1946-08-23

INQUIRY AS TO ISSUE OF PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATES FOR 1943 CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: T should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, arising out of certain communications I have received from the farmers in my constituency asking when the wheat participation certificates covering the 1943 crop will be made available. The money is needed at the present time in connection with harvesting. Some time ago the minister said these payments would be made by this time, and I would appreciate a statement for the benefit of these farmers.


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have been getting letters too, and I have been getting letters from other members of the house about the same matter. The difficulty is a physical one. I received assurances earlier that distribution of these cheques would begin within a very few days, and I gave that information to the house. Very recently I had occasion to give definite notification to the wheat board that, if necessary, increased staff must be obtained and, if necessary, increased quarters must be acquired in order to have these cheques issued. Cheques may be on the way now. I have done everything in my power to urge the wheat board to get these cheques out just as soon as possible, and I believe they will be out very shortly.



MILITIA PENSION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence) moved that the house go into committee to consider the. following resolution :
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Militia Pension Act to bring up to date the existing provisions of the act and to provide that time served on active service be included in the pensionable term of service of persons appointed to the permanent force prior to the first of April, 1946; and also to add a new part to the act, respecting pensions, allowances and gratuities, applicable to all persons joining the permanent force after the 31st March, 1946, and to those persons coming under the present act, who may, instead of remaining thereunder, elect to come under the new part.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Mr. BRACKEN:: Should we not have a brief statement from the minister?


Mr. ABBOTT:: Briefly, the purpose of the bill which will follow is to amend the provisions of the Militia Pension Act, to bring them substantially into agreement with the Civil Service Superannuation Act. I thought that if the resolution were adopted this morning and first reading given to the bill, so that the bill might go before hon. members, they would appreciate the nature of the proposed amendments.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 392, to amend the Militia Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Supply-Defence-A rmy

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
569. Army and related services (commitments $25,843,524), $283,170,171.
Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, a number of questions were asked during the course of the debate the other day which I promised to answer later. Perhaps it might be well if I were to do it now, before further questions are asked.
The hon. member for Skeena asked what disposition was being made of naval buildings in Prince Rupert. The Prince Rupert base, with the exception of the wireless station, drill hall and two other buildings, and the fuel oil installation, has been transferred to War Assets Corporation for disposal. The wnreless station and fuel oil installation are on a care and maintenance basis, while the drill hall and the two other buildings are being held temporarily for use by sea cadets and possibly a naval reserve division, when formed. Ordinary temporary construction would, in the course of closing the base, be dismantled.
The hon. member for Lake Centre asked if I would advise him as to what action was taken with respect to Major James Alexander Elliott. I stated that I would examine the file and see what I could get. I have done so, and I find that the then minister approved the removal of this former officer from the Canadian army on October 21, 1944 on the ground of misconduct. The misconduct referred to had nothing whatever to do with the signing of documents which permitted certain personnel to evade the provisions of the national selective service regulations. I find that our first information-the first information that the Department of National Defence has with reference to his alleged activities in this regard-was on receipt of a letter from the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on November 1, 1944, after his removal from the Canadian army. I may say that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have been furnished with all the information in the possession of the army with respect to this particular officer.


Mr. COCKERAM:: Was this officer court-martialled?


Douglas Charles Abbott: He was not court-martialled. He was removed from the army for misconduct, and was out of the army when this particular matter came to light.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the nature of the misconduct? Was it the fact that he said he was a graduate of a university-which he was not-at the time he joined up?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Although there is considerable noise in the chamber I have gathered that the hon. member has asked about the nature of the misconduct for which Major Elliott was removed. It was for by-passing proper channels of communication, and countermanding orders, without authority.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the purport of the communication from the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regarding this man? Did it not have to do w'ith the fact that he had signed certain medical discharge certificates in blank and turned them over to individuals?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would have to check the files again. I am advised that they communicated with us and asked for certain information. It is probably indicated that he was accused of action such as my hon. friend has suggested. But if the matter is of importance I can look at the files again. I do not suppose I could produce the communication, but I could probably advise the committee as to the nature of the offence. It came up after the man was removed from the army-I wish to make that perfectly clear.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard suggested that the reserve army should be issued with boots. I have made inquiries and I am pleased to advise that boots will be issued to all reserve army personnel.
The hon. member for Calgary East asked for a breakdown of the 10.990 other ranks as among the different branches of the service. The total strength as of August 10. 1946 was 10,990 other ranks, divided among the various branches of the service as follows: R.C.A.C., 608; R.C.A.. 960; R.C.E., 808; R.C Sigs, 596; Canadian Infantrv Corps (C.I.C.), 2.245; R.C.A.S.C, 1,415; R.C.A.M.C. 522; R.C.O.C., 1.166; R.C.E.M.E.. 1.077;	R.C.A.P.C., 300;
C.D.C., 155; C.P.C., 29; C. Pro. C., 312; C. Int. C., 47; C.M.S.C., 562; general list, 26; unspecified, 162.
I know it is considered to be an unforgivable sin for a minister to hold up his own estimates; but since it may not be possible for me to be here this afternoon I thought I might add something to the question of the alleged destruction of useful boots and other types of army equipment, arising out of the dumping on the Point St. Charles dump in Montreal of certain quantities of that material.
Supply-Defence-Army

First I want to outline the wartime policy with respect to the disposal of equipment. As to new clothing, that which had not been used and was in its original package is returned to ordnance stock for re-issue. Reconditioned clothing is given the necessary treatment to bring it up to a minimum of fifty per cent to sixty per cent of expectancy of further wear. Clothing of that kind is returned to ordnance stock for reissue. Clothing which is nonrepairable or condemned, that is, clothing which would have less than fifty to sixty per cent of wear after repair, is dealt with in the following way: It is transferred to the Indian affairs branch with no mutilation. Second, boots are issued to prisoners of war with no mutilation. In that respect, and as I think I pointed out before, the mutilating of condemned footwear was discontinued by instructions issued under date of July 29, 1941. Third, suitable cotton garments are cut up as a source of wiping rags for use in the army. Fourth, suitable woollen garments are disposed of to processing mills to rework into war clothing. This is the wartime policy that I am speaking of. Fifth, textile materials which are not usable, either for transfer to Indian affairs or, in the case of boots, to be issued to prisoners of war, were sold as scrap after mutilation. Footwear that was not usable as material to be transferred to prisoners of war was sold in the whole state after marking to indicate lawful purchase.
The reasons that necessitated that wartime policy was, first, that it was considered of the utmost importance that the largest possible percentage of clothing withdrawn from troops be reclaimed for further use in the army. Second, military clothing available to unauthorized persons during war time was a threat to the security of the country. Third, it was necessary to take measures to prevent trading in army clothing by military personnel. Fourth, wool from non-serviceable military clothing was an essential source of supply in the manufacture of cloth for uniforms, and its flow to processing mills was controlled by the. wool controller of the Department of Munitions and Supply. In addition, certain types of cotton were a vital source of wiping rags for army use which otherwise would have had to be purchased in a time of general scarcity. Finally, the Indian affairs branch of government, by its programme of alteration and reworking of condemned army clothing-under strict control for security reasons-made use of important quantities of clothing and footwear which were released at fair prices to assist in Indian relief work and craft training. That was the policy during the war.

Then as to post-war policy, the factors governing the wartime policy, some of which I have indicated, have of course now diminished in importance and the present policy for the respective categories is as follows: First, the policy with respect to new clothing is the same as it was in war time, that is, it is put back into ordnance to be reissued. Second, reconditioned clothing is handled the same as in war time, except that the standard has been raised to 70 to 80 per cent expectancy. In the case of non-repairable or condemned material, that is, that which contains less than seventy to eighty per cent of expectancy of further wear, first, the clothing and footwear is classified into generic groupings by type of garment, declared surplus and shipped to the War Assets Corporation reclamation depot for relief clothing at Valleyfield, Quebec. No mutilation is authorized. The removal of military insignia is of course necessary. Second, a certain amount of clothing, such as coveralls and other protective garments-this is the type of garment worn in garages-may be excessively damaged or soiled, and in order to prevent the soiling of clean garments or to avoid a fire hazard it is not included in shipments to Valleyfield. Such clothing is reported as pounds of scrap in its proper category without mutilation and is' disposed of by War Assets Corporation to local scrap contractors. Finally, wiping rags can be obtained by the army from War Assets Corporation, Valleyfield depot. That is an outline of the wartime and peace time policies with respect to the disposal of service clothing.
With respect to the material which was condemned in Montreal, as I said in the statement I made the other day a court of inquiry made a full and intensive investigation. There is no doubt that some of these canvas shoes had been mutilated before being sold as scrap, but it was not possible as a result of the court of inquiry to ascertain who had done the mutilating. The committee will recall that Mr. Berry in his statement to the press said that up to the time this matter was discussed it had been the policy of War Assets Corporation to mutilate canvas shoes which were considered not suitable or of no commercial value, in order that no shoes should be sold which had not been disinfected or which were in a condition which made them improper to be sold in the regular channels of sale. Since this matter was brought forward they have discontinued that mutilation. It may well be that some of these shoes were mutilated by War Assets under those conditions, and I would think quite properly.

Supply-Defence-Army
From hearsay evidence which I have received it would appear that a certain number of shoes which appeared to be serviceable had been sold mutilated. I refer particularly to one pair of gutta percha shoes bearing the date 1942 which had been mutilated, but it is impossible to say who had done it or when it was done. However, on inquiry it was ascertained that there could have been no substantial mutilation of serviceable shoes, if in fact any serviceable shoes had been so mutilated. Of course there is always the possibility that in a large organization like the army a man may deliberately mutilate a pair of shoes in order to get a new pair, in any event, I repeat what I said when I made my statement in the house. I am glad that this matter has been brought forward because it is most important that the public should not get the impression that there is a wilful waste of public property. However, it struck me as an absurdity and I could see no rhyme or reason for a man mutilating a good pair of shoes, and that is why, to use a slang phrase, it just did not seem to tie up. I want to assure the committee that so far as the army is concerned, and I feel sure the same thing applies to War Assets Corporation, every precaution is being taken to see that no serviceable article is mutilated or sold as scrap.


John George Diefenbaker: Reverting again to Major Elliott's case and the explanation given by the minister, I should like the minister to place before the committee-there can be no question of this being privileged-the letter written by the commissioner of the mounted police to the army in November, 1944, and also any subsequent correspondence between the commissioner and the army. Furthermore, I am interested in knowing the procedure taken to remove Major Elliott, particularly in view of the fact that there was no court martial. I was always under the impression that an officer could not be dismissed from the service by any other means than through the instrumentality of a court martial.
Before dealing with that, would the minister be kind enough to read the letter or letters received from Commissioner Wood?-because according to my information it was Commissioner Wood who, subsequently to receiving instructions from the deputy Minister of Labour, notified his headquarters in Toronto not to proceed further with action against Elliott, Begley and Arnold. If the minister will do that, then I have some further questions to ask.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not the letters here, and I shall give consideration to whether or not they are properly producible. As to the

other point raised by my hon. friend, I am advised by the experts on military law, of which I am not one because I did not attain a sufficiently high rank, that a man can be removed under paragraph 267 for military inefficiency.


John George Diefenbaker: With the latter I am not in disagreement, but now that the minister has had some days to consider the case of Major Elliott-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have had other matters to consider.


John George Diefenbaker: A question has been raised with regard to a matter which affected the war effort of this nation, and on a number of occasions I have met an impenetrable wall in trying to get information. Surely the minister has had opportunity to consider-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not like that "impenetrable wall". My hon. friend asked me for a statement as to the action which had been taken with respect to Major Elliott, and I have given him a full and complete statement. I have told him that Major Elliott was removed for misconduct and inefficiency on duty. I do not think there is any impenetrable wall about that. It is just a clear concise statement of the facts.


John George Diefenbaker: Surely if it is all so simple and so clear, there should not be any delay in production of the letter or letters. The minister is not going to assume, is he, that a letter received from the commissioner of the mounted police regarding an officer in the army, no matter when it was received, whether before or after he left the army-in this case it was after-should not be producible to the House of Commons? Apparently two counsel had arrived at the conclusion that a proper case had been made out. The mounted police had fully investigated the matter and had determined to go ahead; they were simply awaiting formal instructions. These instructions were not forthcoming, not because of any desire or action of the mounted police, but in consequence of a direction of the deputy minister of labour. After the letter was received from the commissioner of the mounted police, was or was not Major Elliott interviewed by the representatives of the army? How many of the medical discharge certificates or medical discharge documents disappeared from Camp Borden or were lost while Major Elliott was in charge at Camp Borden? My information is that in the case against one Lawrence Schrupsole, of Toronto, who was prosecuted in April or May, 1945, it was revealed that Major Elliott did give a statement to the mounted police to the effect
Supply-Defence-Army

that he had signed a considerable number of documents in blank and had turned them over to Mr. Arnold. All I am trying to find out is the basis upon which, after investigation and recommendation by the mounted police, the deputy minister of labour decided that, regardless of whether or not there was a conspiracy to interfere with the war effort of this nation by assuring to certain individuals medical discharge certificates to which they were not entitled, there should be no prosecution and the mounted police should be hobbled, first on the ground that there was no evidence that money had passed when there was clear evidence of a conspiracy as revealed by Lennox in his evidence, and secondly on the ground that the war was over and therefore prosecution should not be considered.
I know that the minister himself had nothing whatever to do with any impropriety in this matter. But I want to know what the commissioner of the mounted police alleged against Major Elliott. Surely there can be no question of privilege here. This is a request for information. I have not been able to get these documents by a motion in this house. In a matter affecting a goodly number of persons, in connection with which there was an investigation which lasted from December, 1944. to March or April, 1945, the government would lead the house and the country to believe that the complete file has been brought down. Actually only eight letters are on the file in regard to what the commissioner of the mounted police communicated to the Department of National Defence, yet that was one of the matters covered in the order which was made by the house for the production of the papers. The order read:
Order of the house-[DOT]
For a copy of all correspondence passing between the Department of National Defence and/or the Department of Labour, and/or the Department of Justice-[DOT]
There were no qualifications to that order. My hon. friend mentions this letter. Does he not consider that it passed between departments? Is not the mounted police under the Department of Justice? As a matter of fact no question was raised by the Department of National Defence as to their not having certain documents when they made their answer to this return. They did say:
It is understood that copies of the correspondence in question will be furnished by the Department of Labour.
The minister of Justice would have this country believe that a return consisting of eight letters, without the enclosures-therefore the letters required are not there-constitutes the full file on an investigation into a conl Mr. Diefenbaker.]
spiracy widespread in its ramifications. Surely any reasonable person will realize that an order made by parliament without qualification has not been complied with. All I am asking at the moment, however, is for production of the correspondence between the commissioner of the mounted police and the Department of National Defence. Only by that means can parliament achieve through the medium of questioning what it has not been able to achieve as a result of an order passed by the house.


Alan Cockeram: Mr. Chairman, while we are on the subject of courts martial it might be well to review the whole system of courts martial in the army. Some time ago I asked for the production of General Price Montague's report on conditions in Holland, but my motion for the papers was voted down. The minister will remember that there were prosecutions in Holland of certain junior officers and of a senior officer. The junior officers were found guilty and punishment was meted out by the court. The senior officer, more or less on the instructions of the prosecuting officer, was acquitted. At the trial the prosecuting officer had this to say:
It would pain the entire army to see one of its most distinguished members come to grief on such charges as these. We would all rejoice at an acquittal.
However, if the court feels later conduct did not measure up to his own earlier standards then a verdict of guilty must be registered.
I state now that that was interference with the course of justice by the prosecuting officer. Unfortunately this is not the only case. I am not saying that the present minister had anything to do with it, but it was a well-known fact in the army that many courts martial were ordered by the then minister of militia in spite of the fact that the cases had previously been disposed of. It seems to me that if there is going to be interference by the minister, if he can order courts martial to take place where and whenever he so desires, there is something -wrong with justice in the army. I believe that any system whereby ministers of the crown can require the judge advocate general or a district officer commanding to court martial an officer or a man, with or without justification, needs to be completely changed. It amazes me that within the last few weeks this officer, who as I say was acquitted on the orders of the highest officers, has since been placed in one of the senior positions of the Canadian militia. If the militia is to be efficient, if it is to be a force which can be looked up to not only by the men serving in the army but by the people

Supply-Defence-Army
of Canada as a whole, great- care must be taken in the selection of the senior officers; because if the men in the ranks have not the respect for their officers which they should have, and if the people do not respect the force, you will never get a permanent force in this army.
I should like the minister to enlarge on this matter. There is no question in my mind that Major Elliott should have been court-mar-tialled. The department knew about what he had been doing. Had I been someone else, no doubt the then minister would have ordered a court martial of that officer and he would have been punished if found guilty. The whole system of courts martial in the army must be revised.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, I think I had better anwer this question.


Mr. CHURCH:: I am not a military man, but I take an interest in this question, partly because I come from a city whose people suffered more casualties in two wars than any other city in Canada. The minister may think that this is all a joke, but it is not.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, no.


Thomas Langton Church: The joke is on the party on the other side of the house, which presents us with all these estimates and no plan for defence for the future. The opposition has been very courteous and helpful to the government, and it is not my wish to delay the proceedings; they should have been through two weeks ago.
During the first great war and ever since that time I have taken much interest in the work of the department. We have had very fine ministers at the head of it. As to the non-permanent militia, which used to be called the militia, but is now known as the reserve army, there is no "reserve" about it; in twenty-four hours it was ready for active service in both these wars.
I say to the government that this should not be a political question. We should have a committee on national defence. That would have been much better than having a committee on external affairs, which in its discussions travels all over the seven seas and does nothing except to bring a lot of irrelevant questions before the house. It is important to have a proper defence committee of the House of Commons. They have one at Washington, they have one in the old country.
The men who put their time, their money and their lives into the reserve army, the old militia, deserve well of Canada. If continued along the right lines in the future it will be the backbone of the country's defence. Incidentally I would call attention to the fact
that, visiting Canada next Wednesday or Thursday is the great field marshal and commander in chief of the forces who marched across the North African desert, Viscount Montgomery.
In my opinion, without proper plans the money which this department proposes to spend between the end of the second great war and the beginning of the third war- because there is a third war coming and it will be right on our shores-will be wasted. The peace pacts and peace policies the united nations and of Paris and Potsdam and other places have collapsed, and Europe is to be divided as decided on by the original big three at Yalta, Teheran, Potsdam and Malta; and the middle and small powers cannot change it at all. In the face of those facts we should have in my opinion a joint defence policy for the whole commonwealth of nations, on land, on sea and in the air. That is most important. You have lost the Pacific, you have given up the bases on the Atlantic for ninety-nine years. You have thrown away the control of the Atlantic from Newfoundland to British Guiana. Nothing is so valuable as the study of history in connection with military matters, and a recent textbook of great military importance has been written by Lord Wavell, who is now in India. I hope the minister will read it He shows that in the two great wars Hitler and the Kaiser made the same mistakes as Napoleon did. It consists of a series of addresses in which he points out mistakes made in the last two wars and the need of empire defence. I advise the minister to ponder these lessons for Canada, because we are going to make about the same mistakes again if we are not active to prevent it. In my opinion we should never have given up the Atlantic naval and air bases in exchange for a lot of old ships, only one-third of which were used. That lease transaction should be cancelled and charged up to lend-lease, which it was in the dark days of the battle of the Atlantic to save America from invasion. In that way we would be enabled to play some part in the defence of our own country and of the other British dominions in a future war or a future battle of the Atlantic.
As to the Pacific ocean, we have been practically cleared out of the Pacific, although before the war started Britain had the whole Pacific situation in her own hands on land, on sea, and in the air. I urge upon the government that there is no point in wasting any more money as it has been wasted on our old militia methods. There must be coordination between the army, the navy and
Supply-Defence-Army

morning, at this stage of the session, but I can tell you that it is going to have a very serious effect on recruiting for the reserve army. People are not going to waste their time in serving their country if that is the policy of this country; if we are going to throw overboard Britain and all the dominions who saved our shores here, and give that sort of treatment to the fine men of the reserve army who were the backbone of the militia in two great wars as well as the South African war, the northwest rebellion, the Fenian raid and so on; and the 1885 veterans never got a nickel out of those earlier services. They were the men who made the militia; they did their duty, and their sons and grandsons are in the forces to-day. If we are going to pass orders in council like this and still keep in custody as deserters some 864 volunteers, all of whom served at the front for three or four years, while we take no action against those who stayed home and ran away from service in this country, then I tell you that you can. say good-day and good-bye to any defence system in the future in Canada on land, sea and in the air.
The first duty of a citizen, as I see it, is to defend his country. "Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friend"-meaning his country. That is why you enlisted in the first war, Mr. Chairman, and the men who went with you; that is why so many enlisted during the last war, to save civilization. Speak for no party but only as a private member. I need not detain the house long over this matter except to say that a mistake has been made. The government have a majority. They have acted by order in council over the head of parliament, with an utter contempt for the House of Commons while in session here. We might as well all go home, because we have nothing to say about this thing. "Parliament will decide" is a myth. Do you think I am going to go out and encourage people to enlist now? Unfortunately I was not able or qualified1 to enlist myself or I would not have been here at all. How are we going to be able to support the militia when matters are dealt with in this haphazard fashion? I say this in all kindness to our friends in one province. Canada will never forget the old land of France in the last war, a country to which in the first great war the eyes of the whole civilized world were turned. Britain should make a new alliance with France. As Sir Eugene Tache said, should our flag in Canada ever be hauled down, "the last shot in defence of our country will be fired by a French Canadian " We should have union, that union which is set out in the in-CMr. Church.]
scription to Montcalm and Wolfe on the plains of Abraham, with equal rights for all, and equality of service and sacrifice. During the last war this house met in camera-I did not attend the session-to deal with matters concerning the near approach of the enemy to the shores of the St. Lawrence. But for the forces of the mother country, her fleet and the cooperation of the dominions, we would have had the awful horror of war in our own land; the gestapo, the police, the loud speaker, the concentration camp, the whip; and hundreds of thousands of our population in Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes would have been carted off to work in the German mines. So I think we should pay tribute where tribute is due.
In conclusion, I can tell you that we are going to have a rude awakening unless we profit by mistakes and institute a forward defence policy. I appreciate what has been done by the minister and by all those who has occupied that office, including my hon. friend who is wearing the Mackenzie school tie to-day and who we hope will have a very pleasant holiday, because he has earned one; he has worked hard as leader of the house. The present minister of army and navy is a student and a gentleman of very considerable ability. I saw him at Niagara camp as a young volunteer; and I appeal to him to try and stimulate recruiting. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard said the other day, and as I suggested, I hope he will travel across the country for that purpose, if his health is still good enough when this session is over. We are apt to be talked to death here, and somebody may be charged with murder. In my opinion this place is becoming more and more like 999 Queen West in Toronto, and the sooner we conclude our business and close the better for all concerned and the better for the health of the country generally.


