information service, $640,700.
John Bracken: This is an item which did not appear in the estimates prior to the war. It has grown out of a service created during the war, the war information board. The amount asked for is $640,700. The item last year was for $796,000. The service has been modified from war days and is now known as the Canadian information service. The government is planning to continue in peace' time a war-time organization. I do not propose to take up the time of the committee for more than a minute, because our position was made clear on a bill under this title

Canadian information service-which was introduced by the government. We think $640,700 is altogether too much money for a service which was not considered important enough to have prior to the war. I wish therefore, to move:
That the item be reduced from $640,700 to half that figure, or $320,350.
Supply-Information Service

Our position with respect to this service has been made clear and we shall not take up any more of the time of the committee. I wish it to be recorded that we think the amount asked for is an unnecessarily large expenditure now that the war is over.


Angus MacInnis: It is hard to know how to vote on this amendment, because the mover, the leader of the opposition, has not given us any reason for reducing the amount, except that he considers it to be too large. In order that we may know whether it is too large or not, the committee should have some information as to what is done' under this appropriation. If the leader of the opposition is opposed to the appropriation, that would be understandable, but simply to move that it be cut in half is not understandable without a clear understanding of what is required to be done under it. I am just as much in favour of eliminating useless expenditures as any hon. member, but I think we should have some logical basis on which to .operate.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: During the war from the same quarters we heard criticisms of the work of the wartime information board. People who criticized government expenditures of relatively few thousands of dollars in the field of information offered no objection whatever to very large expenditures in the field of production. They saw no objection to the government going into industry and paying a man $20,000 a year to do a particularly important job in the field of production, but they could not approve paying salaries to do an efficient job in the field of information. I think it was important during the war that we should give to our Canadian people information on the progress of our war effort in Canada, and, now that the war is over, I think it is important that Canada give information to other parts of the world on the work that is being done on the Canadian scene. The motion presented by the leader of the opposition asks us to reduce this item from $640,000 to $320,000. If he would state whether he was opposed to providing supplies for libraries abroad, printing and stationery or any other specific items listed we would be better able to judge what merit there was in his case, but unless we have more specific information from the official opposition of the items to which they object it will be difficult to support their motion.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I rise to support the motion of my leader. I think we should have a statement from the minister as to what this vote involves. A number of mem-

bers on the other side of the house have said that we have been saying: Oh, this is an expenditure of only a quarter of a million dollars, or only $600,000, or only $500,000, or something like that, but I would point out that what we need in this country is a reduction in expenditure so that we may have a reduction in taxation. Every item of expenditure should be scrutinized to the last dollar by the ministry. They are the fellows who have to do the job, those on the treasury benches over there, although there are not many of them there just now. They are the ones who spend the taxpayers' money, and don't forget that it is the taxpayers' money because you cannot get money out of the air. It must all come out of the individual workers in this country and it is vital that we cut down our expenditures. Do we need this Canadian information service? Has anybody shown that we need it? I have not the figures here showing what it costs. I left them on my desk upstairs. Is it one of the luxuries of government, or is it absolutely necessary? I certainly support my leader's amendment. We must spend a certain amount for information purposes, and that is why he has not asked to reduce the vote to $1. His amendment would cut the expenditure in two. I think, before we vote on this amendment, we should have a statement from the government benches. What is the government doing generally to cut down expenditures in this country?
Amendment (Mr. Bracken) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and Reconversion-Privy Council Office-
592.	Rehabilitation information committee, $242,000.
Denton Massey: Would the minister briefly outline the work that is being done by this committee, its nature and extent?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is assistance rendered by C.I.S. to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the three defence departments and the Department of Labour in trying to bring home to men and women in the armed services the facilities and opportunities which veterans' legislation affords them. The number of inquiries from veterans is still considerable, and this service, as the hon. gentleman who has seen service with such distinction will know, is required particularly to give service men in addition to the other facilities put at their disposal an adequate opportunity of knowing



SO, 1946

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Food Committee
what privileges and opportunities they may have in trying to rehabilitate themselves in civilian life. I am sure that the hon. member, knowing the problem as he does, particularly in the light of his cogent and, I think, penetrating remarks last night, appreciates the desirability of this service.
Denton Massey: I notice that the vote has been reduced from $640,000 last year to $242,000, or by two-thirds roughly. Is the minister completely satisfied from his own investigation that this amount is adequate for this year?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The bulk of the work was undertaken last year and the operation is now a continuing one.


Denton Massey: I presume it cost about $400,000 to set up this service and that $242,000 is the operation cost. There is no diminution in the work being done.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-Privy Council office-
593.	Food information committee, $110,000.
John Bracken: This is a new vote. Let us have an explanation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As the hon. gentleman knows, this country undertook to assist countries of the world that required food assistance from Canada. This represents the assistance rendered by C.I.S. through the interdepartmental committee, so that the needs and the purposes which our commitments to other nations involve in the supplying of food might be more effectively achieved.


Gordon Graydon: I take it that the purpose is to acquaint the producers of Canada with the necessity for supplying other nations with food in this critical time. Is that one of the objectives?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I happen to be a member of the cabinet committee that handles this work. It is my impression that there was much work done along the lines laid out by the Canadian information service, and if a substantial portion of it had been paid for it would have run into much more money than this item.
The churches, the social clubs, the many women's organizations rendered valuable assistance in the campaign which was launched and which was carried on for three or four months to induce the Canadian public to conserve food and to make as great supplies as possible available for shipment overseas. There had
been movements started for the collection of food to be shipped by various church and social organizations, and it was felt that that was not the most effective way of making the best contribution to alleviate the shortage which existed in the stricken countries, but that if the Canadian public could be induced to take for itself as little as possible and leave the rest available for the agencies which were handling shipments in a big way, a more effective contribution would thus be made to the shortage that existed. I know, from the contacts I had, that great efforts were put forth by a large number of voluntary workers to that end. The hon. member has perhaps noticed from time to time in the papers charts showing the amount of meat coupons surrendered, meat coupons which had been issued to Canadian citizens and on which they were entitled to purchase a certain quantity, but which they surrendered, thus leaving larger quantities as apparent surpluses which could be shipped overseas. I must confess that when these amounts from meeting to meeting were brought forward as having to be expended, we all questioned the aggregates; but we scrutinized them pretty closely, and we got the impression, while the campaign was being carried on, that, if the campaign was a desirable one, there was not being expended any money which did not contribute to the result.


Gordon Graydon: The minister's statement largely satisfies me within the limits of the government policy. But I suggest that the most effective way of feeding the nations of the world is to give the farmers in Canada a decent price for their product, so that they will produce.


John Bracken: This item is in the privy council votes-the food information committee. We have listened to the minister's explanation of the purpose of it. I should like to ask what body had charge of the administration of this vote.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The cabinet committee entrusted the organization of that part of the campaign which was being paid for to the Canadian information service. But the accounts were brought regularly to the cabinet committee, and the amounts which were to be spent for radio or for other form of advertising were always passed by the government committee before the Canadian information service went ahead with any commitments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply- -Labour
Mr. MacNAUGHT:: Before we go into the Department of Labour estimates there is a matter I should like to bring up. The page boys have been here since nine o'clock this morning, and perhaps they could go home now.


William Ross Macdonald: I will bring the matter to the attention of Mr. Speaker. I am sure he will be in complete accord', if it is possible to dispense with their service, that important service which they render from day to day.