Mr. KNIGHT:: There are two subjects I should like to draw to the attention of the minister. The first might very easily have followed the minister's talk about how these uniforms were converted to rags. There is a good deal of speculation around my home city of Saskatoon as to the amount and disposal of army material stored there. According to sessional paper 248 of July 16 some 87 carloads of material were stored in the T. Eaton building in Saskatoon, including 6 carloads of wearing apparel, 46 carloads of bedding, 35 carloads of camp equipment. I believe this material has to be moved in the immediate future. I do not know whether the T. Eaton Company requires its property, but I understand this material is to be dis-

Supply-D e fe nee-Army
posed of, and there is some speculation as to its ultimate disposition. I presume the army has seen to it that the material has been kept in good shape, that it has not suffered damage from moths or vermin, though I was not able to elicit that information by my question. It is interesting to note that the premises were leased from the T. Eaton Company on January 15, 1941, and that since that time the dominion government has been paying this company SI,000 per month for the use of that property. For some reason the rent now has been reduced to $980. It would be interesting to know what fraction of the building was given back to the T. Eaton Company for that $20 a month.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Some space was given up.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I see. That is the situation. One question I asked was in regard to the ultimate disposal of this material, and I was informed that some would be kept for the use of the army, and that any not required for the use of the army would be declared surplus to War Assets Corporation for disposal. That last sentence interested me, because on several previous occasions I had pleaded with War Assets in an endeavour to get two tents for the boy scouts in my home city. I have been trying to get those tents ever since I was elected, and I shall consider myself a successful member of parliament only when I succeed in getting those tents for the boy scouts.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If my hon. friend had approached me, that might have been arranged. In the case of equipment of that kind, while it -may not be a general rule, where need is shown for boy scouts and so on we arrange to declare tents surplus. They go through War Assets and are sold to the boy scouts. Under certain circumstances, where things were available from surplus stocks, we have lent them in cases of emergency. I should hope there would not be any feeling that these tents could not be obtained.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Through you, Mr. Chairman, I might say to the minister that my correspondence in my office upstairs will show that I havp made application for these tents and have been refused. I will not say that refusal came from the minister's department.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That would be from War Assets, and they probably did not have any tents at the time.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I do not know how long these materials have been stored, but 35 carloads of camp equipment would mean a lot of tents.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, that would not be all tents; that would be all kinds of barracks stores.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I understand that, but I assume some fraction would consist of tents, but in any case war assets have refused to supply those tents to these boy scouts. Perhaps the minister will make some comment on the whole situation, but I should like to ask if any of that material is material left over from the first war. I do not mean the war of 1939-45, but whether any of that material has been lying about since the first great war. I should also like the minister to comment on whether any of this bedding, for example, would be suitable for civilian as well as for army purposes. I think there is no harm in airing these matters; it is in the interest of the public that they should be aired.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Blankets should be aired anyway.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Yes, to protect them from moths and vermin, so that they will not be put on that rag pile the minister was telling us about.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Political vermin.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I shall not say anything about political vermin. Perhaps the minister would comment on that before I would refer to another matter which is less contentious.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Commenting generally, none of this equipment stored there has been there since the last war. I do not know what type of bedding this is, but I should imagine it would be the type suitable for civilian use. If it is not required for army purposes it will, in the usual way, be declared surplus and disposed of by War Assets Corporation.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I should like to discuss one other point having to do with the disposal of wartime property, and this time dealing with buildings. As the minister knows, or as he can easily guess, there is an extreme shortage of housing in Saskatoon. Many of the people affected are veterans of the last war, and particularly veterans who are attending or who wish to attend university. With a view to correcting that situation R.C.A.F. buildings have been brought into use. The provincial government in Saskatchewan have fitted up what they call community apartments, which consist of 88 suites for young married men, one of the stipulations incidentally being that they must have families before they can qualify for one of these suites-an unusual stipulation. Now they are

Supply-Defence-Army

making provision for 44 additional suites from R.C.A.F. huts or buildings being brought in from the town of Davidson, at which point an air field was located during the war.
There is another scheme afoot, although it is not yet developed. I am sure prorogation of this parliament will take place before a settlement of this matter can be made; I therefore wish, now that I have the opportunity, to bring it to the attention of the minister.
The university of Saskatchewan will be overcrowded with students next year. A great many of these will have no place to live. The mayor and city council are acting in collaboration with the provincial government and have set out a scheme under which they would like to use some of the surplus buildings at Dundurn. There are many empty buildings at Dundurn Camp, as I have no doubt the minister knows. They are located about thirty miles from the university. The suggestion is that through the cooperation of the dominion and provincial governments, and the city, there might be such a thing as establishing a colony of these young veterans, so that they could have their wives and families with them while they are attending university and could live in some of these empty buildings at Dundurn. Transportation of course would be a big problem; but with the cooperation of the provincial government, which controls a government-owned system of buses, I believe the transportation difficulty might be overcome.
I take this opportunity to bring the matter to what* I hope will be the favourable consideration of the minister, so that when he is approached upon the subject-if indeed that has not already taken place-he may be in a position to give a decision.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be glad to look into the matter. I had an opportunity earlier this year to see the magnificent university at Saskatoon. I chatted with some of the people there at the time and I know that in common with other Canadian universities in this coming year we are faced with a serious housing problem. My own university of McGill is up against the same thing. If and when a request is made-it has not yet been made- I can assure the hon. member it will receive sympathetic consideration.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Chairman, I intend to take only a minute of the time of the committee to mention two matters of concern about which I know something. I have no military achievements whatsoever, with the exception that once I was a lance-corporal in the boys' brigade of the Methodist

church in Regina. That is as far as I got. Therefore I do not discuss matters of a military nature. However I should make a suggestion to the minister, one which I have no doubt has been made before. It has reference to courts martial. During the war I appeared in quite a number of them, one of which I remember lasted eight days-and perhaps may I say, in my own defence, appearing at all times without fee, as perhaps a little contribution I might make in my own way to the war effort. But in my view the whole system of courts martial is wrong. I am not referring to what an officer in the field may do in respect of those minor things over which he has charge, My suggestion is that in each military district there should be an appointee who would be in the position of judge, and that such appointee would not be in uniform, but would be in civvies. He would have nothing to hope for by way of promotion, because there would be no further opportunity for promotion.
Why do I make this suggestion? I have in mind a court martial of an officer holding the rank of lieutenant-colonel. On the court were five officers, two of whom were brigadiers. We had a judge advocate from Victoria- and a very fine one at that. We had a prosecutor from London, Ontario. That court martial lasted eight days, and ended with a reprimand, or exactly the same decision which had been rendered by the district officer commanding in district 13, Brigadier Harvey. I am sure that court martial must have cost the country between $4,000 and $5,000; and I refer to it only by way of example. That court martial had been ordered by the then minister of national defence, Colonel Ralston. The men who comprised the court were fine men, honest men-I have no criticism in that respect at all. But they all had certain ambitions in the army. And no one can tell me that after going through the history of a case, where there has been a court of inquiry and where a district officer has made a decision, following which the court martial has been ordered, the persons sitting in judgment are not going to be affected by those conditions. Unconsciously they will.
Let us take another case, comiflg down to lower ranks. We find that a court martial has been held and perhaps an acquittal ordered or a light sentence imposed. I state no secret when I say that it is a custom in the army for the divisional commander, or whatever his rank may be-the person higher up, anyway-to telephone or to send notes saying, for example, "if this thing goes on, discipline will be weakened"-or will disappear. In other words my thought is that justice cannot

Supply-Defence-Army
be administered properly when, all the time, there is a senior officer back somewhere who is in a position to criticize, and who is always in a position to assist by way of making promotions. On the financial side-and I advance this idea for the minister's consideration-on the financial side I am quite sure that it would not be an added expense. As you know, when senior officers are charged you endeavour to bring in persons not in that area and so the expense adds up. I make the suggestion knowing perfectly well that you cannot do anything about it now. I had about ten experiences with courts martial during this last war; I am not complaining about what they did-that is not the points- but it does seem to me that there is something well worthy of thought and I am inclined to think that the suggestion I have made may be of value. I turn now to something which may not be regarded as being so constructive, the letter from the commissioner of the mounted police.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If there is a letter. I do not know whether there is, and I want to make that clear. I have not found a letter.	.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister said there was.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I said that we were requested by the mounted police to give information. There may well be one.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Irrespective of what the means of communication may have been, knowing about the mounted police I am perfectly certain that it would be in writing.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I expect you are right.


Arthur Leroy Smith: There will be five or six copies on seventeen or eighteen files. I know that it is the way they operate. I missed a bit of what the minister said this morning, because I was late, but I have been sitting here trying to put myself in his position and to think of a cogent reason why it should not be produced. I have been utterly unable to do so. If we care to go back, we find there is an order of the house. Maybe that order was passed hurriedly and without enough consideration, but there it is, an order of this house. But leave that out of the question for the moment, and remember in suggesting that I do not mean that one should lightly disregard an order of the house. What is the position? Here we have a report from the mounted police reading, if I read anything correctly, that there has been a prima facie case made out and naturally that is something for prosecution. After that we have the 63260-331J
institution of the prosecution delayed, and we finally have it proscribed altogether on instructions from the deputy minister of labour.
I realize the minister has an equal regard to that which I hold-I say this with respect for all the other people whom we hear are working miracles-for the finest police force this world has ever known, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I am sure that we are all of that opinion. While I realize the inference is that it did not come to the minister because this is not his department, I think he should give consideration to this matter. Someone in the government is leaving that splendid body of men under a shadow. They have reported that there is this situation, that there is this case, and prosecution is stopped. Believe me, that shadow will be a lengthening shadow, and in my judgment it is utterly unfair to leave that splendid body of men in that position. If for no other reason than in defence of the mounted police I say, with great respect to the minister and to the Minister of Justice, that that report ought to be produced.


Douglas Charles Abbott: With regard to the second point my hon. friend has raised, I do not know that there is such a report. The information upon which I based my answer this morning to the hon. member for Lake Centre was that the Department of National Defence were requested to provide information as to Major Elliott. If there is correspondence between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Department of National Defence, and there may well be, I have not been able to find it. I have not the files here. If I understood my hon. friend correctly, the report made by the deputy minister of national defence was that it is understood that this correspondence is being produced by the Department of Justice.


John George Diefenbaker: Department of
Labour.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thought it was the Department of Justice. As I understood him, the file was between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Department of National Defence. That would be the ordinary course.


John George Diefenbaker: It is the Department of Labour. It states that it is understood that copies of the correspondence in question will be furnished by the Department of Labour.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I understood my hon. friend to say the Department of Justice. I will look into the matter. I have not the order before me, but my recollection is that it called for correspondence between Justice and National Defence.
Supply-Dejence-Army


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, between the Department of National Defence and/or the Department of Labour and/or the Department of Justice.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The three departments. 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 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.


John George Diefenbaker: Without any qualification?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Without qualification. That is all there is to that. It was indicated by the hon. member for Calgary West that this order was passed too hastily. I do not think that interdepartmental correspondence should be produced, but the order was passed and if there are letters which should be produced under that, I will see that they are produced. I shall have to check to see what lettters there are.


John George Diefenbaker: Can you say when?


Douglas Charles Abbott: In order to cover the thing completely we shall have to check with the distract, which would mean that they possibly could not be got before Monday. I should not think it will take more than two days. As far as headquarters are concerned, we shall know this afternoon.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: In glancing through the items I cannot find one under which the Alaska highway could appropriately be discussed. I understand that this is under the control of the Department of National Defence, and I should like to ask the minister if he has any objection to our discussing that matter under this item.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If the committee has no objection.


Alan Cockeram: There is an item on page 275.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think it would be quite in order if we dealt with these collectively, if the committee so wishes.


Alan Cockeram: The minister cannot be here this afternoon. Some of us have specific questions to ask, and if another hon. member
rMr. Abbott.1
is to be permitted to make a speech on something not relevant to the item, it will interfere with the continuity of the estimates.


Douglas Charles Abbott: On second thought I think it would be better to defer discussion until that item is reached.


John Horne Blackmore: I want to be sure that there is an item under which it can be discussed.


Alan Cockeram: On page 275, the northwest highway system.


The CHAIRMAN:: I understand the min-, ister has suggested that the Alaska highway can be discussed under the item for northwest highway system on page 275.


John Horne Blackmore: That will be agreeable to me.


Mr. SKEY:: This morning the hon. member for Broadview referred to some pertinent matters that we should be discussing under this item, one being Canada's defence policy. I believe he asked the minister what the-imperial policy was, and also asked him to outline what policy the department is following at the present time. I should like to ask whether the newspaper reports of United States efforts in regard to joint defence are correct, and whether we are proposing any cooperation with the United States in North American defence projects.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend's question is pretty general. I do not know the press reports to which he refers, but as I have said on several occasions in the house, several years ago a permanent joint defence board was established of which General McNaugton is now chairman, and it is continually considering questions of joint interest to our two countries in the defence of the North American continent. As its name implies, it is a permanent board. It is not a policy-making board, but examines defence questions generally and makes recommendations to the government. That is continuing. Obviously matters of policy when decided are announced by me in due course in detail. A good many newspaper articles of course contain a very considerable element of speculation.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I realize that it might be difficult for the minister to answer such a question, but I thought he might wish to make a statement on the subject, because a lot of people in this country want to hear from him on that subject and they will not be satisfied unless the joint defence board is giving consideration to matters of joint defence.

Supply-Defence-Army
I understand that we require weather stations in our northern regions; in fact I know we do, because the whole of our civil aviation is dependent to a certain extent upon accurate weather reports. I understand that the United States are very keen to help in what might be called this international project. Has the Canadian government given consideration to cooperation with the United States government in a project for weather stations in our northern territory?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Our meteorological stations are under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Mines and Resources, but I believe that consideration is being given to expanding the number of these stations to provide for the greater needs which have arisen as a result of increased air activity in those regions. While I am not in a position to make any statement as to joint operation of weather stations with the United States, that might be considered at some time, but it is not being considered at the moment.


Mr. GILLIS:: I would ask the minister a few questions with regard to the matter of misconduct discharges, which was discussed extensively in the veterans affairs committee, and it was suggested there that a board be set up to examine into the reasons for the misconduct discharges with a view to modifying or changing them. A board of review was set up under the Department of Veterans Affairs to determine the eligibility to gratuities, and the board has worked very efficiently. I wish to compliment Brigadier Ferguson on the excellent job which that board has done in dealing with the gratuity end of misconduct discharges. But the most serious angle was the discharge of personnel, men and women, with a misconduct discharge which tagged him or her for the rest of his or her life. When the gratuity is granted in these cases, that does not automatically dispose of the misconduct discharge. So far as I can find out, nothing has been done in the matter of determining government policy in respect to misconduct discharges, whether personnel coming out of the service shall be tagged in this way for life or otherwise. Is there any intention to carry out what I consider to have been the instruction, or at all events the suggestion of the veterans affairs committee that these misconduct discharges should be reviewed with a view to changing or modifying them?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: As the hon. member pointed out, representations were made by various members of the veterans affairs committee in respect to misconduct discharges, and it was decided to set up a board to examine each case individually of service personnel whose certificate mentioned that they were discharged for misconduct. Preliminary examination revealed that in a great number of cases the discharge certificate should have contained less severe words. For the purpose of giving the fairest possible consideration to individual cases a board has been set up at N.D.H.Q., composed of officers who have had combatant experience and experience in the handling of men in the field. I do not know that as yet any of these discharge certificates have been changed but I can assure my hon. friend that the board is at work.


Mr. MERRITT:: In answer to the member for Trinity the minister said that statements of policy about the services had been made in press releases. At page 5018 of Hansard, when the naval estimates were under consideration, in answer to the hon. member for Yale, who had asked for a general statement on service estimates, the minister said:
I made a fairly complete statement last session as to the naval position, and subsequently in a number of public addresses, press releases and the like I have indicated the general character and size of the post-war navy, and my plan had been to proceed with these estimates in the ordinary way.
In my view statements of policy as it develops, if it is not secret, should be made to this house by the minister.


Douglas Charles Abbott: When the house is sitting.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: We try to follow these .things as best we can, but it is very difficult to sort out the actual policy from what may be newspaper speculation or incomplete reports of the minister's statements, and hon. members, who are more interested in details of policy than the general public may be, are not completely satisfied by these press reports. I know that was my own reaction to these reports. I would urge the minister to use the house as the place in which to announce statements of policy, and not to tell us in the house that his policy has been revealed in press releases, as he did several times the other day.
The report of May 17 in the Montreal Gazette, to which the hon, member for Trinity referred, with regard to progress in coordination and standardization of equipment and staff with the United States and the erection of defence and weather stations in the continental Arctic zone, was a pretty categorical statement. That was about the 17th of May, and at that time discussions were going on in Ottawa on these points between service representatives of the two countries. Although I quite understand that some of the decision* arrived at may be secret, and that there are
Supply-Defence-Army

things which it would be improper to announce, I believe that a categorical report such as that which I hold in my hand, and which I shall be glad to hand to the minister if he has not seen it-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have seen it.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: -should be amplified
now.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As to statements of policy being made in the house, I quite agree that such statements should be made in the house while it is in session, and I do so sometimes; on other occasions I do not. As to the point that I should make a long and comprehensive statement as to military policy, perhaps it would have been desirable for me to do so; that is a matter of opinion. Rut the same thing applies to every other department of government that comes before this house to have its appropriation voted. I am here as minister of National Defence ready to answer any question which is put to me; and the usual procedure on supply is, not for the minister to make speeches, but for the members to question him on the various items. During the war -my hon. friend was not here, of course; he was in the army-a practice grew up under the War Appropriation Act of the minister making-because his estimates were voted en bloc-a broad comprehensive statement in which he reviewed the operations of military forces during the past year and made some forecast for the future. Now there has been a good deal of talk in the house to the effect that the war is over and we are back on a peacetime basis. If the house wishes the minister to make these statements when the estimates are opened I shall have no objection to doing so, but I honestly feel that the better way would be to follow the procedure which was followed before the war, of allowing hon. members, when the estimates are introduced, to make speeches if they wish, to ask the minister questions, and so on. It is for that reason I proceeded as I did, and it has been done with the other war departments-the Department of Munitions and Supply and the rest.
On this question of making policy statements every time the joint defence board meets in Ottawa and discusses matters, I do not think it is feasible. I believe the government must assume its responsibility of announcing from time to time, when matters of policy are decided upon, what those matters are, and I do not think it can be expected, because there is natural and understandable speculation as to whether the Americans would like to establish weather stations in northern

Canada with us, or other matters of that kind, that the minister should rush into the house and either affirm or deny these reports. I am sure that my hon. friend does not suggest that.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: If I may interrupt the minister, we are asking now on the estimates.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right. Well, I have given the committee all I can give up to the present as to our policy with respect to the matters referred to. So far as weather stations are concerned I answered a moment ago that the weather stations are operated by the Department of Mines and Resources, and there is no present intention that that shall be changed. If there are any other matters, or similar questions, I shall be glad to answer them.


Mr. STIRLING:: May I remind the minister that at the beginning of the discussion of the naval estimates I asked him a specific question on this matter and, whereas he referred to other points which I had raised, he did not refer to this matter of policy. I made it two-furrowed: I referred to the fact that I understood that in London shortly the spokesmen for the defence of the commonwealth were going to meet, and I asked the minister whether he would make any comments on Canada's representations at that meeting.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did that in answer to another question. I apologize to my hon. friend if I overlooked it in answer to his. I did so a little later in answer to the hon. member for Cariboo. It is difficult, when one hon. member asks a question and another gets up in the meantime and asks another question, to keep track of everything that is asked. I do it as well as I can, and if there are some questions which I overlook, it is not intentional.
Perhaps I had better correct what I said about these weather stations. I am not sure whether they are under Mines and Resources or Transport; it is one or the other that handles the meteorological stations.


Grote Stirling: Transport, I think.


Mr. JAQUES:: The other day I asked the minister a question about a pension, and he said I might bring it up under this item.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We introduced this morning and gave first reading to the bill to amend the Militia Pension Act, and I think it would be appropriate under that bill, which may come on to-morrow. It is not under this item.


Mr. HANSELL:: The question will only be asked once, anyway.

Supply-Defence-Army


Douglas Charles Abbott: But I have not here, perhaps, the experts on pensions whom I may have here on that bill.


Norman Jaques: Would the minister say that it would be better for me to ask it to-morrow?


Douglas Charles Abbott: If my hon. friend expects to be here for the next day or two, it would be more appropriate to ask it when we are in committee on that bill.


Norman Jaques: Thank you. I will be here.


Mr. FULTON:: It seems to me that what has just been said by the minister indicates again the advantages that would be served by appointing a standing committee of this house on defence matters. This was referred to by the hon. member for Nanaimo in his remarks when these estimates were first opened. It was referred to last session on September 28 by the hon. member for Vancouver South, when he went at some length into the constructive suggestions put forward by the official opposition for defence policy. At that time, Mr. Chairman, as you will recall, the minister said he felt there was a good deal of merit in the suggestion; and on a later occasion the Prime Minister, when the suggestion was brought to his attention, made the same statement and said that the government would give it careful consideration and possibly set up the committee at some time in the near future. Since that time no further statement has been made by the government in that connection, and we are wondering just what is their decision, or whether any decision has been taken. I should like the minister, if he will, to give us the benefit of some comments on that point. But before he does so there are some further points which could be urged in support of the suggestion that there be a standing committee of the house on defence matters.
In the first place, it would give the members a chance to discuss and support the estimates intelligently in the house. At the present time there are, naturally, many aspects of defence policy which we cannot know, and it is well known that the officials of the department are hesitant when telephoned up by an opposition member to give information which is related to policy. Members of course will be careful not to ask them questions of policy, because it is putting them in an unfair position; and one is hampered in that way, the information is not as readily available to members as it is to the government. The result is that frequently we come in here and all we see is an item in the estimates of so many millions of dollars; it seems a large item, and one's first inclination is to say "You are
spending too much money", because we have not the information as to what it was that went into the decision to appropriate that money. I believe the estimates would be discussed a great deal more intelligently if we could get that information, and probably in many cases they would be supported instead of being crticized.
Another consideration which makes it desirable to have a standing committee on defence is that the armed forces are always a vulnerable target for attacks of many kinds. While everyone would like to see economy practised, I think one should be careful not simply to say, "You are spending a lot of money on the armed forces and therefore we will attack them and appose all the money which is being spent there." But it seems to me, on reviewing speeches and statements in past years, that in many cases the armed forces have been an obvious and vulnerable target for attack. Somebody says, "Well, we have to slash the estimates; let's get busy and do it." One knows too that the services themselves find it difficult to ask for large appropriations because they are met with the answer, "Treasury board would never authorize that; or if they do, the members of the house when the estimates come up will criticize us for extravagance." And so in many cases the services are actually starved for want of money. If members could have information as to the necessity for that money I think it would facilitate the passage of estimates and the work of the house generally. It would also put us in a much better position to discharge our duty of suggesting a sensible defence policy. It would enable members, knowing the full inside story, to go out into the country and defend the armed forces and advocate recruiting. The suggestion was made the other day that the minister should embark on a recruiting tour of the country. I hope he will, but I think it would help if all members of the house, when they go back to their constituencies, would advocate recruiting for both the permanent force and the reserve army. We would be in a much better position then to talk intelligently about it, and more inclined to do it if we knew what the policy was as well as the background of that policy.
In this connection I would make a general observation. I feel that recruiting for either the permanent force or the reserve army will not be successful until the country comes to realize and is made to realize that the armed forces should play and will play in the future a prominent part in the national life of the dominion. In the past many people have been inclined to regard the permanent force
Supply-Defence-Army

as a joke and permanent force officers as stuffy individuals. So long as that attitude prevails, naturally the force will not attract the class of recruits that we consider desirable, and every effort should be made to impress upon the permanent force and on the reserve army, as well as on the people generally that the armed forces-I am speaking particularly of the army, but I have in mind the armed forces generally-will from now on be an integral part of our national life and that a career in the services will not be an isolated career but a calling which is an essential part of the national life. In that event, especially as I understand that the policy is developing whereby men will leave the force at a younger age, one will be able to step into the force and after a time step out of it with hardly any sense of transition. It will not be a long step, merely a passage. The whole thing, I say, would be an integral part of the national life, related to our scientific and technical development, so that desirable persons will be encouraged to enter the services and will not feel isolated from the rest of their fellow citizens but will be conscious instead of performing an equally important task, as important as if they were in some other walk of life.
I suggest therefore that the greatest care should be exercised in the selection particularly of district officers commanding. They should be persons who are able to take their place in any of the functions of their community. They should not regard it as just a bore to have to go to convocation ceremonies at the universities. Instead, they should want to go and should feel that it is their rightful place, and the attitude of mind should be encouraged in which, if a district officer commanding is not at a public function, people will ask questions. If the army and the other services are to be an integral part of our national life their representatives should take their place on public platforms together with other dignatories and public officials. If that is to be the aim, then you must select persons capable of discharging those functions, and whose attitude of mind is that they have their rightful place to fill at every public function. The appointment of a defence committee of the house would go a long way towards bringing these things about and it would give us a better picture of the policy generally and enable us to go back to our constituencies and support the armed forces.


Alan Cockeram: I wish to say a few
words before the minister goes away. I should ask him to look at the statement he

made the other day at page 5073 of Hansard, that there were still 830 men serving detention for desertion and absenteeism. The minister announced that an amnesty had been granted men who had never joined the army. In my opinion those men who enlisted and tried to do the job but who through the exigencies of the service possibly lost their courage are the ones who should have been given the first amnesty, if any was to be given. After all, peace has not yet been signed. Will the minister make a statement as to why he did not grant amnesty to the 830 who are serving detention at the present time?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know whether it
will satisfy the hon. gentleman, but the answer is this. Amnesty was not granted the others; they were disclaimed and written off the books. It was felt that so far as the men who were in detention were concerned, they will receive certain definite financial benefits as a result of service, and it was better that these should be reviewed, sympathetically if you like, by the district officers commanding. Of recent months we found that a very large number of men have been coming in and voluntarily surrendering themselves, largely for the purpose of getting the sort of thing I have mentioned. If they took ill they realized that if they came in and served the time of detention their wives would get the dependent's allowance while they were there; if they were in receipt of assigned pay prior to going absent it was reestablished, and they got free medical attention, rehabilitation grant and clothing allowance. Many have been coming in on that basis, and instructions have been issued to the district officers commanding in the eleven military districts who ordinarily review these cases to make a special review, looking at the circumstance of each particular case in the light of the benefits, if I may so describe them, which these various men will receive.


Alan Cockeram: How many are in
Camp Borden?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot answer offhand.
The totals I gave the other day were approximately right. They are changing every day, and I have not the figures for Borden, though I could get them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What is the intention with regard to the defence committee?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was sympathetic to it,
as I indicated before. This session, as it has developed, many other committees got ahead of it. It seemed for one reason or another

Supply-Dejence-Army
that a tremendous number of important special committees were set up this session, including the veterans' affairs committee. I would hope that at another session it will not be necessary for the veterans' affairs committee to undertake the stupendous amount of work it did this session, so that at the beginning of another session, which we could perhaps regard as our first normal session of the new parliament, it should be possible to give early consideration to that question. The real reason why it was not actively considered this time was that there were so many other matters which had to be dealt with that it would not have been possible for members to serve on another committee.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


William Ross Macdonald: The committee is considering the estimates of the Department of National Defence, item 569.


Grote Stirling: This morning the minister said he had replied to a question I asked, and that he had given the answer to the hon. member for Cariboo. I have looked up that answer, and I find it was not an answer to the question I had asked. My question was in connection with the holding of a meeting of defence chiefs of the commonwealth in London next month, which had been mentioned in the press. Could the parliamentary assistant say whether it is correct that there is to be such a meeting in London in the fall?


Hugues Lapointe: There was a meeting, which took place a few days ago, from which the chief of staff has just returned. That is the only information I have with respect to any such meeting on commonwealth defence, as my hon. friend called it.


Grote Stirling: The minister gave that information. That was a meeting of chiefs of staff, but evidently the item in the press about a meeting in the fall is not correct, and there is not to be a meeting of commonwealth defence chiefs later on?


Hugues Lapointe: There is no knowledge of such a meeting.


Alan Cockeram: 

Supply-Defence-Army
Another question I should like to put to the parliamentary assistant is this. Parliament is being asked to authorize an expenditure to maintain an army of 25,000 men. At the present time in the employ of the Department of National Defence there are approximately eleven to twelve thousand civil servants. If we vote money to maintain an army of 25,000 men, does that mean we vote money for 25,000 men plus 12,000 civil servants, or do the 12,000 civil servants have to come off the army establishment? If they do, the figures with which we have been presented will be all out of proportion.
Further, I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant a question in regard to the item of something over $300,000 for the war graves commission. How many officers and men are employed on that commission? Then I should like to ask the hon. gentleman what the joint defence committee -is costing this country; how many officers are on it and what is the total personnel. I ask these questions because the more men who are on detached jobs or with detached units, the fewer men there will be to train.
I think we are kidding the people of this country when we have the implication that we are voting money to train 25,000 men for the armed services. I feel sure that when the story is all told the percentage of men doing actual training will not be very great. We know we are to have a brigade group of 7,250. How many men in addition to that will be in the active force? According to the estimates which have been presented to us civil servants in the Department of National Defence (Army) are costing tkis country $11,875,089. Unfortunately the minister has left these estimates to the last minute. I suggest to the minister that many men in the House of Commons are business men. What do they do at the end of the year? If they want to know how much money they will spend in the coming year they write to their departmental heads and say to them, "Please prepare estimates for the following year." Before the fiscal year is up those estimates have been presented, and those business men know what their expenditures are to be in the year to come. What happens here? Already six months of the fiscal year have passed by. Now, in the last few days of the session, we are passing estimates in huge volume, without any chance of examining them down to the last dollar. If a business man did that in his business he would be bankrupt to-morrow-and there is no business man in the chamber who will deny that.

There is not a member in this party who does not believe in supporting the armed forces, but we want to support them in a reasonable way, in a manner in which we will get the greatest efficiency and the greatest good for the armed services. I do not believe it does any good, a day or so before the session is over, to discuss expenditures of around $497 million in the manner in which we are doing it to-day.
I have asked the minister to answer certain questions. In item 569 there is an item of $25,843,524 for commitments. What are those commitments? We are entitled to know that, and I should like to have a detailed statement.
We are trying to build up a force which would be of use to Canada in possible days of trial which may lie ahead. I have said before, and I repeat, that until such time as a reserve army is built up the system of commands is superfluous. Hon. members may have seen in this morning's press a statement to the effect that central command has taken over an estate outside Oakville. Much money is to be spent to make that estate a command headquarters. I suggest the spending of that money at this time is absolute foolishness, because we.have one of the finest camps in Canada at Camp Borden, and it is located in the command. Why not utilize the camps we have? Why have vast expenditures in connection with an estate outside Oakville to set up command headquarters?
One reason I am positive that these command headquarters are not justified is that, as happened after the last war, the militia or, as the minister chooses to call it, the reserve army, is in the doldrums. I say you have to build from the bottom, not from the top. You are building a bureaucracy of senior officers in the army before you get men to serve in the force. I cannot conceive what the departmental officials are thinking about. Do they want to give higher pensions? Do they want to give higher rank to a greater number of officers? I am sure it does not lead to efficiency in the services.
I have asked many questions. I should like to expedite the business of the committee, because I understand we want to get on with another debate. I am prepared now to leave this matter in abeyance. There are many more things I should like to ask, but it would seem cockeyed to bring up further questions at this late date in the session. If the minister wants to be fair with hon. members, then the time to bring these estimates before the committee would be before March 31. Then we shall know what is to be spent in the year to come.

Supply-Defence-Army


Hugues Lapointe: The hon. member has raised many points and asked many questions. While I may not have taken all of them down, I shall try to answer some of them. I do not believe he can fairly blame the minister for the fact that the estimates are brought down at the end of the session.


Alan Cockeram: I am not blaming the minister.


Hugues Lapointe: He must admit that the business of the house in the last few months has been tremendous.


Alan Cockeram: I say the policy is wrong; the whole system is wrong. We should have these estimates before the beginning of the new financial year-all the estimates, not just those in the Department of National Defence.


Hugues Lapointe: The session did not open until the middle of March.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Whose fault was that?


Hugues Lapointe: I think my hon. friends were just as much pleased as we were to have the recess between Christmas and March.


Gordon Graydon: We do not want it next year.


Hugues Lapointe: The hon. member has asked for a breakdown of the number of officers who are to compose the interim force. I do not quite understand whether he wanted a breakdown of those who had been accepted in the interim force, or whether he wanted the proposed establishment.


Alan Cockeram: I want both.


Hugues Lapointe: You will get both. As regards the acceptance for the interim force, by rank, as of July 31, they are: major-generals, 9-


Alan Cockeram: WThat about lieutenant-generals?


Hugues Lapointe: One.


Alan Cockeram: No, there is more than one.


Hugues Lapointe: I am talking about those accepted as of July 31 in the interim force. There may have been more since then; I have not the figures right up to date. My figures are to July 31. Afterwards I shall give my hon. friend the proposed establishment, and I am sure that will satisfy him.


Alan Cockeram: It might not.


Hugues Lapointe: They are: brigadiers, 12; colonels, 41; lieutenant-colonels, 181; majors, 575; captains, 1,106; lieutenants, 700; W. 0. l's, 505.



R3260-3321

Alan Cockeram: How many lieutenant colonels?


Hugues Lapointe: I gave the figure of 181, and 41 colonels.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read it in Hansard to-morrow.


Hugues Lapointe: The establishment is:
lieutenant general, 1; major generals, 13; brigadiers, 26; colonels, 60; lieutenant colonels, 235; majors, 664; captains, 1,285; lieutenants, 532.
The hon. member brought up the question of the imperial war graves commission. As my hon. friend knows, that is a commonwealth organization to which Canada has contributed since the last war. This organization maintains our military cemeteries overseas and is continuing the work it started after the last war. The item is to provide for a contribution to the imperial war graves commission. If my hon. friend is interested in knowing the cemeteries that are taken care of, I shall be glad to give him the'list.


Alan Cockeram: I am interested only in the military personnel.
' Mr. LAPOINTE: So far as we are concerned, the personnel consists of a secretary here in Canada. The rest of the personnel is employed overseas by the commission.


Alan Cockeram: We have a Canadian on that commission, because General Roberts is the chairman.


Hugues Lapointe: .He is employed by the imperial war graves commission, which is an autonomous body to which we make yearly contributions. He is not in the employ of the Department of National Defence as such.