Gordon Graydon: We do not know what we would do without them.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
109. Departmental administration, $755,967.
Angus MacInnis: I wonder whether the minister intends to make a statement.


Humphrey Mitchell: On what?


Angus MacInnis: In regard to his department. I am not suggesting or asking that he should, but I am going to say something, and I would not as a matter of courtesy step in ahead of him.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have a statement prepared. I have not it here, but if my hon. friend will wait a couple of minutes I will get it. It will take forty minutes to read.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps the two of you would arrange a saw-off.


Humphrey Mitchell: No; I have no objection, if my hon. friend wants me to read it.


Angus MacInnis: No. I only wanted to know if the minister had a statement to make; I did not want to butt in.


Humphrey Mitchell: I had a prepared statement, but I thought, in view of the pressure of business, I should not read it.


Frank Exton Lennard: The minister has been making statements all session up to date.


John Bracken: I am not suggesting that the Minister of Labour should make a 40-minute speech, or that any minister when he introduces his estimates should make a long speech. But perhaps I may be permitted to take half a minute to say one thing. When ministers introduce their estimates they ought to give us information, at least in brief, outlining any substantial changes in policy that have been made, or any new matters of importance which have arisen and are being
FMr. St. Laurent.]
provided for. What we are doing now in this committee is voting away the taxpayers' money. The position we are in is that the government, through a minister, is asking for the right to spend the taxpayers' money. I am not objecting, under the circumstances, to the speed with which the estimates have gone through to-night; but I would suggest that the minister, without giving us a 40-minute speech, should say briefly what his estiamtes contain, how they compare with last year, what changes there have been, what new policies there are, if any, what branches, if any, have been omitted, if the estimates are larger, why, and so on. Such a brief and informative statement would at least give the committee a little idea of how the department is proposed to be carried on during the present year as compared with last year.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think you can do it in fifteen minutes if there are no interruptions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It all depends on what is in it.


Humphrey Mitchell: All right. This is a free country; the sky is the limit. Notwithstanding my hon. friend, I think I have the best department in the government.


Gordon Graydon: Look who the minister is.


Humphrey Mitchell: They have brought me in the wrong statement, so I must do it by memory. I have a vivid recollection that the late Hon. W. R. Motherwell was accustomed to come into the House of Commons with no more than the. book of estimates and to pilot his estimates through without the assistance of anyone in front of him, and he probably did a better job than those who had piles of books in front of them and made long speeches.
The Department of Labour, of course, has many divisions. First of all, there is the administration division. Then there is the division dealing with labour conciliation which, of course, takes into its ambit the war labour boards of the different provinces and also the national war labour board.
We have taken under our jurisdiction the training of soldiers from the Department of Veterans Affairs, which in itself is quite a large operation. Then we have jurisdiction over prisoners of war, which is drawing k>
its close, but which, during its administration, has assisted greatly the lumber interests of Canada and also the farmers, particularly the beet growing industries of Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario. May I say that its operation has brought a profit to the treasury in excess of $2,225,000. Then the Japanese come under

Supply-Labour
the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour. They were required to move the Japanese from the protected areas in British Columbia during the dark days of the war. Annuities come under our jurisdiction. The sale of annuities to the public has increased tremendously in the last few years. The Vocational Training Act comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour. This act laid the foundation of the enormous expansion of training which made possible the development of the greatest industrial structure in the life of this nation. I think, in a broad concept, those are the functions of the department. Of course I should point out that the basic principle of the right of labour to organize under the labour code comes under the jurisdiction of the department.
I have a statement which I can read in about fifteen minutes and it will probably answer hon. members' questions.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it.


Humphrey Mitchell: It has been asked for and I might as well read it.
Quite largely the estimates of the Department of Labour which are now before the committee illustrate the problems which we had to face once world war II ended-the training and reemployment of men and women demobilized from the armed forces and replacement of many thousands released by munitions plants. We have, too, the still important duty of doing our utmost to meet the labour demands for agriculture-a question of real emergency in view of the grave shortage of food in Europe as well as in Asia.
In spite of difficulties, I believe it may be stated that we are moving along very well benefited by the stabilization policy which was introduced the latter part of 1941. The first phase of our national industrial reconversion was passed in January last when all but one-sixth of war work in progress at V-J Day had been terminated. A total of
370,000	persons who had been employed in war plants were laid off after V-J day and sixty per cent of these were immediately or almost immediately reengaged for the production of civilian goods in the same plants. There were in ail 860,000 persons employed in direct war work at the peak period October, 1943. Up to June 30 of this year there had been 883,006 discharged from the armed forces.
Through the veterans' placement division of the employment service positions were secured for 284,000 ex-servicemen and women during
the twelve months ending March 31 last. From April 1 to August 1 there were placed an additional 103,000 ex-service personnel. A considerable number of those released from munitions plants were married women and they did not all become an emplo37ment problem because of a preference to devote all their lime to home-keeping. In a measure that has been true of some women discharged from the armed forces. Many had been married or were married after release and they, 'too, were not interested in work outside their homes. Under the style "Home Aid Plan" our employment offices are making a special effort to place women and girls in household work provided, however, that pay and conditions of work are fair.
The peak of unemployment was reached in April last when we had 267.000 unplaced applicants, men and women, registered at our national employment service offices across Canada. This total included 72.000 former sendee personnel discharged during March. On August 15, we had 149.000 unplaced persons listed comprising 116,000 men and 33.000 women. It is of interest to note that on the same date there were 68,000 vacancies for males and 44,000 vacancies for females. We have, of course, been doing our utmost to find positions for veterans and former war plant workers. Naturally we are keenly desirous of doing everything in our power for those who served overseas not forgetting those who did such a fine job on the home front during the years of war.
There are regional supervisors of veterans' placement in Moncton, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver. Each local office has what is known as an armed forces registration unit to look after veterans in the first instance. Then at all rehabilitation centres training through the department's facilities. Affairs-the Department of Labour has veterans' employment advisors who are doing good work. Where no such centres exist the advisors are stationed in the local employment offices. There is also a special placements division in the Department of Labour giving attention to physically handicapped persons. Some of these are referred for training through the department's facilities.
In the year ending March 31,-this is important-jobs were found for the handicapped at the rate of 1,250 a month, 25 per cent of them veterans.
I think this is a forward advance in the placement facilities of the employment service for the placement of handicapped persons under our jurisdiction.
Supply-Labour

Twenty-two men and two women with double amputations were satisfactorily placed in positions. The training work of the department is getting preferential consideration because of the importance of adequately fitting men and women for new types of peacetime work and also to meet a shortage of skilled workers in different vocations.
With regard to veterans, a total of over
76.000	have been enrolled for training up to August 1 of this year with 38,000 undergoing training on that date-and approximately
5.000	others awaiting entry to training. We had 4,000 being trained in schools for the construction and building industries, .and in addition more than 3,500 others working as apprentices. Over 10,000 other veterans were being trained for other occupations on the job in industry, that is besides those who have actually been employed in industry. The government subsidizes rates of pay during such training.
Rehabilitation of veterans training is carried on in cooperation with the provinces- the dominion bearing the operating costs. There are centres across Canada to meet area needs and every type of training desired is provided when it is believed that those so trained may speedily be absorbed in the employment stream. Recently I visited the centre at Brockville and I was much impressed by the eagerness of the students and the enthusiasm and ability of the instructors. Another phase of our work is the training of civilian workers released from gainful employment under joint dominion-provincial plans. Usually such trainees are referred to the centres by the employment offices of the department. Agreements covering this training are in effect with the provinces of Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. Supplementary to this is the vocational guidance which our employment offices give to young persons seeking their first jobs.
Agreements have been made with all the provinces for vocational education on the secondary school level. The dominion government pays $10,000 a year to each province plus a proportion of $1,915,000 distributed on the basis of the population 15 to 19 years of age. The latter amount is matched by the provinces. Additionally there is a dominion grant of $10,000,000 for capital expenditures, 25 per cent for equipment, to be matched dollar for dollar by the provinces and used by the end of March, 1948.
There are several factors to be considered in connection with employment after a war.