Mr. McKAY:: Mr. Chairman, I have several observations to make on this item. I have become somewhat concerned about the trend of the discussion. There have been repeated references to world war three, and it seems to me that the kind of talk which provokes wars is to be greatly deplored. Every effort should be made, even in the discussion of defence estimates, to indicate Canada's position as a peace loving nation, with the desire of maintaining peace with our neighbours as our paramount objective.
Plans have been suggested at various times in the course of the discussion as to how an aggressor should be met, as if such aggression were inevitable. While it may be highly dangerous to bury one's head in the sand like an ostrich and disregard the activities in one's immediate proximity, it is just as dangerous to be talking abo it the probabilities
Supply-Defence-Army

of war. I have listened in dismay to reference to brigades, to boots and shoes, to kilts, to brass hats, to uniforms, and all the other details which, while important in themselves in past wars, appear now to be relegated to an age which saw the movements of masses of men and warfare of a kind we shall never witness again. We are in the atomic age, but some of our military leaders, and I am afraid probably some hon. members of this house, are still fighting the battle of Waterloo. Should it be our unhappy lot to witness a modern war in our time, it will be decided in the first twenty-four hours. It will be decided by the atomic bomb directed to targets by the robot plane, and in addition we may witness bacteriological warfare directed against our civilian populations. That is conceded by scientists in every country of the world. There may not be a declaration of war at all; we may see a repetition of Pearl Harbor in scores of places simultaneously. Our industrial capacity and fighting forces will be decimated in one fell swoop of an aggressor. We may not know who the aggressor is at the time. I say these things because I believe we should give them serious thought and ponder upon them.
It is not a pleasant picture, but we should be realists. Having said that may I say that it behooves all of us to examine the world organization which has been set up in the form of the united nations. I believe the future of Canada lies in supporting a powerful international government. It can be made effective by the cooperation of all world nations; it cannot be made effective without that. The only hope of world peace lies in such an association of peoples. If that fails, we can expect war.
Agreements do not prevent war. World history has shown again and again that an armament race ultimately ends in armed conflict. I believe we can expect that world cooperation which Tennyson envisaged. Fear of the destruction of our civilization should force intelligent people to work together in the common weal. In any event, Canada with only twelve million people must pin its hope on a powerful international instrument to preserve peace. We must be prepared to subscribe personnel, materials and wealth to make the work of such a force effective.
We as a people cannot afford to disregard the great scientific advances that have been made in the realm of warfare. If Canada fails to consider the technique of modern war she may be in the unhappy position of a Belgium or a Poland which in world war I and world war II respectively were unable to cope with mechanized equipment even

though well supplied with man-power. Canada, with ten times the frontier to defend, would be in an even more hopeless position. So we must hope and pray that the united nations will be an effective instrument for peace. But until the united nations is made that effective instrument for world peace, Canada should direct her attention to technical and scientific research in connection with the armed forces and set up establishments accordingly. I notice there is an appropriation of some $14,000,000 for this work, while approximately $300,000,000 is being appropriated for the army, an army to be used largely as an organized training force. I insist that there will be no opportunity to prepare an armed force to meet an invader in a future war as we were able to do in the last war. I consider public money wasted unless it is directed to the training of technical and mechanical staffs and in the development of ultra-modern war equipment.
It has been suggested on several occasions in this house that Canada will be the battleground in any future war. God forbid that that ever should be so. Our duty as legislators is to guard against that eventuality. Young men and women, who are the most heavily penalized in the devastation of war, will hold us responsible if we fail to take every precaution against that possibility. No one gains from war. Victor and vanquished suffer equally in modem combat. Modern war is a most terrifying spectacle. Civilians young and old are also involved. Innocent and guilty alike face the consequences of armed warfare in modern times. Its effect is demoralizing to the whole populace.
No nation on earth enjoys more complete self-interest in the future of peace than does Canada. If two or more great powers should come to blows and launch their rockets and atomic missiles against each other, Canada in short will be the innocent bystander, whether we like it or not. The struggle quite conceivably could be carried on either over or through our territory.
So far we have been satisfied to follow the leader and play the role of a small power directed by either the United States or Britain. Whether we realize it or not, our role in modern war is that of a first-class power because of our great industrial capacity and our location. It is common knowledge now that during the last war Canada produced more per capita and put more men into the army, navy and air force per capita than did our neighbour to the south. We have proved that in the past. But our interest is not in fighting. Our interest must be in peace. We should therefore be a leader in the councils for world

Supply-Defence-Army
peace. Our voices should be heard on behalf of all the small nations who desire and strive for peace. It is in the small nations that the desire for honest peace dwells. And, Mr. Chairman, our voice must be heard. It should begin here in this house and be heard wherever our representatives speak on international councils. Our destiny is wrapped in peace. We must have enduring peace if we are to survive as a people. All the ordinary people of the world abhcr war. I am opposed therefore to any bilateral agreements with any nations. Alliances always breed suspicion. Canada has been discussing with the United States joint defence arrangements. If it is only a defensive arrangement, few Canadians will seriously object to such discussions. But too often defence agreements develop into aggressive alliances. Any alliance leading to aggressiveness will be opposed by the large mass of the Canadian public. They are just as distrustful of military diplomacy from Washington as they are from any other source. Canada wishes to preserve her sovereignty. Canada will offer vigorous opposition to any encroachment upon her sovereign rights by any one power or any alliance of powers.
Military manoeuvres in Canada directed against any nation may well damage our relations with other nations. I am not sure that ill feeling has not already been engendered by the manoeuvres of the Muskox expedition.
We hope that the pleasant relations that we have maintained in. the past with the United States will continue. They have been good neighbours. But we also desire good relations with every other nation. If our defence talks with the United States are for hemisphere defence under the direction of the united nations organization, they are commendable. The minister or the parliamentary assistant to the minister should assure the house that that is the policy of the government. On the other hand if these defence talks are only preliminary to a bilateral agreement, they will not be approved by the general public throughout this country.
Our only hope for a world free from war is in collective agreement, a collective agreement directed by the united nations organization security council. If the united nations organization fails to preserve peace, our position is indeed a hopeless one. We have neither the wealth nor adequate population to defend the vast area of this country. To say that this area can be successfully defended by ourselves alone is failing to be realistic. We must support the world organization and raise our voices for collective agreement, so that the peoples who are desirous of peace
may have their desires fulfilled and a peaceful heritage be handed down to their children and their children's children.


Hugues Lapointe: 
Alan Cockeram: Has the hon. gentleman the details of that $5,000,000?


Hugues Lapointe: It is contingent on the amount of building we shall be able to do. There are certain proposed constructions which we have been unable to proceed with because of the shortage of building materials. If the supply situation permits in the current year, we propose to go ahead with them.


Alan Cockeram: May I suggest that in view of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on military establishments during the course of the war, $5,000,000 seems a lot of money to spend on capital construction at this time. It does seem to me that this sum for capital expenditure is hardly justified, unless there is some good reason for it.


Hugues Lapointe: There is a considerable need for the construction of armouries throughout the country.


Alan Cockeram: That is all right.


Hugues Lapointe: A plan for the long-term construction of armouries has been carefully prepared and it was proposed to go ahead earlier with that construction, but that has been impossible. This item covers mostly such construction.


Alan Cockeram: Can the minister indicate where they will be built?


Hugues Lapointe: The department has made a survey of the needs of the reserve army throughout the country, and a certain priority has been established so that the armouries most needed will be constructed first. The next item is personnel supplies and services, dental and medical stores, clothing, $4,565,524.


Alan Cockeram: This is another item to which exception can be taken. When the war was over we must have had on hand innumerable medical supplies, clothing and equipment which had been paid for, and now you come along and ask us to vote more money for supplies which the department must have on hand.


Hugues Lapointe: Most of these expenditures are commitments made this year for the maintenance of existing facilities. Further-
Suppl y-Defence-A rmy

more, although we did have-I agree with my hon. friend-a considerable amount of medical and dental stores and clothing, there is a certain usage of that which has to be replaced.


Alan Cockeram: But you had so much on hand.


Hugues Lapointe: There were great quantities of certain stores, but others were in smaller quantities and short issue.


Alan Cockeram: I do not want to get. too tough on this, but after all this is money which we are being asked to vote. Being a business man and knowing something about inventories, I say there should have been sufficient inventories on hand at the end of the fiscal year after the war was over to last not only this year but for many years to come. I do not think the explanation of the parliamentary assistant is good enough. I do not know whether they have declared stuff surplus to war assets which should not have been so declared. But these are big items in the expenditures, and the explanations are not easy to follow.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Alan Cockeram: No, it is not carried.


Hugues Lapointe: As I explained, these are commitments for the coming year. Only a portion of this amount may be expended. The estimates are always made that way. My hon. friend knows that we have to provide for these further facilities during the year. If the money is not expended-


Alan Cockeram: A commitment is an expenditure.


Hugues Lapointe: No, it is not an expenditure.


Mr. HAZEN:: Would the parliamentary
assistant give us the rest of it? He has given us $9J million.


Mr. HARKNESS:: Just before that goes on, and more or less on a point of order, these items the parliamentary assistant is giving us are really items which appear under "army services" on page 273, except that he is giving just a certain proportion of each of these items under "commitments".


Alan Cockeram: No, they are not the same at all.


Hugues Lapointe: It is not included in item 569, and the amount of commitments is put in brackets. As I said before, these moneys are not expended, and they may not be expended. It is the estimated expenditure of these items. This is the way the accounting has always been done, and the way we have always proceeded.


Douglas King Hazen: Well, may we have the rest of the breakdown?


Hugues Lapointe: I will continue with it. Signal and wireless equipment, line construction, SI,910,700; ammunition and bombs, $10,500,000; armaments, including rifles, machine guns, mortars and guns of all descriptions, $2,598,300; motor transport, trucks, tractors, trailers, tanks, A.F.V.'s and repair parts, $378,000; sundries, including printing, stationery, telephones, telegrams and other costs not included in above items, $500,000; experimental station at Suffield, $100,000.


Douglas King Hazen: The total amount we are asked to vote is $283,170,171, and the commitments are stated to be $25,843,524. What does "commitments" mean? Are we committed to spend that $25 million?


Hugues Lapointe: No, we are not.
Mr. HAZEN; Then how do you explain it? Because if you turn to page 273 you will find a breakdown showing construction, purchase, repairs, operating expenses of properties, $25,498,136; you will find ammunition and bombs, $21,262,210, and so on. You have given us only part of these items. Just what does "commitments" mean?


Hugues Lapointe: If I might point it this way as regards commitments: there are contracts made one year and payable in the next year, and we carry the item over. The other items which the hon. member mentioned are the actual expenditures under the headings mentioned.


Alan Cockeram: They are commitments.


Hugues Lapointe: And are being adjusted this year, yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I want to deal with one general item just before coming back to the specific point in connection with estimates, and it has to do with this question of amnesty. This morning the minister stated that it is not regarded as an amnesty, that these personnel affected by the recent order in council are simply regarded as not having been in - any of the services, so that technically, I suppose, it cannot be called an amnesty. But I want to point out two things. First, I do not think it is good policy, because as long as the Militia Act and the National Resources Mobilization Act are part of the law of the land you cannot exempt a whole class of persons from that law. However, it is done now, and I just want to make the observation, before I go on, that I think it was a mistake. Also I want to point out that there is a certain amount of unfairness unless the further

Supply-Defence-Army
step is taken to provide for personnel of all three services who at the moment are undergoing sentence for purely military crimes. There is no guarantee that this personnel will get their gratuities or their clothing allowance or the other benefits when they are released. All we have is the undertaking to look carefully into their cases, and if it is found that they merit consideration they may be given some of the benefits, but there is no guarantee that they will get them. So those personnel, many of whom were overseas, who may have seen service in one action and gone A.W.L. before the next, and are undergoing detention sentences for what I may call military crimes, may not get any benefits when they come out; whereas the other class who were affected by the order in council admittedly do not get any benefits, but neither do they undergo any prison sentence. I think that is unfair. I suggest that either one of two things should be done. Either these personnel who served overseas and are still undergoing prison sentences for military crimes should be given a guarantee that when they come out they will get their gratuities and other benefits for their full period of service less the time spent in detention, or else they should be immediately given an amnesty and released from gaol, so that they will be put on the same basis as those who are affected by the order in council. Unless that is done there is definitely an element of unfairness to those who served and who committed military crimes for which they are still serving sentences. I would like the parliamentary assistant to give us an assurance that further consideration will be given this matter and possibly one of these suggested alternatives adopted.
When he answers that question he might care to make a statement with regard to the item that appears on page 273 for signal and' wireless equipment, et cetera, S10,000,000. Last session I suggested that the minister might consider amalgamating the signals schools for all the services, because each service showed a very large item of expenditure for signals and wireless equipment. I suggested that in the initial stages at any rate signal training was undoubtedly standard, or could be made standard as between the three services, thereby effecting a saving in the maintenance of separate schools, and a saving, if further signals schools were to be built, could be brought about by having one school built for all three services. The minister indicated that he thought the idea worthy of consideration, but I regret to say that, as is usually the case when such statements are made, nothing was done about it, because there is still a large item in each service for signal expenditures. I
would appreciate it if the parliamentary assistant would make a statement on both these matters.


Hugues Lapointe: I can assure my hon. friend that I will bring his representations to the attention of the minister as to the treatment to be extended to personnel who have served overseas and are at present serving sentences in Canada. To the best of my knowledge, there is only a very small number of personnel with the overseas service who, having been sentenced on the other side and brought back to Canada, are still serving. The court-martial board of review, to which reference has been made in the debate, sat last fall and released quite a number of personnel, and also recommended that sentences be remitted at a future date, which in some cases was two, three or four months. So I doubt whether there would be a great number of personnel having the status to which the hon. member referred. However, I shall have the matter looked into.
As regards the item for signal and wireless line construction, my hon. friend will notice that there is a considerable decrease this year as compared with last year's estimates.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is a difference of $3,000,000; that is all.


Hugues Lapointe: My hon. friend will
notice at page 273, at the bottom, army and related services, there is an item "less adjustments S3S.250.000." The difference to which I was referring is included in that 838,250.000. so that the decrease this year is really $5,551,296 on that particular item. The hon. member suggested that there should be a greater unification between the services with a view to bringing about economy in these particular expenditures.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And efficiency, besides being desirable on its own account.


Hugues Lapointe: I may tell him that a step has already been taken in that direction in relation to research. Under the new defence research development, a start has been made in the direction he desires.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There are two items in particular regarding which I was surprised and on which I should like some explanation. I refer to the item for armament, including rifles, machine guns and so forth, of $30,000,000 odd, and mechanical transport vehicles, trucks, et cetera, $27,690,000. We have just finished a war in which we had a large army in the field completely equipped with rifles, machine guns and all kinds of mechanical transport, and it seems odd to me that we should be spending upwards of $60,000,000
Supply-Defence-Army

more at the present time for such equipment, especially when we know that there is a tremendous surplus, since a good deal of material has been sold by War Assets. It may be that these projected expenditures are for new items of equipment which have been developed since the war. If so, I would ask the parliamentary assistant to give us what information he can in that regard. If the expenditures are there for items which are essentially of the same kind as we had in the war and with which the army was equipped at the end of the war, then I completely fail to understand the item.


Hugues Lapointe: Again, in the two items
my hon. friend mentions, there are some adjustments. On the first item of armament, including rifles, machine guns and so on, there is a reduction of .$15,000,000 which must be taken off and which is included in the $38,250,000 to which I referred. In the second item there is a reduction of $12,000,000. The balance of the expenditure, I am told, is to procure up-to-date equipment and to replace equipment here in Canada which was used during the war and which it would be more costly to put back into first-class shape than to get new equipment. It covers also items which we never had during the war.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder if we could
get a better explanation as to what "adjustment" means. Does that mean that the estimate shows in one case some $15,000,000 more than it is thought will now be needed, or what is the explanation?


Hugues Lapointe: These adjustments are
items which are covered by other departments and which are to be settled by book transfers. The full amount less the adjustment is considered the true departmental expenditure; but some of it is covered by amounts owing to other departments, and a transfer is made in the books. For instance, particularly in the case of munitions and supply, it would be advances made to firms which will be brought back to cover these items.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I still do not understand. I do not see where the matter of an advance made by munitions and supply has anything to do with this. 1 take it that the Department of National Defence, army, estimated they would need $30,000,000 odd for armaments, and it so appears in the estimates. The parliamentary assistant says there is this adjustment of $15,000,000. It would make it quite simple, I think, if the hon. gentleman could answer yes or no to this question. Does that mean you have now reduced your estimate by $15,000,000?


Hugues Lapointe: As I understand it,
munitions and supply, through which all contracts went during the war, made advances to firms to the amount of the adjustment, which is about $38,250,000. We have to make a book adjustment now between munitions and supply and our department in order to clear those advances, as those expenditures were made for us.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Does that come to the
point, then, that in effect your estimate as it appears here, in regard to armaments, is some $15,000,000 higher than it is in fact? In other words, instead of $30,199,000, your estimate should appear as $15,199,000?


Hugues Lapointe: I think the clearest way I can put it to the hon. member (Mr. Harkness) is that out of that item some $15,000,000 is being actually spent by us this year. The balance is for an adjustment in connection with material already received by the department, which was ordered by munitions and supply and paid for by that department. Now an adjustment is to take place as between the books of the two departments; but the actual expenditure is not made by our department, as munitions and supply has already made payment. I do not know whether I am explaining the matter very clearly.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am fairly happy about that explanation. Essentially, as I said a moment ago, you are only spending $15,199,000 this year.


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, for this year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The other $15,000,000
was spent previously and there is to be an adjustment?


Hugues Lapointe: That is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The $15,000,000 you are spending this year for armaments covers rifles, machine guns, mortars and guns of all description. I wonder if you could tell me how many rifles, if any, how many machine guns, if any, and how many guns of other kinds, ii any, were purchased. As I said before, it does not seem to me that any should be purchased; in fact we should have been selling some.


Hugues Lapointe: I am afraid at the
moment I cannot give my hon. friend the details of these separate purchases, but the amount expended up to June 30, 1946, was $1,517,818.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is that for rifles?


Hugues Lapointe: No; as I said, I have not the details here. I can obtain them and let my hon. friend have them. I would have to look up that information.

Supply-Defence-Army


Mr. BROOKS:: Like the hon. member for Calgary East I am amazed that so much money is being spent for equipment and supplies for next year. According to a return brought down on March 27 of this year the department had on hand battle dress blouses totalling 456,347; that is, they had these blouses in ordnance stores, and they also had 593,024 trousers. Now I understand something like $5,000,000 is to be spent this year for clothing, supplies and equipment. That is perhaps understandable in connection with guns and other equipment, because they are changing all the time, but why should we be buying battle dress blouses or trousers when we have these large quantities on hand? I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant whether they are making battle dress blouses at the present time.


Hugues Lapointe: No, I am informed we are not making any battle dress blouses now.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Then why is this large item in the estimates for clothing?


Hugues Lapointe: A large portion of that item is a carryover, for purchases made and received already during 1945-46, as I understand it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Then it is expected that.there will be any change in the design of dress for the army in the near future, or will they use the battle dress as before?


Hugues Lapointe: There is no anticipated change. It is proposed to use battle dress.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: My chief object in rising was to ask about the training facilities at Sussex, New Brunswick. I have no doubt the parliamentary assistant knows that it has been a military camp for the past fifteen years or more. I understand now that it is being abandoned as a military training centre, and that the training will be at another camp in the maritime provinces. I should like him to tell me, too, whether military district No. 7, with headquarters at Saint- John, New Brunswick, is being closed; or what is to happen to it. We have heard certain rumours.


Hugues Lapointe: I can well appreciate my hon. friend's interest in the camp at Sussex. It is a fine camp. I had the personal experience of spending what I thought was a long time at that point. I am told the future use of the Sussex camp is at present under consideration by the general staff. I am afraid I did not quite understand the hon. member's question concerning military district No. 7.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I understood there was a possibility of the maritime provinces being
made one military district; and instead of there being a headquarters at Saint John, there would be one at Halifax only.


Hugues Lapointe: No such proposal has been under study.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Perhaps the parliamentary assistant would explain what he meant by the expression "what I thought was a long time", when he was referring to the camp at Sussex.
I am sure it was because he was anxious to get overseas.


Hugues Lapointe: Exactly.


Mr. ISNOR:: I am glad the hon. member for Royal referred to stores. The minister stated this morning he was going to readopt as quickly as possible the pre-war policy of procedure, and I was wondering if that applied to the purchasing of stores. I ask this because of the very large amount of stores now on hand. The policy of the three branches of the service at this time to purchase supplies and to hold them in store for a period of from three to five years, is in my opinion a wrong one. I do not think this is an opportune time for any of the defence services to hold reserve stocks for that length of time, particularly in view of the shortage of certain supplies, including textiles and woollens. These commodities are in short supply in the civilian market. I bring this matter to the attention of the parliamentary assistant so that he may convey my views in this connection to the minister. I suggest the period should be shortened, even though at a later day it might be considered wise to extend it to from three to five years.
I have one further suggestion with reference to purchasing. During the period of the war it was customaiy for the three defence services to purchase large quantities through the department of munitions and supply, as it was then- called. I feel the time has now arrived when each of these defence branches should stand on its own feet and make its purchases direct to fulfil its requirements. This principle is followed in most civilian merchandising establishments throughout the country, and in the United States. Each branch of the service would specialize in respect of certain purchases. I believe the naval service would have a better idea of its own requirements than a central purchasing organization would have. What I say respecting the navy would apply equally to the army and the air force. I would ask the parliamentary assistant to give further details respecting purchasing, as it applies to each branch of the service.


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: I do not agree with the hon. member's suggestion that
Supply-Defence-Army

each department should revert to the old system of having separate purchasing departments. Throughout the war the three services did their purchasing through the department of munitions and supply, and we found that that was by far the most economical way of doing it. The departments were not competing with each other in bidding for goods required. They were able to purchase in larger volume than would have been possible if each individual service had been making the purchases. It is the intention of the three service departments to continue to have their purchasing done by one central agency, as it was done during the war.
* Mr. ISNOR: I have every respect for the ability of the Minister of National Defence for Air, but I question his judgment in this instance. He said they could buy in larger quantities. I doubt very much if that would prove to be so. More than that, I suggest that a purchasing agent from his own department could go out and purchase at just as low a price as could an agent from the combined services. There is the further fact that by having the purchasing under the direct control of each branch there would be greater supervision in respect of requirements, and thus one would not find on hand, as at present, the exceptionally large quantities which would appear to be unnecessary.


Alan Cockeram: The parliamentary
assistant was good enough to place on record the proposed establishment of officers. On checking his figures I find he gave a total of 2,816. The figure given by the minister in the house the other evening was 3,049, or a difference of 233.


Hugues Lapointe: I realize that in giving those figures I did not give second-lieutenants. The second-lieutenants number 150. Then, in the nursing establishment there is one matron-in-chief, and there are seven nursing sisters (captains), and 75 nursing sisters (lieutenants), all of whom would be included in the total establishment. I thought the hon. member wanted the figures for the army, strictly speaking.


Alan Cockeram: Having been a junior officer, I am wondering who will perform the duties of orderly officers. Of the 3,000 officers the minister mentioned only 532 lieutenants and second-lieutenants. The balance is not there.


Hugues Lapointe: There is only one orderly officer for each establishment, and we have not that many establishments.


Alan Cockeram: I was referring to
orderly officers for units. How many lieutenants are we to have? Then, I asked a question wrhich I believe was overlooked, with respect to civil servants in the army. We are to have an army with a personnel of 25,000. If there are 11,000 to 12,000 civil servants, does that mean that we are to have
25,000	plus the civil servants or 25,000 inclusive of the civil servants?


Hugues Lapointe: It will be 25,000 plus
the civil servants. I can assure my hon. friend that the number of civil servants in the Department of National Defence will be considerably decreased. The number has been decreased since last year, and as demobilization is completed it will be decreased still further. My hon. friend must understand that in the period between demobilizing the old force and setting up the new interim force it is necessary to employ civil servants. A number of temporary employees have been taken on to handle war service gratuities, dependents allowances and other services. It is expected that these services will be closed out in a short time, which will permit of an extensive decrease in the civil staff of the department. The number of civil servants employed includes considerable casual labour which it is necessary to employ during the period of demobilization.


Alan Cockeram: We are to have a uniformed force of 25,000?


Hugues Lapointe: That is right.


Alan Cockeram: Of that number, 7,052 are to be in the brigade group, which leaves about 18,000 odd for other regimental duties such as national defence headquarters, the commands, the districts, the training staff, and what have you. How many officers will there be at national defence headquarters? What is to be the establishment of the commands? What is to be the establishment of the districts? How many personnel will be distributed among militia or reserve units for training purposes? It looks as though out of a total force of 25,000 we shall have only 7,500 men actually available in case of emergency. Por instance, there are 3,049 officers; are there to be, 3,049 batmen? Will those men be taken out of the training establishment? Batmen do not do general duties, as the parliamentary assistant knows.


An hon. MEMBER:: They should.


Alan Cockeram: That is right, they
should, but they do not. I can take you around Ottawa here and show you some of those men cutting lawns. How many staff

Supply-Defence-Army
cars are to be run? The other day I saw six staff cars and a station wagon lined up on Bay street in Toronto. How are you going to have any men in the army if you permit this sort of thing to go on?


Hugues Lapointe: I know my hon. friend
has considerable knowledge of military establishments. If he wants me to give him the details of every unit of our peacetime establishment, including the duties of every one, and what there will be in the way of transport, in the way of armament and so on, I shall be glad to do it. I have not that information at hand, but I can give it to my hon. friend in detail, and I think it will keep him busy during the recess.


Alan Cockeram: I want to make sure
we are getting value for the money we are putting up. Everyone knows thaft we must have an efficient service. I bring up these matters to point out the stupid expenditures that are being made at this time.


Mr. FERGUSON:: People are beginning to wonder at the ramifications of the Department of National Defence. I have a letter from the Minister of National Defence stating that his department intends to publish more copies of the famous French-English military dictionary. It may be possible that some of these staff cars and station wagons are being used by the publishing and printing staffs of the Department of National Defence. I am sure that members of this house and of the senate were pleased to receive copies of that seven pound book, which can be utilized for practically no purpose whatsoever. According to the Minister of National Defence, $25,000 has been spent by the department to publish 1,100 copies, or approximately $25- per book. As I say, the minister has stated that the department intends to put out additional copies to be sold by the department. Twenty-five thousand dollars may seem a small amount compared with other government expenditures, but we are told that additional money is to be spent in publishing this book and in making salesmen out of members of the staff of the Department of National Defence. I do not think the government needs to rely upon the sale of French-English dictionaries in order to provide revenue with which to run the Department of National Defence. I should like the parliamentary assistant fo state whether it is intended to print additional copies for the purpose of sale, not only in Canada out abroad.


Hugues Lapointe: I wish to assure my hon. friend that none of the staff cars he may see circulating around Ottawa are used by the
publishers of the department. The book to which he refers was printed by the king's printer, and I have no knowledge of additional copies having been ordered.


Gordon Graydon: Has not the demand been brisk ?


Hugues Lapointe: I do not know, because that is also handled by the king's printer. I have not kept a chart of the sales of that particular item, and I do not know whether the demand is brisk. I can assure my hon. friend that at times I have found that book very useful, and I am sure other people have found it useful.
. Mr. FERGUSON: I should be very glad if the department would get out a dictionary which would help members of this house to learn French, perhaps at a cost of $3 or $4. but I do not think it is humanly possible to learn to speak the French language or the English language from this book which has been published at a cost of $25. In my opinion that is simply squandering the taxpayers' money. I hope the parliamentary assistant speaks with authority when he says that no more of these books will be published, or that no more time of people on the payroll of the Department of National Defence will be taken up in connection with the publishing and sale of this book. However, the fact remains that the Minister of National Defence did state to me that he intended to print more of these books for sale.


Mr. LENNARD:: The other night several questions were asked with respect to the personnel of the signal corps at Yellowknife, Dawson and Whitehorse, and these have not been answered.


Hugues Lapointe: My hon. friend asked how many signal corps personnel were stationed at Whitehorse, Yellowknife and Dawson City. The figures are as follows: Whitehorse, 1 officer, 7 other ranks; Yellowknife, 12 other ranks; Dawson City, 4 other ranks. My hon. friend asked whether they get annual leave. It has not been the policy to grant leave to personnel on these stations, because in the summer they cannot be spared and in the winter transportation is difficult. This is made plain to them when they volunteer for this service, and they receive extra pay on that account. Their leave is cumulative and they can take it after they have served two years. Compassionate leave is also granted, and transportation paid in such cases. To summarize, the condition is that they serve two years, they receive extra pay for this type of service and their leave is cumulative.
Supply-Defence-Army


Alan Cockeram: The air force for many months have had a plane running between Edmonton and Whitehorse. Perhaps some' arrangements could be made with the air force to bring these men out on leave.


Hugues Lapointe: I shall be glad to investigate the possibilities.


Gordon Graydon: I desire to raise a question which has been brought to my attention by a number of ex-servicemen of this war, many of whom have served in both great wars. It is the vexed question of the clothing allowance granted on discharge. As the minister knows, from September 1, 1939, until October 31, 1943, the clothing allowance for those who were discharged from His Majesty's Canadian armed forces was $35. According to a return which the government brought down in a response to a question I asked in the house on June 10 no less than 96,561 members of the Canadian armed forces received on discharge a clothing allowance of only $35. That is pretty nearly
100,000	of our Canadian soldiers, which is no small number. Then the government, yielding to public and parliamentary and largely, shall I say, opposition pressure, increased the clothing allowance to $65 per person. That remained in effect, according to the return, from November 1, 1943, to July 31, 1944, and there were discharges during that period to the number of 42,559. At the expiry of that period on July 31, 1944, the government, again yelding to persistent pressure, brought the clothing allowance up to $100 per person. In the meantime a total of 140,000 of our men who had enlisted and been discharged, and many of whom had seen service in both wars, found that while everybody discharged after July 31, 1944, got $100 clothing allowance, they had received many of them, only $35 and the others $65 clothing allowance. That seems to be rank discrimination no matter which way you look at it, because there was no substantial difference between the cost of outfitting a man discharged from the armed forces in any of those periods, and if it was right to give a man a clothing allowance of SlOO after August 1, 1944, it was obviously right that every man discharged from the beginning of the war until August 1, 1944, should have received the same amount.
I am going to appeal to the parliamentary assistant to-day to be a little more considerate than the minister himself appeared to be when I brought this matter up before, because many members of our armed forces, to the numbers I have mentioned are rankling under what they feel is an injustice done to them in the clothing allowance granted. I

ask the parliamentary assistant to review this whole matter again and to see to it that these men are given their just deserts with respect to the clothing allowance.	.


Hugues Lapointe: I shall be pleased to have the matter looked into again.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The breakdown of officers of the permanent force which the parliamentary assistant gave a little while ago shows 100 officers of the rank of full colonel or above. That number in my opinion is extravagantly large. I can think of only from thirty to thirty-five jobs in the army in Canada which require an officer of the rank of full colonel or above. There are some eleven military districts and five commands, making a total of sixteen. There is one brigade group, bringing the total to seventeen. If you allow fifteen at N.D.H.Q., which is a very liberal allowance of officers to serve as heads of services, chiefs of staffs and their chief assistants, you have thirty-two altogether. Add another one for the Yukon, now that we are looking after the Alaska highway, and that brings the total to thirty-three. In any event thirty-five is the absolute maximum of jobs that I can think of requiring an officer of the rank of full colonel or above. I should like very much to know what the government are going to do with the other sixty-five. It looks to me as though they had been pushed into very soft jobs, carrying a rank which the job itself does not justify and did not justify even under active service conditions.


Hugues Lapointe: I have given my hon. friend the proposed establishment. As to whether we have too many high-ranking officers or whether they are occupying posts where they are just filling soft jobs, as my hon. friend stated, in the army, as in any department of government or in any private concern, you must have men at the top to run the job efficiently, and you pay them according to what they are worth and according to the work they do. That is what we intend to do in the army. My hon. friend will recall that under the new set-up of pay there is no longer in the army what we used to call the classified staff pay, under which system officers serving at headquarters receive in addition to the pay of their rank special pay for staff work. That has been done away with, and I think rightly, if I may express my humble opinion. But it makes for this situation, that an officer in order to get the pay which is adequate for the service he renders must be given the rank which calls for that pay. I hope my hon. friend will believe that this policy is justifiable.

Supply-Defence-Army


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am afraid I am not satisfied with that answer.


Hugues Lapointe: I did not expect it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I say, under the army system we have in this country, which is modeled on the British system and corresponds fairly well with the United States system, certain jobs carry certain ranks; and as far as our army here in Canada is concerned, I have yet to be shown why we should have more than thirty-four jobs which would carry the rank of full colonel. In my opinion we just have not the jobs. The army is not big enough in peacetime to have that number. I think we are just top-heavy with ranking officers. If I said that it was a matter of creating "soft jobs" for them, I am sorry. I did not mean that they were soft jobs; I meant that these officers were given jobs with inflated rank and, therefore, an inflated rate of pay. The jobs may be much bigger than some which officers with a rank or two higher are performing.


Douglas King Hazen: May I ask for some breakdown of this item of the estimates, "construction, purchase, repairs, operating expenses of properties, $25,498,136?"


John Horne Blackmore: While the parliamentary assistant is looking up the information, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would tell us whether, when you ask us if the item will carry, that means that the whole of the item is to carry? I had the impression that you were going from division to division. I asked this morning when- we would have an opportunity of discussing the Alaska highway; 1 should like that information.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: I was calling an item which included all these things, and I understood the minister had given the hon. member the undertaking that he could discuss the matter he has in mind before this item is carried.


John Horne Blackmore: The understanding was that, on page 275, under the division having to do with the northwest highway system, it would be appropriate to discuss this item.


William Henry Golding: It is appropriate under this item. The hon. member is in order to discuss the item now.


John Horne Blackmore: Perhaps we had better let the minister answer the question of the hon. member for St. John-Albert.


Hugues Lapointe: If I may be permitted to auswer that question as to the details of this item of "construction, purchase, repairs and operating expenses", under non-recurring costs
there is a commitment carryover of $3 million; new construction, $1,940,860; reconditioning of properties to be returned- to lessors, $5,687,585. Hon. members know that in- a great number of cases we leased properties during the period of the war, and under the terms of the lease -the crown was responsible for returning to the lessor the property in a good state of repair. This is the item under which the necessary expenditure is provided.


Alan Cockeram: Could the parliamentary assistant give us the detail of these properties and the amount to be expended? It need not be given now.


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, I can easily procure that. I have the information here: operating expenses of properties, $162,372. Under recurring costs, we have maintenance and repairs, $4,761,000; rental of property and land, $1,396,317; miscellaneous expenses, $691,642; operating expenses of properties, $4,966,663.


Douglas King Hazen: I did not get the amount for purchases.


Hugues Lapointe: Purchases of new properties, including land, $2,418,240.


Douglas King Hazen: Could the minister give us a breakdown of that item?


Hugues Lapointe: I am afraid I have not here the breakdown by properties, but I could give that to my hon. friend at a later' date, too.


John Horne Blackmore: May I direct the
attention of the committee for a short time to the Alaska highway, which, all hon. members will recall was constructed by the United States through northwestern Canada while the war was on. It will be remembered that there was particularly constructed a stretch of highway about fifteen hundred miles in length extending from Fort St. John to Fairbanks, Alaska, at an expense which has been estimated at between S98 million and $133 million. An all weather road and an all year route, it is graded twenty-four feet wide and capable of cariying a tremendous volume of traffic. The estimated cost of maintenance of this road is between $3 million and $5 million, according to the Great Falls Tribune, in an article published on October 7, 1945. This road, as hon. members know, has been turned over to the Dominion of Canada. It is of exceedingly great importance to us, we will say, in connection with business and tourist traffic, and we will discuss it from that point of view. I should like to know what the government is doing concerning this road. I understand that it is under the care of the Department of National Defence.
Supply-Defence-Army

There are several aspects of this matter which, I believe, should be looked into by the committee at this time. The first has to do with the maintenance of the road. We can either let the road stand idle and deteriorate, as it would naturally do, or keep it in a state of good repair. It is extremely important for the committee to know what the government is doing in this regard; how much has been spent since V-J day; in what respect it has been spent; with what results, and who is doing the work. I think we as a committee should look into that. Perhaps someone who is doing the work is getting more pay thafi he ought to get, or maybe is getting too little.
Another matter: is the road open for tourist traffic? Hon. members know how important the tourist trade is to Canada. They have been informed, as a result of the activities of the hon. member for Davenport, of the almost fairyland attractions of that northern area. They will, therefore, realize that there are great tourist possibilities in that country if this great highway is opened for tourist traffic. I should like the minister to tell us something about that.
Then I think it would be a good thing for us to know to what extent the highway is available for commercial traffic. If heavy trucks are being allowed to carry oil and other heavy loads over the highway, it may be that the highway has deteriorated. We ought to know something about the government's policy in that respect.
Obviously, if this road is to be of the greatest value to the Dominion of Canada tributary roads should be built into it from the various provinces. It is quite conceivable that there should be one, say, from Winnipeg, one from Saskatoon, and one coming in from British Columbia. The obvious thing, I would think, for the federal government to do would be to invite the cooperation of the four western provinces that are contiguous to the road in building suitable highways which could be used in cases of emergency for almost any kind of traffic which it may be found necessary to carry over them. I should like to know to what extent the government has considered that matter and how great its progress has been in this regard.
Another matter which should be looked into is the development of the resources along the Alaska highway. There is a wide variety of resources. We have timber, minerals, areas of good land which could be used for agricultural purposes, and so on, and a good deal of fishing is possible there. It seems to me that a wise policy organized in conjunction with the provinces could bring about a condition
[Mr. Blackmnrp.l
under which it would be much less expensive for the dominion to maintain this highway at that standard of quality at which I think the United States would be justified in expecting us to maintain it, and at which our own national safety would dictate that we should maintain it.
Obviously, if there is to be any considerable use of the road, either for commercial purposes or for tourist purposes, there should be such facilities as service stations along the way and even restaurants and other necessary conveniences. I think it would be interesting for the minister to tell us something about what is being done in that regard, whether the government has a policy of encouraging those who might wish to establish such facilities along the road and what succes it is having in that regard.
There is a section of the road which has not yet been completed. It is the section between Edmonton, and Dawson Creek. There is about a 200-mile stretch of road there which has not yet been completed so that it could be used in an effective way in case of emergency or for ordinary commercial purposes. For obvious reasons, this section should be built at as early a day as possible. Would the minister tell the committee what the plan of the government is with regard to this matter and what has already been done? I wish to ask a number of questions, and so that the minister may have an opportunity to reply to them in an orderly way I will read them and then send the list over to him.
1.	Is the Alaska highway being maintained? How much money has been expended since V-J day? In what sorts of maintenance was the money expended, and who did the work-government companies or agencies or private companies and agencies?
2.	Is tourist traffic being permitted by the government? If not, why not?
3.	Is the highway available for ordinary commercial traffic?
4.	Have any steps been taken to obtain cooperation of the four western provinces in constructing high-class highways connecting with the highway to enhance its value?
5.	Has anything been done to stimulate the development of resources contiguous to the highway?
6.	What has been or is being done to encourage the establishment and development of facilities for services for traffic along the Alaska highway?
7.	What measures has the government adopted or planned to complete the stretch from Edmonton to D lwson Creek, about 200 miles?

Supply-Defence-Army


Mr. MacNICOL:: Perhaps the minister will allow me to say a few words first, and he can reply to me at the same time. I may be able to help him.


Hugues Lapointe: You probably can.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Having been over much of the Alaska highway, I know something about it. The hon. member for Lethbridge has said something about it, and I will begin with the last question he asked in regard to the roadway from Edmonton to Dawson Creek. I would advise that this road be projected straight north west in as direct a route as possible to Grande Prairie.


John Horne Blackmore: Through Whitecourt.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, through Whitecourt to Grande Prairie, then following the present roadway to Dawson Creek, where you connect up with the Alaska highway which now starts at Dawson Creek. The original programme was to start it at Fort St. John. From Dawson Creek north it is a good roadway but it will require considerable attention. In reply to a question asked earlier in the session, a minister -I forget who it was-said that the government contemplated that it would cost about 85,000,000 a year to keep the roadway in proper operation, and I for one would be well pleased if they could keep it in adequate condition for operation at a cost of four or five million dollars a year. It is found in the spring that in a number of cases the bridges are taken out, because of the mountainous rivers rising as high as forty feet in a night as a result of the rapid melting of snows in the mountains which the road runs through for a considerable distance, or from heavy rains. That, however, is not an insurmountable obstacle. Besides, the maintenance of the roadway and repairs to bridges would give the department a splendid opportunity to train their engineers. I suggest that the government has a highly desirable school there for its engineering department in the maintenance of the Alaska highway, and the money will not be misspent, because, after all, the engineers must be trained and this work affords a practical opportunity for training them. Moreover, the government will have to maintain quite a staff of all sorts of men to assist the engineers, and they will have to give them practical training for the purpose. The Alaska highway would offer a golden opportunity for the practical training of all such men as are associated with the engineers in the construction of military works of any description.
The hon. member spoke of other roadways. I suggest that the defence department be employed to connect up the roadway that now
runs west from Peace River through Grim-shaw, but which does not, though it should, connect with Fort St. John. There again the department would have an excellent opportunity for training its men. Of course, it would have to cooperate with the British Columbia and Alberta governments but I understand that those governments are willing to cooperate and are themselves interested in promoting the construction of the roadway. Cooperation would also be necessary with the Saskatchewan government, which desires very greatly that the latter roadway should be completed. I agree with the hon. member for Lethbridge that the Alaska highway would be a remarkable tourist route, particularly the north end of it, because I doubt whether there is any place in America where one can enjoy such grandeur. There is no more magnificent scenery, no more striking landscape than is to be seen from Fort Nelson north, particularly as you get up to and beyond Watson lake. In that area Canada has a perfect paradise of tourist attraction.
As far as minerals are concerned, near Watson lake they are projecting a number of gold mines which will be profitable. I do not wish to take up any .more time, but I strongly endorse the suggestion that the department use such men as are required to keep that road in first-class shape, thereby providing a roadway to a tourist paradise and at the same time furnishing actual practical work for the training of engineers and all others associated with them. I suggest that it would return a rich harvest.