We have the large number who were trained for war jobs whose skills are not in general demand for peace-time production. They must readjust themselves to the new work. High war-time earnings in comparison with normal peace-time rates of pay and the indisposition of persons to move from communities in which they have settled to other places where work is available, are other factors. It should be noted that upward adjustments of pay to compensate for changes in war-time "take-home pay" and reduced weekly hours of work have been put into effect in recent months by a number of industries following approval of war labour boards. Re-tooling and reorganization of industry was well advanced up to a few months ago but has lagged because of industrial troubles.
Our latest figures show there were 87,000 working in all branches of mining. Of the number, 26,000 were employed in coal mines where more skilled men could be used now. The base metal mines had 27,000 on their payrolls and the gold mines 22,000 men, a gain of forty per cent since the end of the war. It is expected gold mining will be giving employment to 30,000 men by next autumn and that in mining generally there will be
100,000	working. I would like to see a movement to the mining sections of Canada of persons in centres where there cannot be enough employment to take care of all.
Most of the prisoners of war whose labour was most useful in Canada for several years have been returned to the British isles. We had thousands of these men engaged in woods operations, largely pulp for paper making. Last winter ten per cent more men were employed in woods operations than the winter before. There is work for more men in this field now but a disinclination to take these jobs is apparent.
The war taught men and women new skills, more self-reliance and self-confidence. It is safe to forecast that new types of manufacture and thus new employment opportunities will come as time goes by.
To maintain the highest possible production of food to assist in relieving the famine areas of the world farm labour agreements again are in effect with the provinces.
In February the Department of Labour sent a letter to farmers urging them to submit their help requirements to the employment offices.
Wages and conditions are more attractive in farming now. There is new and better equipment. Every possible effort is being

Supply-Labour
made to encourage idle industrial workers to take farm jobs.
There will be organized movements of labour for farm *work from west to east and east to west. Already the movement to the eastern provinces is under way. An arrangement, previously in effect, is for exchange of workers and equipment with the United States for the harvesters of grain, potatoes and tobacco.
As already announced we are bringing 4,000 farmer Polish soldiers to Canada to work on farms.
Appreciating the importance of the sugar beet industry we were able to retain about
4,000	prisoners of war for this type of work until harvests are over. They are distributed in Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta.
Referring again to our employment service I would like to mention that in Moncton, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver we have branches to assist in the placement of persons with executive and professional abilities.
We have found positions for 4,599 in the past year. A considerable number were exservice personnel.
Under the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, between August 1, 1945, and June 29, 1946, or a period of eleven months, 151,000 discharged from the armed forces had been reinstated by their former employers. A total of 46,000 eligible did not apply for reinstatement.
The wartime bureau of technical personnel continues to function as a branch of the department and the staff is rendering fine service in assisting technicians to find good positions as well as in advising firms of men and women available.
We still have the labour exit permit order in force but mainly it is to control the movement from Canada of these technicians as well as graduate nurses. There are shortages in these fields. Some hospitals, in fact, are much understaffed.
National selective service largely is a thing of the past. Remaining regulations require an employer to register a vacancy with local employment offices and to report when an employee has been hired, and the seven days' notice rule for employer and employee. The purpose of this is to have an up-to-date picture of the employment situation.
The government's price, salary and wage stabilization policy remains effective although modified and subject to further gradual
changes. We are anxious to abandon controls as soon as feasible but not until the danger of ruinous inflation is past.
Amendments to P.C. 9384, the wartime wages control order, now make it possible for the national and regional war labour boards to approve applications for wage increases which are shown as "just and reasonable."
Wage control began on November 15, 1941. To the end of March this year the boards had dealt with 123,500 applications. Eighty-four per cent were granted in full, 10 per cent in part; only 7 per cent denied.
The wage rate index was 137-5 in 1944, compared with the basic figure of 100 for 1939. It was 140-3 in 1945, according to preliminary figures.
The industrial condition as affecting labour has not been good in the past seven months. In 1945, while the number of strikes did not increase over 1944, the number of workers involved did. There were 197 strikes and lock-outs. The majority were settled by conciliation within a few days. Fifty-eight lasted one day, 152 less than five days.
The strike of the Ford Motor Company employees at Windsor involved 10,000 workers and was the most serious in several years.
It lasted from September 12 to December
29.	1945, resulting in 900,000 man-days time loss and more than one million days if the sympathy strike which occurred in Windsor affecting other firms is included.
A total of 150,000 man-days were lost by a strike of coal miners in Alberta and British Columbia.
During the first seven months of the present year we have had 145 strikes involving a time loss of 2,544,581 man-days, of which the most serious were those affecting the British Columbia logging, great lakes shipping, and the rubber industries.
I must say, having in mind the strike of loggers in British Columbia, seamen engaged in great lakes shipping, rubber workers, steel workers and others, that all could have been avoided by the proper use of the existing conciliation and wage control machinery.
An uncompromising attitude on both sides has been responsible for many serious labour troubles leading to unnecessary loss of business to employers and wages to workers.
The wartime labour relations regulations provided by P.C. 1003, were enacted early in 1944 in order to stabilize industrial conditions. We did not know how long the war would last then.
Supply-Labour

I shall be having another meeting with the ministers of labour of the provinces to discuss future labour relations. Some provinces want a national code; others do not.
As members know, with certain exceptions, labour relations normally come under provincial jurisdiction.
Under the industrial production cooperation board there are 447 labour management production committees. The plants covered have more than 245,000 workers.
As of May 1, we had 10.867 men who were exempt from military service on conscientious grounds. Sixty-five per cent were employed in agriculture and on June 27 this year there were seventy-three in four alternative service work camps.
These conscientious objectors contributed more than $2,300,000 to Canadian Red Cross under arrangements by which part of their earnings were earmarked for Red Cross work.
Our Japanese administration work comes under two main headings-repatriation and relocation.
With respect to repatriation, the records show that 6,892 adults voluntarily signed requests for repatriation covering a total of 10,632 persons; while 4,527 adults have requested cancellation of their applications for repatriation, covering also their 1,786 minor children.
I would like to review the situation with respect to compulsory repatriation.
After the Prime Minister on December 17 last explained in this house the purpose and scope of the three orders in council dated December 15, 1945, providing for deportation and repatriation of Japanese, strong representations were received not only asking for a review of the programme but challenging the validity of the orders.
As a result, the government in January 1946, made a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada for an opinion as to whether the orders in council were ultra vires in whole or in part.
The supreme court upheld the validity of the orders except as they affected the dependents of deportable persons.
The judgment of the court was not unanimous. At present an appeal to the privy council from the supreme court ruling is being taken by a committee on behalf of the Japanese. The government, has accordingly considered it advisable to suspend deportation proceedings under the orders in the meantime, but is continuing arrangements for the repatriation of those who wish to go to Japan on a voluntary basis.