Mr. DECHENE:: I am greatly interested in this question, and I regret very much to take up a few minutes of your time, Mr. Chairman, of which I have been very sparing; but if this government is to spend more money on the Alaska highway, I suggest to you, sir, that it should be done in the way it has been done throughout the war, from Edmonton to the town of Athabaska northwesterly, crossing Slave river, south of Slave lake and along the shores of that beautiful lake to Peace river. That road carried immense traffic throughout the war when the highway was constructed from Dawson Creek to Whitehorse and beyond and hundreds and thousands of trucks traveled from Edmonton, damaging the road to a considerable extent in consequence. That was the result of extensive and heavy traffic. If the dominion government is to enter into an expenditure this side of Dawson Creek, undoubtedly it should be from Edmonton to Athabaska and from Athabaska to Smith, and on to the Peace river south of Lesser Slave lake. A bridge was constructed over the river west of Slave
Supply-Defence-Army

lake, costing a large sum of money, in order to serve the Alaska highway. It is the proper place to spend more money; and I suggest to the parliamentary assistant that if the Department of National Defence decides to enter upon this undertaking and take over the road from Dawson Creek to Edmonton, if they undertake further expenditure within the province of Alberta it should be on the road to the town of Athabaska and northwesterly from there to the Peace river country.


Hugues Lapointe: I am grateful to the hon. member for Davenport and the last speaker for giving me all this information on the local situation in connection with the Alaska highway. I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Lethbridge. I know the importance of the highway in that section of the country, not only in regard to tourist trade but also in regard to future development of the natural resources of that great region; and, as he mentioned, from the point of view of defence. The hon. member asked a series of questions, which I shall answer as far as may be possible.
His first question was, is the Alaska highway being maintained and how much money has been expended since V-J day; and on what maintenance work has the money been expended? The northwest highway system, as my hon. friend knows, was taken over by the Canadian government, by the Department of National Defence, on April 1 last. Prior to that, the work had been done and the expenditure made by the United States. In connection with taking over the road a unit of Canadian engineers was sent there in January, 1946. The actual expenditure by the Canadian government up to the time the highway was taken over was $188,344. Since we have taken over the highway, to July 31 we have spent $625,000 in operation and maintenance, and the personnel we have there number 245 service personnel and 416 civilians. Of the civilians, the great majority were already engaged in the maintenance of the highway, and were taken over by us. I want to assure the hon. member for Lethbridge and also the hon. member for Davenport that, in taking over this highway, the department has contemplated its use as a future training ground for our engineers in the post-war army, and undoubtedly it will be used for that purpose. All the work on the highway is being done by the personnel I have just mentioned, under the direction of the commander of the northwest highway system.
With regard to tourist traffic, I am told that at present tourists may go on the highway but must first obtain a permit from

the acting special commissioner for the Canadian government in Edmonton. They must show that they are in good health and that their vehicles are in serviceable condition for the trip up the highway and back. My hon. friend will understand that this is necessary at the present time in view of the lack of facilities along the highway, and it was only prudent on the part of the authorities to follow this course. The highway is also available for commercial traffic, again subject to the approval of the special commissioner. I am informed-and this information is not official but comes to me like the information I have received from the hon. member for Davenport-that in July some 897 vehicles, both passenger cars and trucks, made the trip over the highway.
As to the possible extension of the highway to join with other highways in the various provinces, I am informed that at present this question is under consideration with the governments of Alberta and British Columbia.
I believe my hon. friend also asked what was being done in connection with the development of the natural resources of that region. As he knows, that matter comes under the Department of Mines and Resources, and I am afraid I would not be in a position to give him that information.
The question of the completion of the stretch between. Edmonton and Dawson Creek is, I realize, an important matter. I did not realize it before, but I understand now that it is a controversial question. I am afraid I am not in a position to give the hon. member any information. It would appear that this might be a matter under the control of the government of Alberta, since it is a question of highway construction. However, I am sure the matter will be given study in connection with the future use of the highway and the development of the region.


Mr. LOW:: I appreciate the information the parliamentary assistant has given in his answers to the questions asked by the hon. member for Lethbridge. I should like to make one or two further observations and ask one or two questions. Has anything been done as yet by the department to connect the Great Slave lake area by a cross-road to the Alaska highway, and also the Great Bear lake basin, where they have discovered many important minerals? I ask these questions because it seems to me if the Alaska highway is properly to serve Canada in times of stress as well as in times of peace, feeder roads will have to be built linking these great mineral areas with the strategic highways along which the traffic of the northwest runs. As the hon. gentleman

Supply-Defence-Army
knows, the provincial government of Alberta, in collaboration and cooperation with the dominion government, at the present time is [DOT] building the Grimshaw-Slave Lake highway. That is a thrust of about 200 miles straight north of Grimshaw, which is just west of Peace River town. That is to get into the Mackenzie basin. Down the Mackenzie basin is an easy grade, which has been surveyed several times. I believe the province of Alberta originally recommended that this be the route of the Alaska highway, but that recommendation was not followed. I further believe that since then it has been decided it was a mistake not to follow that recommendation. However, the road is there and I believe it can serve a very useful purpose. -In the Slave lake area, as well as in the Great Bear lake area and the Norman Wells area, we have already developed huge mineral resources. WTe also have the Canol pipeline, which runs across from the Norman Wells area into Alaska. Some kind of tractor road, or perhaps just a primitive trail, was built across there, and I was wondering if the department intends to develop that into a permanent road, so that in due course the pipeline may be able to serve the needs of the great northwest, whenever the oil from Norman Wells is needed. If the parliamentary assistant would answer those questions, then I should like to say one word with respect to a matter which has caused a little difference of opinion here.


Hugues Lapointe: I am afraid I am not in a position to give any specific answer about the particular routes, roads or highways the hon. member mentioned. All I can tell him is that the whole development of that region and the further roads to extend from the Alaska highway is at present under study. I am afraid I cannot give anything further.


Solon Earl Low: As the department develops its plans, there is one thing which could be kept in mind, with profit, and I offer it only as a suggestion. It might be considered when the plans are being laid for the development of the northern country, and the highway itself. It is quite conceivable that that great northwestern highway might become of tremendous value to Canada in a time of stress. Its value would depend upon whether it is linked with the great industrial parts of America, along which route from such industrial areas materials might be moved quickly for defence purposes.
For a number of years the province of Alberta, the state of Montana, and other areas in northwestern United States and in Canada have organized bodies to study this highway, and the need for it. They have advocated the most direct possible route from
Great Falls in Montana to Lethbridge, Calgary and Edmonton, and up to Dawson Creek and Fort St. John.
As to the route, the province of Alberta, in constructing the link between the international boundary line and Lethbridge just last year, kept in mind the possible need of a military highway. They have built in that link of about seventy-five miles the finest example of what could be a military highway, that I have seen in Canada. I understand that it is ready for hard-surfacing this year. They have also been improving the route between Lethbridge and Edmonton. Two or three years ago the province of Alberta completed a survey between Edmonton and Grande Prairie by way of Whitecourt, a northwest route which obviates the necessity of going clear around through Athabaska and along the shores of Slave lake. It cuts off approximately 100 miles in the distance between Dawson Creek and Edmonton, runs through a country where the grades would probably be easy, and where the country could easily be developed.
That survey is complete, and the information is available. Some day we shall see the necessity of having the most direct route for military purposes. The parliamentary assistant has stated that the development of other highways through centres now served will have to be left to the province. I say the province is fully aware of its responsibility in that respect and is to-day improving the road by way of Athabaska and up through the southern Peace river.


Hugues Lapointe: I shall be pleased to draw the minister's attention to what the hon. member has said.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I can add a word for the minister's benefit with respect to the first route mentioned by the hon. member for Peace River, namely the route from Norman Wells extending 650 miles across two ranges of mountains to Whitehorse. That is another area where departmental engineers and those associated with them will have plenty of opportunity to develop themselves. I have been over the east end of that route from Norman Wells to stop 41, a distance of something less than 100 miles, and I was over the west end of the route for about 100 miles. At the time I was there the roadway was open all the way through, but when one comes to the two ranges of mountains through which the roadway runs a tractor would be required to pull a car up the grade. I do not believe it was ever completed to the extent that anyone leaving Whitehorse could ride through in his motor car to Norman Wells without the assistance of a tractor to get up the grades. Further
Supply-Dejence-Army

than that, one could go through only in a motor car with high wheels, one of the old fashioned type, because of the mountain creeks.
This is an area in which the department will have one of the best opportunities possible to train engineers and all personnel who will assist the army engineers. Since the government must maintain an engineering staff and train it, I would say this is a fine place to do it. If they ever do, through their engineering service, make the Whitehorse-Norman Wells route passable for cars, it will make available a tourist route the like of which few human eyes have seen. It almost beggars description, so far as I have seen it. It is a marvellous area, and I have no doubt that if it is once completed it will be so great an attraction for tourist traffic it will pay for itself.


John Horne Blackmore: The parliamentary
assistant will have noticed that a large percentage of the Alaska highway, as it will be in its completed form, will be built through Alberta. This necessitates tremendous expenditures.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Up to parallel 60.


John Horne Blackmore: This runs through a relatively sparsely settled area in Alberta. While we are discussing this matter, I would suggest that the parliamentary assistant should urge upon the minister to take under serious consideration the advisability of setting aside a government appropriation for Alberta, to assist the province in the building of this highway. There is no suggestion that the province would not ultimately build it, but perhaps, owing to scarcity of money, it might not be able to build it soon enough. Would the parliamentary assistant bring this matter to the attention of the minister?


Hugues Lapointe: I shall be pleased to do so.


Douglas King Hazen: I asked the minister for particulars about the purchase of property. He said he would get them. If the item is passed now, when shall I get those particulars.


Hugues Lapointe: When the estimates for the air services are before the committee.


Douglas King Hazen: This morning the hon. member for Lake Centre asked the minister to produce a letter from the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police dealing with certain alleged wrongdoing in connection with the use of army rejection certificates. The minister said he would give the request consideration. He is not here this afternoon, and I should like to know when we shall get this information, if the item passes.


Hugues Lapointe: The minister did say he was asking that the matter be looked into, in the files. He also said it might be necessary to refer to the district, if correspondence had taken place between the district and the mounted police. If there is any correspondence to table I shall gladly table it at the same time as I table any other information, when the air services are before the committee.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I have a question in connection with properties taken over by the department from private owners, which have now been turned back to War Assets Corporation, and which are now being resold by War Assets Corporation to the former owners. Many of these properties were used for training purposes in connection with bombing, %nd so on. I believe there were two or three around Sussex with which the parliamentary assistant will be familiar. They have been turned over to War Assets Corporation, and private citizens have made arrangements to buy them. But these arrangements have been held up for months, the difficulty being that the properties have to be decontaminated- I believe that is the term used. Are steps being taken to decontaminate the properties which have been turned over to War Assets? If not, can this work be speeded up, because I know a lot of men who want to get back on these properties are being held up?


Hugues Lapointe: The minute a property
is declared surplus and it goes into the hands of War Assets our responsibility ceases, so to speak. The process followed by War Assets has absolutely nothing to do with us. In cases where a property was taken over, say, from a municipality, for use as a training ground without any buildings being erected, the property is remitted to the municipality without having to go through WTar Assets. But if there has been any construction it must go through War Assets.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The properties I have referred to are near Essex and they are made up of a number of farms which were taken over. These properties should be decontaminated before being handed over to War Assets, and I understand the difficulty is to get the Department of National Defence to do this work. The arrangements made by War Assets to sell these properties are held up because they are not decontaminated.


Hugues Lapointe: I will look into the matter right away.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to say a
word about the supplying of equipment to the reserve army, particularly to those units using technical equipment. The minister

Labour Conditions
made a statement in connection with the supply of equipment to the reserve army of Canada, but, so far as I know, armoured regiments and SP artillery regiments in particular have received only small amounts of equipment in the way of tanks and SP guns. I am particularly familiar with an anti-tank regiment composed of four batteries. Each battery is supposed to have twelve guns, but so far they have been supplied only with two SP guns which, in my opinion, is not sufficient for training purposes.
I would request the department to be as generous as possible in the matter of supplying equipment to reserve units. They have a difficult time in attracting recruits and carrying on training under the best of circumstances. With the large amount of equipment left on our hands at the end of the war, I should think it would be readily possible to supply these reserve units with what they need in the way of tanks, SP guns, transport vehicles, signal equipment, signal vehicles and so on. I cannot emphasize too strongly the necessity of the department being generous to the reserve units in the matter of supplying equipment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. MACKENZIE:: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Mr. MacNI'COL:	I should like to express
my personal appreciation of the ability with which the young parliamentary assistant has carried out his duties. I was particularly pleased with the way in which he answered the capable inquiries from this side of the house. I was reminded of his brilliant father, and I said to myself that some day this young man would take his father's place in the seats of the mighty of this country.


Solon Earl Low: We agree entirely with those
remarks.
Progress reported.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: A report has just been received by telephone from Mr. F. W. Edge, director of labour relations, Canadian National Railways, that his negotiations with the presidents, vice presidents and general chairmen of the various labour organizations representing all the employees of the Canadian National Railways, the Ontario Northern Railway and all the subsidiaries of the Canadian National
Railways, representing in all approximately
115,000	men, have been successful. At one o'clock to-day the president and executive vice-president of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. R. C. Vaughan and Mr. N. B. Walton, approved an agreement which had been entered into by Mr. Edge with the heads of the various organizations, calling for an increase in the case of maintenance of way men of eight cents per hour, and of all other organizations of ten cents per hour, effective June 1, 1946, and deferring consideration with respect to conditions until February 1, 1947. The only organization in connection with which the negotiations have not been concluded is the brotherhood of railway trainmen. These negotiations are being conducted separately, and it is expected that an agreement will be consummated in the near future.
The reason the maintenance of way men were offered and have agreed to a rate lower than other occupations is that they had a two cent adjustment in their wage rates in April, 1946. It is of interest to note that a number of the men are affiliated with the Canadian congress of labour, and the negotiations have been conducted on their behalf by Mr. A. R. Mosher, president of the Canadian brotherhood of railway employees and other transport workers. An application is being made by Mr. Edge on behalf of both the employees and the company to the national war labour board for approval.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: As I understand it, the eight cents is in addition to the two cents, bringing the total to ten cents?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes. This is an indication of what I said last night, that common sense and conciliation are the real answer to the problem, not negotiations in this house or through the newspapers.



RADIO BROADCASTING ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National
Revenue) moved the second reading of bill No. 391, to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936.
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, while this bill is short and may appear to some to be innocuous, I hope that in the discussion we shall realize the great importance of this measure. This bill contemplates the extension of the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and it should be considered carefully before being
Radio Broadcasting
[Stage Direction]
adopted, especially since that expansion, in part at least, is to be at the expense of certain private stations. The bill raises the whole question of the relationship between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the private stations. It places at the disposal of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation a blank cheque with which to carry on this great programme of expansion.
The bill embodies some of the recommendations contained in the report of the special committee on radio broadcasting which was tabled a few days ago. Three of the four sections of the bill deal with recommendations from that report. At the outset I should like to emphasize that the report was not unanimous. It represents the recommendations of the Liberal-C.C.F. majority on the committee, but it was opposed by the Progressive Conservative and Social Credit members.
The report recommends lavish commitments and carries a complete approval of everything the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has ever done or proposes to do. In the second place, it proposes to be more than lavish in meeting all the requests of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In the third place, it proposes, as the bill itself indicates, to be lavish with the money of the people of Canada in giving support to its programme.
Good work was done in the committee. A number of facts of the highest importance were brought before the public. The work of the committee was not done exhaustively, because there are certain things that should have been done and should have been treated in the report which were to some extent side-stepped both in the report and in the bill. Matters are also dealt with in the report which were not before the committee when it was taking evidence.
I have this criticism to make of the manner in which the committee proceeded. It put the cart before the horse. It heard a review from C.B.C. at the outset of its past administration. Then, without calling upon C.B.C. to outline its policy for the future, involving, as we eventually learned, the absorption of two major wave leangths now held by private companies in this country, it called upon the private companies to come forward and meet a case that had not yet been put before the two major wave lengths now held by private companies had been called upon to make their defence that C.B.C. was called upon to present its case. I say that was putting the cart before the horse. It put the private stations at a great disadvantage in not knowing adequately the case that they would be called upon later to meet. It also meant that we had

some major recommendations from C.B.C., which have found their way into the report and into the bill, but which did not come before the committee until the very last minute. For that I do not put any blame whatever on the corporation, because I am satisfied that its officials would have liked to make their complete presentation at the beginning and proceed in an orderly fashion. I place the blame entirely on the majority of the committee.
There is in the report one recommendation which is unanimous, and that is that a radio committee should be appointed every year and meet early in the session. Since parliamentary committees began to study radio in 1932, radio committees have met in nine out of the fifteen years. When years passed without a committee, when the committee eventually did sit it found it had a great deal of work to cover.
The second part of that recommendation will, I hope, be given due weight. The committee which sat this year did not meet until the seventy-fifth day of the session. This has meant that much of th,e work of the committee was done in these recent days under pressure and that a bill which raises issues of vast importance to the people of Canada now comes before the house at the very end of the session when there is a disposition to hurry through to prorogation.
It has been the practice in recent years for reports from the radio committee not to be the subject of discussion in the house. The first two committees of 1932 and 1934 submitted their reports to the house and a motion for concurrence in them was made in each case, and adopted. That, I submit, is the proper practice. In 1936 the committee's report was not concurred in by motion, but was followed by the enactment of the present Canadian Broadcasting Act of that year. The committee reports of 1938, 1939, 1942 and 1943 were not followed by any discussion in the house. I think that was a mistake. The report of 1944 was followed by one slight amendment to the act. I wish to express my conviction that the whole question of radio broadcasting is of such importance that it ought to receive adequate debate in this house. It would be good for the public and parliament to have more light and more information by way of an accounting on the part of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and of the private stations of their operations. I think it can be said for C.B.C. that it would be glad to have more assistance from parliament. It has not had that assistance from parliament. There have been certain recom-