Including a sailing on August 2, 3,151 Japanese have left Canada for repatriation to Japan. Hundreds more have expressed a desire to go and they will be accommodated as soon as we can secure another vessel.
Now with respect to relocation, since the beginning of April more than 2,000 Japanese who desired to remain in Canada were moved east for resettlement and employment.
At present there are 21,100 Japanese in Canada, of whom a little less than fifty per cent remain in British Columbia, with the rest about equally divided between the prairies and eastern Canada.
All employable Japanese with few exceptions are in useful employment on a selfsupporting basis at prevailing *wages.
It is hoped that relocation will be substantially accelerated by the evidence of increased desire on the part of the Japanese to cooperate, and the growing appreciation by the public of the wisdom of the government's dispersal programme.
An effort is being made to resettle as many as possible in smaller communities and rural areas where they will help to increase production of badly needed farm and forest products, and where the shortage of housing accommodation is not so serious.
Our proposals for this year summarized are:
(1)	To repatriate to Japan as soon as possible all those desiring to go voluntarily;
(2)	To disperse and resettle across Canada in 1946 those who have proven their firm desire to remain in Canada, by giving them every assistance and encouragement possible, including the progressive relaxation of wartime restrictions;
(3)	To delay compulsory deportation until a decision has been handed down by the privy council on the appeal, at which time government policy will be reviewed.
The Annuities Act is administered by the Department of Labour. As of March 31, 1946, there were 151,000 active contracts including 450 group plans.
Total premium payments since the act became operative in 1908 amount to $318,781,000. In the last fiscal year, 25,500 new contracts were recorded and these with previously existing contracts brought in $46,900,000.
Canada, as one of the eight states of chief industrial importance, has a permanent seat on the governing body of the I.L.O. This body last met in Montreal in May.

Supply-Labour
Machinery has been set up for the appointment of international standing committees for seven major industries. This is to enable the I.L.O. to give closer attention to the problem of such industries than is possible at annual general conferences.
Each of these committees is composed of two representatives for the government, two for the employers and two for the workers, from each of the countries interested in that particular industry.
In December last, Canada participated in meetings held in London of two of these industrial committees, those on coal mining and inland transport. In April and May we took part in meetings at Cleveland and Toledo, Ohio, of the committees on iron and steel production and the metal trades.
We shall be represented on the three remaining committees: the first two of which, the building, civil engineering and public works committee and the committee on textiles, will meet in Brussels in October and November next; and the petroleum production and refining committee, which will probably meet in Peru early next year.
Canada participated in a technical maritime meeting held in Copenhagen last November, in preparation for the 28th session of the international labour conference which met in Seattle from June 6 to 29 to consider the setting up of international minimum standards for the employment of seamen.
We sent a tripartite delegation to the third labour conference of American states members of the I.L.O. which was held in Mexico city last April.
In September Canada will be host to the 29th session.of the international labour conference,- the first of such conferences ever to be held in this country.
I now ask that the following statistical statements be reproduced in Hansard:
(1)	Cases submitted to the national and regional war labour boards.
(2)	Decisions rendered by the national and regional war labour boards.
(3)	Wage trends.



NATIONAL WAR LABOUR BOARD

[Stage Direction]
Types of Applications received by the National and Regional War Labour Boards under P.C. 8253, P.C. 5983 P.C. 9384 and P.C. 348-from November 15, 1941, to April 30, 1946.
-	Wage increase	Cost of living bonus	New positions	Vacation with pay	Welfare plan	Wage incentive plan	Miscellaneous applicat ions	TotalsNational	C.	1,427	175	834	241	68	95	700	3,540E.	595,795	76,496	64,913	324,251	21,013	13,027	422,152	1,517;647Prince Edward Island	C,	598	5	173	27	8	E.	3,786	170	1,409	615	124	928	7,032Nova Scotia	C.	2,764	161	718	69	132	29	192	4,065E.	84,619	11,012	8,657	24,780	9,319	6,83G	27,964	173,187New' Brunswick	C.	2,466	102	821	59	99	31	190	3,768E.	34,399	7,184	29,609	10,597	8,167	5,374	10,602	105,932Quebec	0.	13,961	1,145	1,805	1,049	1,363	98	2,381	21,802E.	699,282	260,472	209,105	523,297	493,818	14,941	869,029	3,069,944Ontario	
O.	18,598	1,141	6,633	1,122	r 1,479	364	3,789	33,126E.	361,076	137,921	143,198	246,625	166,491	35,311	527,613	1,618,235Manitoba	0.	5,501	171	2,489	225	348	54	355	9,143E.	42,538	4,649	10,344	15,276	20,184	1,394	26,367	120,752Saskatchewan	C.	7,906	134	2,534	102	100	62	510	11,348E.	35,038	5,149	11,932	2,368	6,977	2,126	17,520	81,110Alberta	C.	4,207	297	2,384	108	267	41	590	7,894E.	44,979	14,421	24,951	10,387	22,380	2,604	43,184	162,906British Columbia	C.	13,015	444	' 10,376	661	515	77	2,847	27,935E.	132,085	15,930	78,718	79,839	36,120	2.416	105,022	450,130Totals	C.	70,443	3,775	28,767	3,636	4,398	859	11,613	123,491E.	2,033,597	533,404	582,836	1,237,420	785,084	84,153	2,050,381	7,306,875
C.-Number of cases.
E.-Number of employees.
Supply-Labour

[Stage Direction]
Decisions Rendered by the National and Regional War Labour Boards Under P.C. 8253, P.C. 5963, P.C. 9384 and P.C. 348-From November 15, 1941 to April 30, 1946.
-	Granted in full	Granted in part	Denied	Total applicar tionsc	2,840	465	235	3,540E	935,958	414,069	167,620	1,517,647Prince Edward Island	C	840	7	23	870E	6,753	86	193	7,032Nova Scotia	3,299	456	310	4,065E	98,267	31,858	43,062	173,187New Brunswick	C	3,265	389	114	3,768E	84,115	15,327	6,490	105,932C	20,018	688	1,096	21,802E	2,546,737	199,933	323,274	3,069,944C	26,552	4,442	2,132	33,126E	1,116,000	317,178	1S5.057	1,618,235C	8,529	379	235	9,143E	105,896	6.SS0	7,976	120,752Saskatchewan	C	9,665	1,243	440	11,348E	65,862	10,118	5,130	81,110C	6,129	835	930	7,894E	.108,583	22,758	31,565	162,906British Columbia	C	22,631	2,908	2,396	27,935E	285,532	70,169	94,429	450,130C	103,768	11,812	7,911	123,491E	5,353,703	1,088,376	864,796	7,306,875C-Cases.	E-Employees.

[Stage Direction]
Total Salaries and Wages, Index Numbers of Employment and Index Numbers of Wage Rates
in Canada for the period 1938-1945
1939
1941
1943
1945
Salaries and wages!
$2,449,000,000 ,	2,540,000,000
2,860,000,000 .	3,530,000,008
4.233.000.	000
4.790.000.	000
.	4,983,000,000
5.007.000.	000
Index Numbers Employment!	Wage Rates2
1926 = 100	1939 = 109
113-9
152-3
184-1
175-1
100-0
113-1
132-8
140-3 (Preliminary figure)
1	From dominion bureau of statistics. The wage and salary figures do not include payments to the armed forces.
2	From Department of Labour. The figures include cost of living payments.
Note: The index numbers of wage rates apply to wage rates only, not salaries.
The changes shown by the index numbers of wage rates are not necessarily reflected in the total wages and salaries earned as total earnings are affected also by the changes in the size of the working force (employment index) and by the shift from ''short time" in depression years to "overtime" in boom years.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Labour
George Alexander Cruickshank: I want to speak on behalf of, and, I believe, with the authority of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. So far as he is concerned, I believe he would support me in saying that we have no desire for a return of the Japanese to our province.
Perhaps I may be permitted to digress for a moment. I regret that Canada is to lose from its capital city a good friend, a friend of all Canada, in the person of Torchy Anderson who, I am pleased to say, is coming to British Columbia. He does not always take my advice, although I think he should. There have been occasions, however, when he has taken it, and when he has taken it he has never missed a bet. However, the Southam press is not losing a bet.
To return to my original subject, let me say that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has made a statement which every member from British Columbia will support-"No Japanese for British Columbia".


Angus MacInnis: It has been said that the Minister of Labour has one of the most difficult departments of government to administer. I have no doubt as to the difficulties of his department, but I regret that both at this session and at the last we have had to deal with estimates of the Department of Labour on the eve of prorogation. I recall the closing of the session last year, when his estimates were before us, and it was just such an occasion as this.
If the estimates of the Department of Labour had come before this committee at a time when we were not rushing to prorogue, there are enough information, criticism and suggestions to make to keep us going for several days. However, in view of the general desire to finish to-night or to-morrow, I shall be brief in what I have to say. As a matter of fact I shall deal with only one matter, and with it as fairly as I can.
For more than a month and a half, the attention of parliament and of the country has been focussed on the industrial situation which prevails because of labour-management disputes. The minister made reference to that in the statement he read to the committee. In the forefront of those disputes is the stoppage of work in the basic steel industry. That dispute has received attention in the house on several occasions, as well as having been aired for several weeks before the standing committee on industrial relations. However, the dispute is still in operation, with results which verge on the disastrous for the country.
In my opinion the government should do something about it as quickly as possible. Every day the strike continues, the country
is losing much needed production; workers are losing income; merchants and others are losing business. What is perhaps the worst factor is that the public generally are losing faith m democratic institutions. Consequently I say with all the earnestness of which I am capable that, before parliament prorogues, we should have assurance from the government that this dispute will be settled as quickly as that can be done. As a basis for settlement I would urge the acceptance of the proposals made to the industrial relations committee by the representatives of the steel workers.
Since these stoppages of work began, I have said on, many occasions that the disruption of production was far more detrimental to industry and to the country's economy-this is my opinion for what it is worth-and was far more inflationary than the increases asked for could- possibly be. Slowly that idea or that point of view is getting over in the country. I could read editorial opinions which have appeared in newspapers and periodicals from one end of this country to the other in the past week or so. These are in support of the contention I have just made.


Frank Exton Lennard: What papers?


Angus MacInnis: One of those good Conservative papers published in Ottawa.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: All Conservative papers are good.


Frank Exton Lennard: Several in Ottawa.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, published in Ottawa. The following editorial appeared in the Ottawa Journal of August 29:
End this steel strike!
This prolonged steel strike, with sensational predictions of trouble (so far false) born of still more sensational reports about dominion police being flown from far parts to Hamilton, is doing grave harm to Canada. Not merely are we getting ourselves into the mood of war; we are shoving this country into a position of possibly irreparable harm.
Britain and the United States are going ahead; keeping their people at work, producing goods, getting export markets. Here in Canada our three basic steel industries are idle, other dependent industries are closing, our reconversion programme, including desperately needed housing, is bogged down. If this situation continues, we shall find ourselves in chaos.
Why? Simply because the government has drawn a wage line (exclusively in the case of steel) across a piece of paper and said that to cross that line will bring inflation. The thing doesn't seem to make sense.
Yesterday came a dispatch from Vancouver saying:
"The wheels of production speeded ahead today in vital British Columbia industry, strike threats removed with the granting of pay increases ... to more than 5.000 workers ... increases ranging from 13 to 20 cents an hour."
Supply-Labour

If my Conservative friends would read the Conservative press they would know that.


Frank Exton Lennard: I just asked what papers the hon. member was referring to. I asked only for information.


Angus MacInnis: I took it in the way it was asked, and I do not think my hon. friend was asking for it in just the way he says. He thought I could not come through with the goods.


Frank Exton Lennard: Not at all; I expected you would come through. I asked only for information.


Angus MacInnis: Along the lines of this editorial, I would urge the minister to take action. The Ottawa Journal of August 29 contained a dispatch from Vancouver relative to the approval of certain wage scales by the regional war labour board of British Columbia. This dispatch reads:
Now the board has sanctioned increases for shipyard workers, steel workers, construction men, mechanics, printers, plumbers and dredge operators, who receive the top boost of 20 cents an hour. The board also approved a 40 hour week, instead of 48, for practically all workers.
The largest group

2,000 men-comprises shipyard workers, in the wooden boat yards, who get a 15 cent an hour raise, and next come building trade workers - 1.400 - including plumbers, steamfitters, painters, bricklayers and shinglers, with a boost of 18 cents an hour.
Note that in all cases the increases are from thirteen to twenty cents an hour, and the reduction in hours is from forty-eight or forty-four to forty, perhaps not in all cases to become effective immediately, but as a part of the agreement. One of the Ottawa papers of a day or two ago contained an item from Cornwall, Ontario, reading:
Increases in hourly rates for shift workers range from 13-7 to 27-5 cents an hour and for day workers from 13 to 21-5 cents. Rates for boys and girls are increased 10 cents. Time and a half is to be paid for work on Saturdays and double time on Sundays. Weekly hours of shift workers are reduced from 48 to 42 and for day workers from 48 to 44.
I mentioned that the proposals made to the industrial relations committee by the steel workers for the settlement of the steel strike should be accepted. I notice that press items dealing with the steel strike state continually that the steel workers demand a 40-hour week. That is not correct; in the proposals made to the industrial relations committee by their representatives they agreed to continue on a 48-hour week in order to get a settlement and in order to give the companies time to find the necessary personnel. I should like to read

briefly from the submission made to the committee, as follows:
The union is anxious to assist in increasing actual production during the coming months, as urged by Mr. Donald Gordon.
The union firmly believes that shorter hours are needed now, that shorter hours would increase efficiency and that there would be no shortage of men for the steel industry if wages and working conditions were more attractive.
We are as determined as we ever were to avoid the paradox of some men working long hours while others go unemployed.
However, as previously stated, the union is willing to give the employers more time in which to find personnel and arrange new schedules.
On the basis that we are still in a period of reconversion and readjustment, the union, with reluctance and with some misgivings, will yield to the companies' claims that the 40-hour week cannot be established immediately or in one step.
It is important, however, that the principle of shorter hours be recognized.
We therefore propose that a work-week of 44 hours be made effective as of April 1, 1947, with the usual penalty for overtime.
I am convinced that there are a great many people who talk about the steel strike who do not know about that concession.
In settling this dispute I would urge the government and the Department of Labour to be imaginative and generous. In the natural order of things this strike will leave an aftermath of bitterness particularly in Hamilton, perhaps altogether in Hamilton-more than usually the case of strikes. A number of the workers remained at work in the plant. While in the plant they received triple pay. After the dispute is settled, any gains in wages and improvements in working conditions won by the union men, who have made sacrifices in the loss of wages and suffered other inconveniences. will also go to the employees who cooperated with the steel company in, opposing those high wages and better conditions. Under those circumstances, is it not understandable that there will be bitterness?
I received a copy of a brief that was sent to the chairman of the industrial relations committee from the Montreal chamber of commerce. First, they stated that during the past few years organized labour has made great gains in wages and improved conditions. Then they make most emphatically the point that they are opposed to forcing workers to become members of a labour union; in other words, opposed to any form of union security. In replying to their letter and the brief, I said that I would agree with them provided that they would agree with me that the conditions won by the union men went only to members of the union. That seems to me a reasonable proposition, because I do not believe that people who not only refuse to strive for better