Radio Broadcasting
mendations from parliamentary committees, but the. committees' reports have not for the last ten years been given the concurrence of the house. The committees' recommendations have not been endorsed by the house, let alone by parliament. I think that C.B.C. is entitled to have from parliament some clear direction as to policy.
This point I make in favour of the bill. It affords us at long last an opportunity to review C.B.C. policy, particularly in relation to the major expansion that is now proposed.
In saying what I have to say, I wish to make it clear that when I speak critically I am not speaking critically of any individuals. I am speaking of the system which is implicit in the statute and of the policy which has been followed in the light of reports of committees. So far as I personally am concerned, in the course of the meetings of the committee I formed a liking and no little esteem for the officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation who appeared before us, and I want to make it clear that any criticism I have to make is a criticism of a system and not of individuals.
There have been reports-and perhaps when the minister speaks he will say a word about this-about lobbying which sought to exert pressure on the committee. I found such a suggestion contained, for instance, in a letter dated August 2, 1946, written by the secretary of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to certain groups. It contains this paragraph, and there were many other letters of the same kind sent throughout the country, some of which came to the attention of the committee. The paragraph reads:
Never before lias there been so strong a lobby on behalf of the private radio interests. A great deal of money has been made by these interests, despite anything that may be said to the contrary, and they are not hesitant about laying out money. The lobbying that has been going on is terrific, with suites at the chateau and a good deal of entertainment. We have been told that those private interests concerned, who are supporters of the government, are making it uncomfortable for the government and leaders of the parties. This is the old game of pressure politics with selfish interests attempting to again wield their influence.
I do not know where the writer of that letter got his information, but I want to say for myself as a member of the committee that I attended twenty-six out of the twenty-eight meetings and I saw not one trace at any time of any lobbying in any way, shape or form. I hope that the minister when he speaks will be able to say the same thing on behalf of those who sit on that side of the house. I think that when the radio committee is set up next year an effort should be made to
find the source of such utterly unfounded statements, because they are an unwarranted reflection on members of parliament who are seeking to do their best without paying any attention to any pressure. At no time did I see any sign of any pressure or any lobbying.
I have said that this bill calls upon us to see in perspective the policy that C.B.C. is following at the present time. I will review the history of recent years as rapidly as I can.
Parliament's concern with radio broadcasting really begins with the year 1929, when the Aird commission made its report to the then minister of marine, Hon. P. J. A. Cardin. That commission was composed of Sir John Aird, Mr. Charles A. Bowman, and Doctor Augustin Frigon, who is now general manager of the corporation. They recommended that a national company be formed, to be called the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Company, to own and operate all radio broadcasting stations in Canada. In other words, they recommended the complete nationalization of all means of broadcasting in Canada; they condemned direct advertising on the air, and recommended provincial control over programmes of stations within the provincial areas. No action was taken on that report until the year 1932, when a parliamentary committee was set up to review the whole situation. That committee made extensive recommendations which found their way into the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act of that year. There are in that report two leading recommendations which I think are deserving of mention at this time:
(b)	That -a nationally-owned system of radio broadcasting be instituted,-
I emphasize that.
-and that all stations required for its proper organization be eventually acquired, same to be financed from the revenue accruing to the business of broadcasting, without expense to the taxpayers through the public treasury.
(c)	That all stations, 100 watt and under, not required for the national system, remain under private ownership, but be regulated as to programmes and advertising by the rules of the commission.
Whereas the Aird commission had recommended seven powerful stations of 50,000 watts each, one to be located in the mari-times, one in each of the other provinces, the 1932 committee recommended five 50,000 watt stations and a number of privately owned 100 watt stations.
When the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act was enacted in 1932 certain safeguards were reserved to parliament which I think are of high importance. Section 9 of that act states that the commission shall have
Radio Broadcasting
[Stage Direction]
power to carry on the business of broadcasting in Canada, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may:
(b)	acquire existing private stations either by lease, or, subject to the approval of parliament, by purchase;
(c)	subject to the approval of parliament, construct such new stations as may be required;
(g) subject to the approval of parliament, take over all broadcasting in Canada.
I emphasize those words, "subject to the approval of parliament," in reference to each of these powers.
Then we come to the 1934 committee, which included 'as recommendation No. 5 of its report:
That, pending the nationalization of all stations, greater cooperation should be established between privately owned stations and the commission.
Hon. members will see that still the underlying conception there is complete nationalization of all means of radio broadcasting in Canada.
The 1936 committee in its report included as its recommendation No. 7:
We reaffirm the principle of complete nationalization of radio broadcasting in Canada.
I point out that the report of 1936 was followed by the enactment of the present act. the Canadian Broadcasting Act of 1936, under which the Canadian Broadcasting corporation derives all its powers and functions to-day and that act was based on the recommendation of a committee which still contemplated the complete nationalization of all means of radio broadcasting in Canada.
Then we come to the 1938 report, and we find on page 194 this statement:
Your committee is of the opinion that while private stations will continue to serve a useful local purpose, the corporation urgently requires its own comprehensive facilities for distribution.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give attention to the fact that here, in the 1938 report, some status is now accorded to the private stations, and here we have what I submit is the first departure in committee reports from the idea of complete nationalization; here we have the first recognition in a parliamentary report of a permanent role for private stations.
When we come to the next report, in the year 1939, we see emphasis is laid in the recommendations on the duty of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to coordinate both types of broadcasting; that is to say, national broadcasting over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and broadcasting over the private stations. It assumes that there is to be broadcasting from private stations to be coordinated

with the national system. The only inference is that a permanent role is now contemplated for the private stations.
Then we come to the 1942 report, which is a major report, which reaffirmed many of the recommendations of earlier committees as follows:
(a) The paramount importance of a single national authority to control all broadcasting in the public interest; (1932)
(ib) The public ownership of all high power stations under a national system of broadcasting, with low power stations _ individually operated or coordinated in relation to the dominant system; (1932)
(c) The coordination of all broadcasting in Canada through exclusive control being vested in the natiopally-owned system of:-
(i)	The character of all programmes, political or otherwise, broadcast by all stations and of the advertising content thereof; and
(ii)	All wire-line networks used for carrying broadcast programmes. (1936)
The report of the committee in 1943 reaffirmed those recommendations. The reports of the committees in both those years, 1942 and 1943, had this to say, that they recognized that private stations were serving a useful function. No longer do we find any suggestion of complete nationalization of all stations and all means of broadcasting in Canada.
In the report of the committee for 1943 we have for the first time set out a submission of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. It is done, it is true, without comment; but again there is the recognition that the private stations serve a useful function.
In the 1944 report the submission of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, representing the great majority of the private stations, asking for "an impartial" body to regulate broadcasting, was set forth, and this time it was rejected.
In the 1946 committee's report we have this statement:
Your committee feels that it would be less than fair if it did not record its view that private stations are giving good community service.
Also':
We are of the opinion that private stations should be at all times encouraged and aided to improve their service to their respective communities.
Having reviewed that history from 1929 to 1946, important years and years of great development in broadcasting in Canada, I say that we have six principles on which, I think, all parties in this house will agree.
The first is that radio broadcasting, being carried over the public domain, must be publicly controlled. The second is that in the adminstration of public control the public interest is to be the supreme consideration. In

Radio Broadcasting
the third place, broadcasting is to be Canadian. The public system was designed, among other reasons, for the purpose of ensuring that there would be carried over a national network in Canada programmes which would be Canadian in their content, and that any national system would not be dominated by * broadcasting from the United States. In the fourth place, broadcasting was to be designed to assist the development of Canadian talent. In the fifth place, the radio was to be recognized as an agency of education, not merely one of entertainment. In the sixth place, advertising was not to be permitted to mar programmes.
I say that these are principles on which, I think, all parties in this house will agree. I say also that there has been over these years an evolution and development in radio which has been characterized by these features. In the first place, there have been great technical advances, and advances also in the business of radio broadcasting. In the second place, it is recognized that we are now on the threshold of further great technical advances in radio. Frequency modulation and other discoveries open great vistas for the development of radio in Canada. In the third place, it is abundantly clear, and it is recognized, I submit, in these parliamentary reports to which I have referred, that the private stations have made a great contribution to radio broadcasting in Canada. They have established their right to a permanent role in our scheme of broadcasting in Canada; they have established their right to participate in the technical advances which lie before us; and thejr have established their value as competition for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; and as they develop they are entitled to fair play in that competitive role.
There were, according to the evidence submitted to the committee, to be found at page 165 of the proceedings, on June 6 of this year 103 private stations in Canada, having a strength ranging from 50 to 15,000 watts. Now, Mr. Speaker, obviously credit in measure is due to the enterprise of these stations themselves, which must have given public service to expand that way, and credit is also due for the opportunity given to them to develop under the policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and also, I think, to the Department of Transport. I think it is clear that there has been an evolution in policy in the direction of permitting freer opportunity for the development of private stations. That has been all to the good, because I emphasize again that the 1936 act was written on the basis of the recommendations of a committee of parliament which affirmed the principle of
complete nationalization, and to that extent we have moved some distance away from the principle of the 1936 act.
I come now to a different subject, one that has to do with the position of private companies in relation to their wave lengths or frequencies. Both the 1943 and the 1946 reports urged that private stations be encouraged to improve their service to the public. How will they do this? Under present legislation what tenure is offered to them of their frequencies? They enjoy an annual licence. Under the Radio Act of 1938 power is given the minister to determine the duration and character of the licence. Regulation 5 issued under that act provides that the licence shall in each case terminate on March 31 of each year; if you will read section 11, subsection 5 of the Broadcasting Act, you will see that there is no vested interest on the part of the licensee in his frequency, and in the event of the frequency being taken over by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, either by expropriation or otherwise, he has no right to compensation.
Two views can be taken of the tenure of wave length or frequency by private stations. The first is that if the licensee has given good public service he is entitled to a renewal of his licence; the other view is that he has no right whatever, and his licence, and the development of his service to the public under the licence, must be circumscribed by that doomsday which he faces all the time, the 31st day of March of the following year. When we are calling upon private stations to improve their service, I ask, what encouragement is given them if they are to have nothing but insecurity of tenure? If their claim to frequency hangs by such a thread that it may be taken away from them on the next March 31; if there is no assurance that in the event of their giving good service and behaving themselves and adhering to the regulations their licence will be extended, what hope is there for the development of good broadcasting over private stations? There is this sword of Damocles hanging over the head of everyone of these stations, under such circumstances, and if the 1946 committee means what it says in asking that encouragement be given by parliament, or by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to the development of broadcasting over private stations, then a study must be made, without delay, of the question of tenure of wave length, subject to proper safeguards in the public interest, with respect to private stations. It is useless to expect them to develop their stations and expend large amounts of money on improve-
Radio Broadcasting
[Stage Direction]
ments and giving better public service, as we wish them to do, if their tenure is to be so insecure.
My next point is that whatever confidence the private stations might have had in their tenure of frequency, subject to good behaviour, that confidence must have been greatly shaken by the series of actions of the corporation with reference to three wave lengths, 860, held by CFRB, (Toronto); 1010, CFCN, (Calgary) and 990, CKY, (Winnipeg).
I wish to refer to the North-American Regional broadcasting agreement signed at Havana in 1937, commonly known as the Havana agreement. It came into effect on January 30, 1941 and assigned to Canada six wave lengths known as Class 1-A channels. They are 690, which under the agreement is to be located in the province of Quebec, 740 in Ontario, 860 in Ontario, 990 in Manitoba, 1010 in Alberta and 1580 in Quebec. These frequencies, under the agreement, are to be developed to a strength of 50,000 watts. At the present time, and in fact during all these years, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has occupied three of these channels, being the three not held by the three private stations I have mentioned. It has developed its three 1-A frequencies to a strength of 50,000 watts, while the one held by CKY was 15,000 watts, and CFCN and CFRB, 10,000 watts eaoh. The Havana agreement has been extended by an agreement entered into in Washington on February 25 of this year, so that Canada has until the meeting of the international conference in this country in September, 1947, to develop all these six channels to a strength of 50,000 watts.
One point that should be understood by every member is that there is no requirement under the Havana treaty that these lengths should be held by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The corporation now proposes to take over these three wave lengths held by the three stations I have mentioned, and in so doing it is carrying out a matter of its own policy because it is not required to do so by the treaty. When the treaty came into effect in 1941 the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was not in a position to take over these three wave lengths.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. FLEMING:: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was dealing with the intention of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to take 
over the wave lengths now possessed by stations CFRB in Toronto, CFCN in Calgary and CKY in Winnipeg, the first two of which have a power of 10,000 watts and the third of which has a power of 15,000 watts. CKY is actually owned by the government of Manitoba, which has not entered any objection to the assumption of its wave length by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, so that the matter at issue narrows down to whether the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation shall take over the wave lengths now possessed by stations CFRB and CFCN.
Before the six o'clock recess, I had mentioned that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation now takes the position that in 1941, when the Havana treaty came into effect, it was not in a position to occupy these three channels and, therefore, assigned them to these stations. This was done, first by a wire dated February 4, 1941, and then by a confirming letter, dated February 10, 1941, which will be found at pages 648 and 649 of the evidence before the 1946 committee. There is not one word in either the wire or the confirming letter, or in any subsequent correspondence with these stations to the end of 1945, suggesting that these channels were being assigned only for a temporary purpose, or for the duration of the war, or until the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation could obtain equipment and proceed with its expansion. There is no suggestion of that; the communications simply announce the assignment of these wave lengths to these companies. In the autumn of 1945 the licensees in question were told that the matter was under review, and were invited to attend a meeting of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at which this matter was discussed. The first official notification to them was by letter dated April 18, 1946, that next spring their channels are to be taken over by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
There is a conflict of evidence as between the officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on the one hand and the officials of these stations on the other, as to certain facts in regard to the notice, if any, implied or otherwise, which these companies are said to have had as to the policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in reference to the assumption of these class 1-A channels. On the one hand, these licensees say they had no knowledge of any policy under which it was the intention of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to take their channels. They say they thought they were secure in those channels, subject to giving good public service; that they developed their wave lengths on that basis, expended money to develop them,

Radio Broadcasting
and that if they were to be dispossessed it would have been far better for them if they ' had not been assigned these channels in 1941, because the spectrum is so full now-more than it was in 1941-that they would have had a better choice of alternative channels in 1941 than it is possible for them to have today. Moreover, the alternative wave lengths now offered to them by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are admittedly not as good as those they now enjoy. In the case of CFRB it is proposed that they go to the end of the dial, at 1550, which is described among technical radio people as "the graveyard" of the dial. Then, in the case of CFRB it means an expenditure of some $300,000 for simply moving their broadcasting facilities to the point where they must move now, near Niagara, away from Aurora, outside Toronto, where they are now, according to the statement made to the committee by the general manager of CFRB. It means, also, that CBC, which has been a competitor of CFRB in the great metropolitan area of central Ontario, will move into the space where its competitor formerly did business. It means it will have open to it all the listener contacts and a first-class opportunity to obtain the commercial contacts and Columbia network heretofore enjoyed by CFRB. It means also for both CFRB and CFCN a smaller listener-coverage under the proposed new wave lengths.
It is admitted on all sides that these stations have a good record of public service in all respects. I am not going to take time to enumerate their record; it was demonstrated that these stations had an enviable record of public service. As to ownership, in the case of CFCN there is a proposal for a wide diffusion of ownership among farm organizations in the province of Alberta. CFRB is owned by the Rogers Radio Broadcasting Company, and not more than ten per cent of the stock of that company is in the hands of any one person; it is widely diffused. Both these licensees were pioneers in radio; both took very hard knocks in the days when it was difficult for radio broadcasting companies to survive; and having survived and built up their stations, they are to have their wave lengths taken away from them.
I want to be fair to all parties. On the other hand, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation say it was always their policy to take over all these class 1-A channels under the Havana treaty. They say the policy was always known and the execution or fufilment of the policy was simply delayed because, owing to war conditions, they could not obtain equipment to proceed with their plans. They refer to an endorsement put on the licences 63260-333
of these three licensees, beginning in 1941. I pause there to say that the endorsement did nothing more than call attention to one of the regulations under the act, which simply provides, as I intimated earlier, that the assignment of a channel is effective only until March 31 of the following year. That endorsement did not tell these licensees that it was the policy of CJ3.C. to assume their channels. The reference to the regulation was a reference to a regulation which is the law for every station in the Dominion of Canada. It was not peculiar in any respect to these three stations. I was surprised to hear an official of the Department of Transport rely on that, as an alleged notice to these licensees, that it was the policy of the CJ3.C. to take their frequencies when it suited the CJ3.C. to do so. The endorsement was suggested by the Controller of Radio in the Department of Transport in a letter dated April 30, 1941. It was approved on behalf of the C.B.C. in a letter which we were told in evidence was not approved by the board of the C.B.C., but was simply written by the executive assistant to the then general manager. There was very clear understanding between the Department of Transport on the one hand and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on the other. The correspondence shows clearly that they understood at the time that it was settled policy to take those channels when it suited the C.B.C. to do so. They took the utmost care to make it a matter of record in the correspondence exchanged beween the Department of Transport and the C.B.C. That is as plain as the nose on one's face; but for some reason or another, it did not occur to anybody to put so much as a phrase in a letter addressed to these three licensees to indicate that this was the policy of the department.


Mr. REID:: Are you in favour of newspapers controlling radio?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The matter of newspapers controlling radio does not enter into the present debate. It does not appear in the report, and was not discussed before the committee.- When the committee came to write its report, and in the steering committee, there was a discussion of it, and it was agreed by all that, since we had not made a study of it we should not make a recommendation in the report concerning it, but that it should be studied by a radio committee next year.


Thomas Reid: It should be sent back, and there should be a report on it, because I am against newspapers owning radios.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member may express his views if he wishes. However, I

Radio Broadcasting

am pointing out that the subject was not discussed in the radio committee, and that it was the view of the members of the committee that it ought to be discussed next year.
The majority in the committee-the Liberal-C.C.F. majority in the committee-have undertaken to say that they think the licensees in stations CFRB and CFCN knew that was the policy. I have indicated that there is direct conflict in the testimony in that respect, and that there is not a word on record in the matter until the end of 1945 to tell these licensees that that was the policy.
In the meantime they have served the interests of the C.B.C., because they have held those channels for Canada, under the Havana treaty; and now that they have occupied those channels and served their purpose, they are being told to vacate; they have served the purpose of C.B.C.
I draw certain deductions from this course of events. In the first place, I say that, while the legal right on the part of the C.B.C. and the government may be clear, nevertheless they have exercised their right in this situation most unfairly. The treatment they have dealt out to these licencees is, in my opinion, most unjust, and there is no excuse whatsoever for the failure of the government and the C.B.C. to put these licensees clearly in a position where they knew what the policy was, that they were only the temporary caretakers of those channels.
But more important the private licensee is the public interest, and I say the public interest will suffer. It suffers because, in the first place, there has been no consideration given in this situation to the listener. This station CFRB is the most popular station- the tests which have been taken show it-in the metropolitan area of central Ontario. Listener interest has not been consulted in the present instance. All that has mattered is the policy of the C.B.C. I make this point distinctly, because I think there was confusion in the minds of the committee on the point: the public interest and the interest of C.B.C. expansion are not the same thing, and they ought not to be confused. In this case I think public interest is not being served by the policy which the C.B.C. proposes to put into effect.
I should like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that in the 1939 committee report recommendation No. 11 states:
Certain of the corporation's policies affecting the public generally have not been sufficiently made known, resulting in misunderstanding and inconvenience. Your committee approves of the corporation's intention to make such policies known more fully and widely in the future.