Supply-Labour
conditions, but oppose better conditions should have those advantages when other men have worked and sacrificed to gain them. I am sure that that was in Mr. Justice Rand's mind "'hen he proposed the "Rand formula" in the Ford dispute last year. I would, therefore, urge upon the minister-and I say this without any thought of criticism in my mind, because I am sure he is just as anxious to have this strike settled as any person here can be -that he assure this committee that he will do everything within his power to settle the strike with as little delay as possible, and that no attempt will be made to try to prolong a settlement in the hope that the strike will break. When that is done I would make this proposal to him which I have made in the house on several occasions.
I believe it is fundamental, if we are to have peace in industry, that, we must have cooperation between the parties who are responsible for operating industry. When the minister gets some sort of settlement and industrial stability throughout the country, I would urge that he solicit the aid of organized labour and of organized employers to cooperate in expanding production to the limit. So far as organized labour is concerned, I am satisfied that that cooperation will be forthcoming if the minister will do two things, and he will need to have the assistance of the employers in doing these things. First, let the workers be taken into the employer's confidence and let them know what the purpose of the production is. You cannot have intelligent men and women cooperating with you if you refuse to deal with them as intelligent men and women and treat them as mere cogs in a machine. Then, and in this he will have to have the support of the government as a whole, the minister will have to give assurance to organized labour that when they have expanded production to the point that supply has overcome demand and surpluses have begun to accumulate they will not find themselves in the ranks of the unemployed, living on the meagre subsistence provided by unemployment insurance or on civic and provincial relief. If the minister can do that I believe that we shall be in a fair way to eliminate much of our labour troubles.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think it can be truthfully said that we have been reasonably successful in the last four or five years in fostering agreements between employers and employees. I have said before in this house that you cannot call a man a scoundrel to-day and expect him to sit down with you to-morrow and make an agreement, and that cuts 63260-359
both ways. I have always felt that wages should be just as high as the traffic can bear. It is the unit of production per individual that spells wealth or poverty to a nation, and that should be preached to everybody in the country whether he is in the agricultural structure or in the industrial structure. My hon. friend can rest assured of this, that anything I can do physically or mentally to bring this dispute to an end will be done.
Let me add this. I think the first ditty of a person within the confines of this nation or any other democratic nation is cooperation within the state. I am convinced of this in the light of what my hon. friend has read this evening, that if these organizations had cooperated with the state and used the machinery of the respective boards they might have been just as fortunate as the people in Cornwall or in British Columbia or in other parts of this dominion. There is no substitution for that. I went through this after the last war. I have not milch patience with those people in a trade union organization who will tell you, but privately, the fear they have of the communists within the organization. I think the responsibility of putting those people in their place belongs to the organization itself. I remember, as no doubt my good friend the hon. member for Vancouver East does, the battles that took place and all we went through after the last war. In those days this element was called by a different name. They are a type of person that cannot get along with anybody.
In his own organization, may I say, the leadership given to the good solid core of street railwaymen of North America by Bill Mahone, in labour relations between the organization and the employers, would be well worth studying by some people who at the moment are leading youthful organizations in Canada. As I have often said, sooner or later employers and employees in the steel industry have to sleep together whether they like it or not. It happens sometimes with all great union organizations that they go off the rails, but in the main their policies are directed by people who have the vision and the common sense at least to try to see the other fellow's point of view, be he employer or employee, and in those organizations you will find relations of the nature which goes to the building up of our nation as we want it to be. I could quote as evidences of this spirit the record of the building trades, the clothing trades, the pulp and paper industry, and many other organizations of manufactures and men who in this day and age earnestly endeavour to cooperate with each other, and there is

Supply-Labour

nothing they cannot do and will not do if they will only see the other fellow's point of view. Of that I am convinced.
The hon. member for Calgary West, or perhaps it was Mr. Brockington, said in the committee the other day that ten years from now Stelco will wish that they had had good relations with the steel workers' organization ten years previously. But these thing cannot be achieved overnight. There must be a willingness to cooperate, to see the other point of view, and to establish just conditions within the industry.
I assure my hon. friend that anything I can do I will do to bring about an end of the dispute in this particular industry as well as in any others in which difficulties arise.


Clarence Gillis: There are just a few words I wish to say. I do not intend to go into the merits or demerits of any of the disputes which are in progress at the present time. The hon. member for Vancouver East has said,
I think, all that it is necessary to say on that subject. But there is one aspect of that dispute on which I want to refresh the minister's memory and suggest that he might get it out of the way, as one of the sore spots at the present time. I refer to that differential of five cents in the Sydney plant. I do not look . upon that particular question as a matter which comes within the scope of the present dispute, because that question has been before the national war labour board for the past three years, and it should have been settled a long time ago. To the best of my knowledge it is still before the national war labour board, and I think a decision on it is being held up because of the general dispute in steel. The board should handle that differential and render a decision on it as quickly as possible, apart from the general settlement in the steel strike.
The opinion has gone abroad that it is the policy of the government to maintain wage differentials as from province to province. As I pointed out in committee to the minister, a decision made within the past month by the national board practically confirms that. That was the decision in the Amherst case. I am not going into it, but I seriously suggest to the minister that he get in touch with the national war labour board in order to bring about a decision in that Sydney angle of the differential.
The minister's department tabled cost of living statistics with the industrial relations committee as between Sault Ste. Marie, Hamilton and Sydney, and the figures show that the cost of living in the city of Sydney for basic products is twenty per cent higher than

it is either in Sault Ste. Marie or in Hamilton. Despite that, there is a differential of five cents an hour in wages as between Sault Ste. Marie, Hamilton and Sydney. The differential should be the other way if you are trying to even up the incomes of the steel workers
That is all I am going to say on that. But I would earnestly suggest to the minister that he do something about that differential apart from the general settlement in steel, because it does not belong to the general question.
It has been before the board for three years, and a decision should be made.
The matter of the steel workers' strike and all the other disputes is, the minister said, a matter between the state,, the union and the companies. We have done all we can in this house; if talking would have cured the situation it would have been over long ago. All we can do at this stage of the game is to leave it to the good judgment of the people concerned to bring about a settlement in the best interests of all concerned.
On the minister's estimates from item to [DOT] item there are a few questions I wish to ask him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before this item carries,
I should like to say a few words about a matter which I have raised in this house a number of times. I refer to the claim of certain employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and other Canadian Pacific companies for pension rights denied them because of participation in certain strikes back in 1918 and 1919. It is unnecessary for me to give the whole story behind this issue because I have already placed it on the record of this house on a number of occasions. The first time I raised it was on May 1, 1944, and I continued to bring the matter to the attention of the government in the hope that something might be don'e. At long last, on April 12, 1945, the Prime Minister gave me the assurance, in answer to a question on the orders of the day, that consideration would be given to a request made by certain unions, representing some of the men involved, for the setting up of a royal commission to go into this whole question. Shortly after the Prime Minister gave me that assurance in the house,
I got in touch with him by letter, pressing for the immediate implementing of his promise, and a few days later received from him a letter under date of April 17 in which he again assured me that the request would be and I quote-"carefully considered with a view to determining whether or not the appointment of a royal commission would in fact contribute to the solution of the problem". Following that promise made by the Prime

Supply-Labour
Minister, the Department of Labour appointed Mr. H. S. Johnstone, a conciliation officer in the Department of Labour, as a special investigator to look into the matter so as to give the government the necessary information to enable them to determine whether or not a royal commission should be established.
Mr. Johnstone's direction to undertake this investigation appears to have been given to him by Mr. M. M. McLean, director of industrial relations, on April 24, 1945. He proceeded forthwith to make his inquiry, and in due course made a report to the Minister of Labour under date of December 7, 1945. I felt very strongly that since the whole matter arose out of a dispute between two parties, once that report had been made it should be presented to the parties concerned. However, at the beginning the Minister of Labour did not agree with me on that point. A copy of the report was sent by him to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, to which after some months a reply was made, and that reply was tabled in the house. It was not until August 20 that the minister yielded to my request and tabled a copy of the report in the house. It is now known as sessional paper 238-A.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend should also say that- we had copies mimeographed so that he could send them to his friends.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a matter of fact, I was going to get around to that. I am very glad to say that the minister was good enough to meet my request and have about sixty-five or seventy copies of this document mimeographed so that I could send them out, as he says, to my friends. Yes, they are my friends, but they are also persons deeply concerned in this issue.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am sorry; perhaps I should have put it in that way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I might say to the minister that I am already receiving letters back from some of these individuals expressing gratitude for the report and saying that it is extremely encouraging to read this document which was prepared by Mr. Johnstone, and to note his comments and recommendations.
This issue is one with which the minister and I at least are familiar. It is one that involves a good many questions and a good deal of factual material. It is also a matter of 'deep human interest, one that concerns a great many workers who feel that they have been dealt with most unjustly. It is in essence a dispute between certain employees of the Canadian Pacific and the company. In my previous remarks in the house on this matter 63260-359i
I have gone into the merits of the dispute between the employees and the company. What I have had to say makes it clear that, in my view, the case is all on the side of the men, but I rise at this time not to repeat the arguments that I have made in the past on behalf of the men with respect to their dispute with the company, but rather to deal with the issue that now faces the government.
The request which was made to the government in the spring of 1945 came from a number of unions, the brotherhood of railroad trainmen, the brotherhood of railway and steamship clerks, the international association of machinists, the brotherhood of express employees, and, I believe, the Canadian merchant service guild. That request was for the appointment of a royal commission. The reply of the government was that they would have to look into the matter to determine whether or not the royal commission should be established. That preliminary inquiry was made by Mr. Harris Johnstone of the Department of Labour. He has now made his report back to the Minister of Labour, and it is in this document to which I have referred, which the minister had mimeographed for me. It is a definite recommendation that such a royal commission should be established. I think I should read one or two paragraphs from the report to indicate how definite is the recommendation and also something of the tone of what Mr. Johnstone has found. In the first paragraph he indicates the nature of the task which was given to him, saying in part:
I was told that you would like me to forward the results of that investigation with the recommendation so that with this information at hand you could determine whether or not to recommend the appointment of a royal commission.
That was the task given to Mr. Johnstone. At page 17 of his report, just before he signs his name, he measures up to the task which was given to him in this concluding paragraph:
It is the opinion of the undersigned that the employees have established strong claims for consideration. The nature and extent for adjustments, if any, cannot be determined except by a more exhaustive analysis than was possible, or even contemplated in this preliminary investigation. I would therefore recommend that a royal commission be established to examine into the whole question to determine what, if any, consideration should be granted, and if so, then to whom and in what manner pension adjustments should be made.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Twelve o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I hear hon. members calling attention to the time. I have a little more to add to this, but I am prepared to do so to-morrow.


Humphrey Mitchell: Go ahead and finish it.
Supply-Labour


Clarence Gillis: Finish to-night while we are here.


Mr. WARREN:: We will let you put it on the record.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Those two paragraphs, being the first and last of Mr. Johnstone's report, indicate-and I want to get this clear, even at the risk of seeming to labour the point-that his job was to give complete information to the government and to give them his recommendation as to whether or not a royal commission should be established. He went into all phases of the question and made a specific recommendation that a royal commission should be established. In the course of his report he gave a summary of a number of the arguments and discussions which he had with those whom he interviewed. This is a typical paragraph which appears on page 15:
Another argument has to do with the employees' equity in pensions. The employee organizations assert that during wage negotiations the company always pointed to the pension plan as one of the benefits accruing by reason of their employment with this particular concern. The company officials interviewed stated that'they had never heard'pensions being discussed in this manner during wage negotiations. The unanimity of the employees on this point makes it difficult to accept the company's statement. It is hard to imagine wage discussions occurring wherein the pension plan was not mentioned in this way. Any established plan of this nature, whether wholly company contributory or not, when maintained for a time becomes one of the established working conditions, and together with the actual wage paid they form the remuneration earned by the employee. The employee argument therefore that by each year of service he is building up deferred earnings in a pension is one which has considerable weight. To be deprived of past earnings by reason of absence on strike, or absence during a strike, does not seem to be equitable treatment, and all the more so when the decision is made by the party which will thereby save large sums of money as a result of rigid adherence to this rule.
That paragraph is taken from the body of Mr. Johnstone's 17-page report made just shortly before he gave his definite recommendation. Appended to the 17-page report are to be found another forty-nine pages of appendices in which Mr. Johnstone gives summaries of his discussions with all the parties he interviewed, and the interesting thing to note is that Mr. Johnstone did not interview just those on one side of the issue. He interviewed some eight or ten trade union organizations representing the men. He interviewed, on the other hand, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the former Dominion Express Company, now the Canadian Pacific Express Company, and, in addition to these parties on both sides of the dispute, he also interviewed

representatives of the Canadian National Railways, the Manitoba government, the Manitoba telephone system and the Winnipeg municipal employees, including policemen and firemen. The reason for his interviews with these latter people is that those of us who have been speaking on this matter have pointed out time and again that these were employers whose employees were on strike in Winnipeg at the same time and who have treated their employees more generously or, as some of us think, fairly in the matter of pension rights. So that his report represents, as the minister will have to admit-he says he has one of the best departments of government and therefore he will have to stand by this report-an exhaustive study of the whole matter. In my view we have reached quite a point in this whole dispute, although it dates back to 1919, to have secured the preparation and public release of this document, which covers it so well. In the meantime, between last December, when the report was made, and August 20, when it was tabled, a copy of the report had been sent to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and a reply was received by the minister from Mr. W. Manson, the vice-president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in charge of personnel. That reply was dated May 26, 1946, and a copy of it was laid on the table of the house, being sessional paper 238, on June 26 of this year. The significant paragraph in Mr. Manson's reply to Mr. Johnstone's report is this:
I note that Mr. Johnstone recommends the appointment of a royal commission to examine into the questions dealt with in the report. Such a recommendation in the circumstances involves such fundamental and far-reaching consequences that it ought to be rejected by the government.
Mr. Manson goes on in about three pages of his own letter to set out his objections to Mr. Johnstone's recommendations, and then adds a memorandum, which I believe was prepared by someone in the legal department of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which attempts to answer the points in Mr. Johnstone's report.
Now here is the situation. This is a dispute between the employees on the one hand and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company on the other. The employees have asked for a royal commission. The company objects. I suppose, one might say that is a natural position for the two sides to the dispute to take, and so the government has stepped in with its impartial investigator, Mr. Harris Johnstone, who has made this exhaustive study and has come out with the definite recommendation that a royal commission should

Supply-Labour
be set up. I wish to make it clear to the minister that I have deliberately refrained to-night from arguing the merits of the-dispute between the men and the company because I do not want the minister in his reply ' to spend too much time on that. The issue now is whether or not the government is going to carry out the recommendation made by Mr. Johnstone. There it is. It comes from a conciliation officer in the Department of Labour. During the time when I was trying to get the minister to table that report, during the months when he was unwilling to do so, one of the arguments he used for refusing to table this document was that, in order to get civil servants such as Mr. Johnstone to prepare an authoritative and useful report and really give all the information that was desired, it was necessary to guarantee to such a civil servant that his report would be treated as confidential. Well, that cuts both ways. It means that since the minister did not want to table the report-


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend wants, I will answer that in a moment. He is treads ing on dangerous ground. I will give the answer in two minutes if he is not careful.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Never mind the threats. I am simply trying to show the minister that on the basis of his own argument this report is an excellent one. It is one that was prepared under the most favourable circumstances for the preparation of a good report; and there it is, obviously complete in its survey, because the arguments are there from both sides. But the upshot of the whole investigation is a clear-cut recommendation that the commission should be established. Against that is the objection of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I submit that the objection of the Canadian Pacific is itself offset by the request of the men, and the impartial viewpoint of the whole matter is that of Mr. Johnstone in his recommendation to the minister. The question I now put to the minister, and the question which is coming to me from the unions of the men represented, is whether or not we may expect the government to carry out the recommendation which was made in Mr. Johnstone's report for establishing a royal commission with terms of reference such as those suggested in this official document.


Humphrey Mitchell: The answer to my hon. friend is contained in the following reply:
The matter is being given consideration by the law officers of the crown and the decision has been reached that the appointment of a royal commission would serve no useful purpose.
That is the answer.	.


Ralph Maybank: Mr. Chairman-


Frank Exton Lennard: Surely we are not going to be here all night.


Ralph Maybank: No one is going to be here all night because of the very few minutes that I am going to take. This subject is one in which I have been interested for a number of years. I should like to have seen some further inquiry into it, and I have been working to that end for some time. Just before the Prime Minister left here for the peace conference, I had with him, I was going to say a rather lengthy interview, but an interview at all events, together with the vicepresident of the brotherhood of railway trainmen, on this subject, with a view to asking his consideration of the matter on his return. There the matter at that time stood. I have often thought that much might be said on the subject, but on the other hand I felt that situations are sometimes not aided by too much speech. I think, however, it is only right that I should put on the record the fact of this interview and the sympathetic hearing given by the Prime Minister at that time. I know, of course, that when he comes back there will be the utmost further consideration given to it that can be given. I just wanted the committee to be made aware of those facts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to confirm what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has just said about the sympathetic ear given by the Prime Minister to appeals in connection with this matter. The Prime Minister gave me an interview similar to the one referred t-o by the hon. member, and likewise made it clear that the door would not be closed in connection with this matter. I may also confirm what the hon. member has just said about the vice-president of his own organization, the brotherhood of railway trainmen. He told me of the sympathetic hearing that was given when he saw the Prime Minister just before the Prime Minister left for overseas. That is good, but the men concerned want more than sympathy; they want action; they want their pensions.


Frank Exton Lennard: Mr. Chairman, we agreed to hear the hon. member out. We sat here and gave him a good hearing. But we do not want another 40-minute speech piled on top of that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is immaterial to me whether it is done to-night or to-morrow morning.


Frank Exton Lennard: You said you wanted a few minutes.
Supply-Labour

The CHAIRMAN- The hon. member will probably complete his remarks in a few minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say to the Minister of Labour that I have all kinds of respect for the Department of Justice. But it seems to me that the opinion he has just expressed as coming from that department-"No useful purpose would be served"-if that was the wording of it, is a matter of opinion for the government to take, and is not a legal ruling. If he were quoting from the Department of Justice as to whether there was a constitutional right to set up a royal commission, then I could understand his quoting from that department. But when it comes to a simple opinion as to whether a useful purpose would be served, clearly that is a matter for the government itself to deal with. I would suggest that they have had the proper recommendation from the man who has really gone into the matter in the person of Mr. Johnstone.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will say this, that when you break a contract, then that is the end of the contract.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But-


Humphrey Mitchell: Now, you sit down. I have listened to you for forty minutes. I shall be through in a couple of minutes. I told my hon. friend I would say this. I have a vivid recollection of what took place in Winnipeg in 1919. I have, I think, an understanding of the pension system in the C.P.R. at that time. These men broke a contract. The money belonged to the C.P.R. I do not think that by an act of parliament-well, of course under our constitution, you can do anything by act of parliament-but it will be remembered that these people broke their contract. The money belongs to the C.P.R. It was a contributory pension system. I know what I am talking about.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Far be it from me to help you out, but it was a non-contributory system.


Humphrey Mitchell: Non-contributory, I
should say. The money was paid there, and was contributed by the C.P.R. I do not know how you can get a private organization to spend money arising out of a breach of contract. I am not a lawyer, but it is as clear as crystal to me that all the commissions in the world cannot, in my judgment, make that company pay something which arose out of a breach of contract.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Time.


Frank Exton Lennard: This has gone on long enough.
fMr. Lennard.]


Stanley Howard Knowles: I stayed away from arguing the merits of the dispute itself between the men and the company, just to avoid this kind of thing. But if the minister insists upon raising it, then I will simply point out that that is one of the questions in dispute. That is one of the reasons for having a royal commission, namely, to determine whether or not these men in fact have forfeited their right to their pensions.
The minister talks about its being the company's money. That is in dispute, too. The men insist that, since it was part of what they were working for, they had an equity and the money is really theirs. I agree thoroughly with the men.
I could go on, but the point is as to whether or not the government will set up this royal commission. If the most we can hope for is the sympathetic hearing we have had from the Prime Minister, then I hope that on his return the government will get together and give immediate consideration to Mr. Johnstone's report. I -urge as strongly as I can that the commission be established without delay.


William Ross Macdonald: Is the item carried?


John Bracken: I would not suggest that this discussion be dropped, if it is the desire of the hon. member to continue it. But I suggest if it is to be continued it should not be continued to-night.


William Ross Macdonald: I understand that the particular matter has been concluded. May we carry vote 109 to-night?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Ross Macdonald: Item 110.


John Bracken: Oh, well, no.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.
On motion of Mr. St. Laurent the house adjourned at 12.20 p.m.
Saturday, August 31, 1946