While recognizing the rapidly changing and developing character of the enterprise the committee wishes to stress the need of duly publicizing policy decisions of this kind.
Why was that not done? Here is a policy which has not been properly made known, and which not only is causing misunderstanding and inconvenience, but actually is going to cause substantial damage to licensees, and going to cause a great loss on the part of the public, in radio service of the kind they want.
In the next place, I say this proposal on the part of the C.B.C. is a long step toward monopoly, because it has the effect of eliminating the biggest competitors C.B.C. faces in point of radio listener interest and wide diffusion of good programmes among audiences.
The next point is this: it means another major step toward the centralization of radio broadcasting. It means the loss of local interest to Albertans in the case of CFCN. In Toronto there already is a 50,000-watt C.B.C. station, namely CBL, which is one of the stations on the trans-Canada network. Another C.B.C. station, namely CJCB, is to take over the wave length of CFRB, and build it up to a strength of 50,000 watts, so that it will be the foundation for the second national network which is called the dominion network. There you have two powerful C.B.C. stations, each of 50,000 watte, in the one city.
That leads me to my next point, the fact that the C.B.C. is proceeding with the building up of a second national network. I submit that when the 1936 broadcasting act was written, giving to C.B.C. the power to build up a national system of broadcasting in Canada, it was the intention that there should be one good dominion-wide network, one coast-to-coast network which would reach even to the most remote areas. That is recognized in the report of the 1946 committee, that it is the duty of the C.B.C. to reach the remotest areas, so that all the people of Canada may have the benefit of a national network. To-day ninety-four per cent of the people of Canada are within reach of the Trans-Canada network, with the assistance of private stations, on a national hook-up.
The building of a second national network simply means that an alternative network is offering an alternative programme to the same people as the Trans-Canada. It is being done in this instance at the expense of these two stations. The CFRB wave length is to go on the Dominion network and CFCN on the T rans-Canada.
I submit that that is what is involved in this bill before us. The principle of the bill
is that it enables the C.B.C. to carry out its expansion, to set up a second national network

Radio Broadcasting
to parallel the existing network and to do so at the expense of two most important private stations, leading competitors of the C.B.C., and by taking away from listeners in Alberta and in central Ontario the programmes to which they have been accustomed.
That leads me to. the next point. I wish to draw the attention of the house to the wide powers possessed by the C.B.C., and to the tendency inherent in expansion. The second hook-up means expansion in the national system, and it could mean something more, if this continued expansion is pursued. I say that inherent in that degree of expansion there are grave dangers. There is the danger of centralization, too much centralization, and there is the danger of monopoly in broadcasting. And inherent in this bill are more monopoly and more centralization.
The report of the 1946 committee emphasizes the powerful influence of radio in moulding thought. At page 7 of the report we have this:
It must be recognized that the national network now under control of the C.B.C. is a powerful medium for the dissemination of information and the moulding of public opinion.
The 1943 report, at page 259, said this in a time of war:
In addition, radio has become one of the most subtle intelligence instruments of modern warfare. In short, radio has become one of the major instruments of the state.
That was written in a time of war, with reference to wartime conditions, but it points to what in a time of peace can become a serious danger, when radio is used as an instrument of the state.
I should like to draw the attention of the house to an editorial which appeared in The Economist, of London, England, published on June 20, 1946. May I preface what I shall read from the editorial by saying this, that there are some in this country-the C.C.F. party, for instance, with its emphasis on state monopoly-who would not be at all averse to seeing the British system introduced in this country, with complete state monopoly. I have already pointed out that that was-the idea behind the committee reports of earlier years. Here is what The Economist says about the British system:
Though dullness is the BBC's most obtrusive fault, it is of quite minor importance compared with the long-term political dangers of a broadcasting monopoly. It is almost incredible that any democratic country should have allowed itself, through a series of accidents, to create a monopoly of the greatest means of influencing public opinion since the invention of printing. Quite possibly, with the growth of television, broadcasting will in future be even more important than the printed word.
63260-333i
Let us heed a warning of that kind while there is yet time.
Let no one think the private broadcasting companies and the national system are not in competition to some extent with each other. There will be found in the report of the 1946 committee a suggestion that the two fields are distinct, that is, the field of national broadcasting on the one hand, and the field of community broadcasting by local stations on the other.	But that is not what the
evidence before the committee disclosed. The evidence before the committee was to the effect that C.B.C. on the one hand and the private stations on the other are in direct competition with each other for audiences, for commercial revenue and for programme talent. That evidence was given in strong terms before the committee by the representatives of the private stations, and it was admitted by both Doctor Frigon and Mr. Dunton, who said that to some extent there was competition.
The chairman of the C.B.C. agreed with me that it had been helpful to CJ3.C. to have that competition. He agreed it had helped to keep C.B.C. on its toes, that it had a healthy effect on C.B.C. I predict that if C.B.C. is allowed to remove from the field two of its largest competitors-for this kind of competition to C.B.C. is naturally the most acute in the large metropolitan areas where the more powerful stations are located-it is not going to be good for C.B.C. That additional monopolistic power will in the long run prove to be unhealthy for C.B.C.
Under the present statute the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has two chief functions. On the one hand, it is the operator of a national system of broadcasting and, on the other, it is the regulator of all broadcasting in Canada. If you will examine sections 8, 22 and 24 of the Broadcasting Act you will see where the widest possible powers have been given to the C.B.C. to regulate other stations. I shall not take up the time of the house to go over those now, but I emphasize that they give almost unlimited powers to the C.B.C. to control broadcasting by others in Canada.
The private stations came before the committee through their association, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. One sentence in their submission summed up their point of view in this regard. This sentence was:
We submit that no government with any claim to being democratic combines in one body the legislative, executive, judicial and police powers.
Radio Broadcasting

That is just the situation which exists here. This exclusive power is given to the C.B.C. to regulate all other stations. It makes all the determinations and there is no right of appeal from any decision. A private station operator goes before the C.B.C. when a question of discipline or a matter in dispute arises -of course the meetings are not open to the public-he makes his submission; he comes away, and the C.B.C. gives its decision. That is final and there is no appeal.
Please understand me. I am not for one minute suggesting that any member of the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would be a party to any deliberately unfair decision. I would not suggest such a thing, but I do suggest that any such set-up has an inherent weakness. It cannot help but create a sense of rankling injustice when persons have no appeal from C.B.C.'s decisions. In innumerable instances men are bound to go away feeling that they have not been justly dealt with when they have not been permitted to carry an appeal to some further body.
I ask the house to consider the analogy of our transportation systems. We have two national railway systems in Canada, the Canadian Pacific, a privately owned company, and the Canadian National which is publicly owned. Then we have an independent semijudicial body in the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada in which is vested the power to regulate both systems, the privately owned and the publicly owned'. That board has established its worth and no one challenges its position in the field of railway transport.
Consider air transport. We have in the Dominion of Canada one national transcontinental system, the publicly owned Trans-Canada Air Lines. Then we have another privately owned line, Canadian Pacific Air Lines, with a number of routes in different parts of the country. We do not think of putting Canadian Pacific Air Lines under the regulatory powers of Trans-Canada Air Lines any more than we would think of vesting the regulatory powers of the board of transport commissioners in the Canadian National to regulate and control its competitor. In the case of our air transportation systems we have set up an independent body, the air transport board, to carry on this work of regulation. The time has come-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am sorry to inform the hon. member, but he has spoken for over forty minutes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I have just five
minutes?


Mr. COLDWELL:: May I be permitted to say a word?


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I have five minutes?


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member has spoken now for nearly an hour. I do not think Mr. Speaker has been watching the clock. I have no objection to the hon. member having five minutes, provided that it is five minutes.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the hpuse that the hon. member shall have five minutes?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


James Horace King: With unanimous consent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thank the house. I have not spoken for an hour and I shall finish in less than five minutes. I feel that the time has come, with this healthy growth in private broadcasting in Canada-there are 103 stations -on the one hand, and with the national system on the other, when a separate public board should be set up possessing regulatory powers now enjoyed by C.B.C. Then C.B.C. would continue to operate the national system of broadcasting, but this separate body would have full powers of regulation of all broadcasting in Canada. It would all be in the public interest because there would be no question of favouring one as against another. It would ensure that the reins would be evenly held as between the private companies and the national system.
This is my concluding remark. This is going to cost money; this programme of expansion is going to cost money. This bill is asking that power be granted to the governor in council without further reference to parliament to advance to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation up to $10,000,000 for capital works.


Mr. McCANN:: You evidently have not
read it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is this one limitation, that for the next fiscal year there shall not be more than $2,000,000 expended. That is a, blank cheque, and I say that is unsound legislation. But the more serious feature is that if the house passes this bill its action will undoubtedly be construed as giving full approval to the programme of expansion which was described to the committee by the C.B.C. I say that in that course there is the inherent danger of monopoly and the danger of increased centralization. I do not think anyone can contemplate those dangers with equanimity. The danger establishes the necessity of setting up an independent regulatory board before this programme of expansion is proceeded with.

Radio Broadcasting
Under the bill the licence fees are to be supplemented at the expense of the taxpayers to the extent of over $500,000 a year, because now the taxpayer is to be asked to bear the cost of collecting and administering the fee. Even though this bill passes; even though this programme of expansion be thus approved and the moneys made available by the governor in council without further reference to parliament, I predict that in the long run it will be found that no favour has been done to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and in the long run it will suffer from withdrawal of competition which has been healthy for it. The public interest, I submit, will be in grave danger of abuse of the monopoly of a powerful instrument for influencing the public mind, capable of sowing the seeds of totalitarianism.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of the various radio committees of this house which have sat since 1940, and I have enjoyed working on them both because of the attitude of the chairman of those committees and the general free and open discussion which took place in the committee meetings. This year has been no exception, and I want to record my appreciation both of the manner in which the members of the committee conducted the inquiry and of the chairman under whom we sat, both the chairman himself, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) and the vice-chairman who sometimes substituted for him, the hon. member for Yaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Beaudoin).
The hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Fleming) outlined in the early part of his address some of the early history of the C.B.C. and what the house had in mind at the time the first broadcasting commission was set up after the Aird report. The Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, as hon. gentlemen will remember, was then prime minister, and in foreshadowing the act of 1932 he moved a resolution which will be found at page 2980 of Hansard of May 16, 1932. It was moved by Mr. Bennett that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, and I would urge hon. members to look at the wording of it:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the constitution of a commission to be known as the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, for the purpose of acquiring, operating, regulating and controlling radio broadcasting in Canada.
That, in effect, was the genesis of our present radio system. The house approved that resolution and a bill based upon it was subsequently passed. Mr. Bennett at the time reminded the house of this:
The use of the air, or the air itself, whatever you may please to call it, that lies over the soil or land of Canada is a natural resource over which we have complete jurisdiction under the recent decision of the privy council. I believe that there is no government in Canada that does not regret to-day that it has parted w'ith some of these natural resources for considerations wholly inadequate and on terms that do not reflect the principle under which the crown holds the natural resources in trust for all the people.
Because of the regret that governments in the past had alienated property which was the common property of the people of Canada, the government of that day, not only the prime minister but the opposition, now the government of Canada, approved the legislation setting up the commission. I was here in 1936 when the broadcasting act as we have it to-day was introduced and passed in this house, and I remember the discussion very well. I looked up the record not long ago, and I find that from all sides of the house there was approval of the establishment of a corporation which would exercise the powers that were outlined in the original resolution to which I referred a few moments ago. Again at that time the present Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe), then minister of transport, and in charge of the bill, had this to say as reported at page 3712 of Hansard:
The aim of broadcasting should be a complete coverage by government facilities and the present situation demands complete control over all forms of broadcasting whether public or private. These conditions are being maintained in the present bill.
There we have a statement confirming the original intention in setting up a publicly owned system. In view of all that is happening to-day, in view of I will not say lobbying because that might not be true, but in view of the tremendous press campaign that has gone on across Canada in the last year to limit the power of the present broadcasting corporation, it is interesting to note that the leader of the Conservative party warned the house that that might happen. At page 3710 of Hansard of June 15, 1936, he said:
At the moment we have secured the ownershp of this facility, or utility, or whatever you may call it, in the people of Canada, and we have ensured it against destruction by private interests, but the private interests have been very vigilant. They have been watchful of their own interests and have determined that if it is within their power, this facility is not to function as a public enterprise. They have determined fairly and legitimately, so far as that is concerned, to destroy this publicly owned facility. Their idea is that it should be in the hands of private enterprise.
That is the summation of the argument that we have heard in the press in recent months.
Radio Broadcasting


Arthur Leroy Smith: Nonsense.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member for Eglinton read a paragraph from the London Economist, criticizing the British broadcasting system. I have not brought with me and have not under my hand at the moment the report of the federal communications commission regarding broadcasting in the United States.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I can give it to you.


Major James William Coldwell: I am glad to know that the hon. gentleman has read it. I think every member should read it in order to realize the extent to which, in the United States, private interests have monopolized the air to the detriment of the public. Our system is a compromise between the British and the United States systems. We are not in favour, as the hon. member for Eglinton said we were, of a state monopoly owning and operating all radio stations in Canada. I believe that as long as the community stations are really community stations, serving the communities in which they operate, they perform a useful function and should not be interfered with. But I say this, that in the interests of freedom of thought and freedom of discussion we should own and operate the great national system which we have built up in this country and see to it that every part of this country is covered by it. That is the reason why we give our support to the recommendation in the report that the broadcasting corporation should complete its coverage and occupy the high-powered channels which were allotted to this country under the Havana agreement.
There has been a great, deal of discussion as to the alleged injustice of taking over the wave lengths occupied by CFRB and CFON. Let me point out that we are not taking over the stations. These radio stations can still operate, and they can operate on wave lengths which, to a large measure, they may choose themselves as far as wave lengths are available. But it was always understood- the present Minister of Reconstruction and Supply at Moncton in 1937 made it perfectly clear-that it was the policy of the government of Canada and of the broadcasting corporation to occupy the high-powered channels if and when they became available, and they became available when the Havana treaty w^as signed in 1941. A great deal has been made of the fact that these gentlemen claim-the fact is that they claim, the house will note-that they did not know when they took over these wave lengths and occupied them that their occupancy might be temporary. I do not want to doubt their word too strongly, but to me it is inconceivable that gentlemen

who were following the broadcasting situation in this country, and whose counsel in one instance, the brother of the manager of CFRB, was in fairly constant attendance at the committee meetings, did not understand clearly what the tenure of these stations really was. I am not going to put the whole extract on the record: but in 1942, a few months after these wave lengths had been allotted to these two stations, I was disturbed because that allotment had been made, and when the committee of 1942 was set up one of the things I was most anxious to find out was what the understanding was regarding these wave lengths. If you will turn to page 732 of the transcript of evidence of the present committee you will find that on that and the following page is quoted the examination I made of Doctor Frigon, recorded at page 333 of the proceedings of the committee of 1942, and that clearly indicated that Doctor Frigon at that time stated to the committee in the clearest possible terms that it was the intention of the corporation to occupy these wave lengths. I asked this question at the conclusion of the examination: "There is no possibility of any misunderstanding that these stations have a vested interest in those channels?" The answer was "No". I repeated it because I wanted to be abundantly sure; I said "None whatever?" And the answer was "No". "So that they can be reviewed-"


Donald Methuen Fleming: "Renewed".


Major James William Coldwell: "So that they can be reviewed at any time that the corporation needs those channels?" And the answer was. "They can be turned over to the C.B.C." "For its own purposes?" "Yes." I notice somebody said "renewed". The word I used was not "renewed"; it was "reviewed". It is a misprint in this report, and it may have been in the original-I do not know, but obviously the word I used was "reviewed." "Renewed" would not make sense.


Thomas Reid: What page is the hon. member reading from?


Major James William Coldwell: I am reading from page 733 of the transcript of evidence.
May I just say that I am convinced that right from the very beginning the occupants of wave lengths in this country knew that the occupancy was not permanent, and that whenever the national system required those wave lengths for the completion of the national system of broadcasting they would be taken over and, if they behaved themselves, another frequency would be provided for them.

Radio Broadcasting


John Horne Blackmore: Have they behaved themselves?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: They have behaved
themselves. I am not complaining of the service these two stations, CFCN and CFRB, have given, although I would point out that I do not think CFRB, particularly, has given the community service which was expected of it. I want to add this, that I hope the broadcasting corporation will make arrangements to complete the coverage by the national system thoroughly in this country. This year- and I agree in this respect with the hon. member for Eglinton-we did not have time to go into all the matters that we should have gone into as a committee. We began a bit too late-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Much too late. '


Major James William Coldwell: -and another year, I hope, we shall begin early in the session. But one of the matters which I think the next committee should go into is the completion of coverage in this country by the national system. We have quite an important area in this province of Ontario which is inadequately covered by the national system. I refer to the Windsor area. There is CKLW in Windsor; but it is not a Canadian station, it is on Canadian soil, but it is advertised in all the publications in the United States as "CKLW, Detroit", and caters mainly to the United States advertising trade. I think one of the things the people of Windsor expect, and should expect, is that if they pay a licence fee for the purpose of getting broadcasting service they are entitled to that service, and the corporation should consider ways and means of giving that area Canadian coverage and Canadian service through a Canadian station.
Another matter into which we could not go this year and which should be gone into another year is this question of multiple ownership, ownership or operation of a number of stations by one group. I agree completely with the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), and I raised the question at the end of the inquiry, that it is a danger to the state and to the people of the country when newspapers own radio stations. We have some good publishers in Canada; I am not criticizing them; some publishers who are fine Canadians and honourable people. But it is an unhealthy situation when, as in my own province and the neighbouring province of Manitoba, you have this situation, and I placed it on the record. You have the Messrs. Sifton owning the Winnipeg Free Press, the Free Press Prairie Farmer, which has a very
large circulation all over western Canada, and two radio stations, one standard band and the other short wave in the city of Winnipeg. You move into Saskatchewan, and the two dominant papers in that province, the Regina Leader-Post and the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, together with a widely circulated farm paper, the Saskatchewan Farmer, are also owned by Messrs. Sifton, and two radio stations in that province, CKCK and CKRM, both owned by the same people. It may be said that these stations are giving good services to their communities. I will not dispute that. But the present owners of these newspapers and of these stations may pass away. Into whose hands may they go? We do not know.
I believe it is an unhealthy situation to have radio and press owned by the same group of people, and in my opinion that is one of the factors which should be considered by the committee when it sits next year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why is it unhealthy?


Major James William Coldwell: Another matter into which we could not go this year because of lack of time was the ownership of stations by provincial governments. The Manitoba government at the present moment owns two radio stations, CKY and, I believe, CKX at Brandon. I understand that these two stations are as one in the arrangement that the Manitoba government is making for the taking over of CKY and CKX.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It is arranged now.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not know whether it is arranged. I have no proof and all I want to talk about is that of which I know. These two stations, I believe, are to be taken over. In Saskatchewan, where there is a monopoly of newspaper and radio service, which I regard as dangerous, the government has applied for permission tq operate a station. That has been refused. I am not going to discuss to-night the question whether the grounds on which the refusal is based are good or bad. I know there is an argument that it is difficult for a crown corporation like C.B.C. to regulate a crown corporation set up by a junior government. I can see there are difficulties.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Alberta was refused too.


Major James William Coldwell: I wish my hon. friend would let me make my speech.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am sorry. I thought I was being helpful.


Major James William Coldwell: You are not a bit of help to me.
Radio Broadcasting


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am awfully sorry.


Mr. ROWE:: You do not like interruptions, do you?


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. gentleman says I do not like interruptions.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I beg your pardon and add that I will not interrupt again.


Major James William Coldwell: Let me tell the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe that those who know me in the house know that I do not mind interruptions, but the hon. gentleman is so seldom in his seat that he does not know what happens in the house.


William Earl Rowe: Tell us how you would like it if the government owned them all.


Major James William Coldwell: You tell them that; you go ahead.


William Earl Rowe: I know your policy.


Major James William Coldwell: What I was saying was this, that if a newspaper or a group of newspapers is entitled to own radio stations, then a provincial government has a right to own and operate such stations.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Hear, hear.


Major James William Coldwell: If we admit the one we should admit the other.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thought you said that in one case it was a bad principle. Which is which? You said it was a bad thing for newspapers to own radio stations. Is it not then a bad thing for provincial governments to own radio stations? You said it was unhealthy.	.


Major James William Coldwell: I said I would not discuss the question whether it was good or bad-


Edmund Davie Fulton: You said it was a bad thing for newspapers to own them.


Major James William Coldwell: What I said was that I would not discuss to-night the question whether it was good or bad, but I expressed the opinion that newspaper ownership of radio stations was unhealthy. I said, however, that if newspapers are to be permitted to own radio stations, then there is no reason why provincial governments should not also own them.


James Horace King: Order. May I impress upon the house the importance of observing the rule that an hon. member who has the floor must not be interrupted without his permission, and those who wish to interrupt him should rise and ask that permission.


Major James William Coldwell: Thank you, .Mr. Speaker. I have no objection to having an intelligent question asked me and, if the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe can ask an intelligent question, I shall be pleased to answer it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Why strain the
situation?


Major James William Coldwell: But I object to the
continuous growl from this hon. gentleman to my right.


William Earl Rowe: You love me just about as
much as I love you. That is obvious.


Major James William Coldwell: What I was going to
say was that my hon. friends, who seem today so much interested in supporting private interests in regard to radio stations, were the very ones who, when they were in power, laid the foundations of the present broadcasting system.


William Earl Rowe: And you followed diligently.


Major James William Coldwell: My hon. friend apparently cannot keep his tongue still to-night. I do not know what the reason is. If we are to have a national system of broadcasting operated in the interests of the people, to which all points of view shall have access, then I suggest that the only type of radio coverage which will be satisfactory to all the people will be a radio system which is in the hands of the representatives of the people. That is the point of view I hold.


William Earl Rowe: Government-owned and gov-ernment,-dominated.


Major James William Coldwell: I want now to say
something about some of the good things that the radio corporation has done in this respect. I think the chairman of the committee has received some of the letters that have come to me-I have sent them to him- and he probably received a good many letters from farm and other groups across the country supporting the farm forum, which has been a feature of the radio corporation's activities for a number of years. That has been greatly appreciated. A few years ago we had a similar forum in connection with labour, but that was discontinued a year or so ago. I regret that it was discontinued because it was doing a very fine work and giving an opportunity for the expression of diverse views in the field of labour. I should like to see that farm forum continued. I should like to see continued the citizens' forum and the labour forum, and another form of forum added in which the employers, the manufacturers if you like, could discuss the problems

Radio Broadcasting
of the country from their point of view so that we might have all points of view placed before the Canadian people. I know it is very difficult to get such a forum organized. Better still, we might extend the forum idea so as to have a discussion of the various points of view held in the country, such a discussion to be carried on by those who represent the people. We all appreciate the report to the nation when we get the political parties giving their points of view as parties, but I believe it would be very much better if the representatives of the political parties were brought into one forum to discuss a common problem on the forum principle before the people of Canada. That would be a useful thing.


Solon Earl Low: They would have to tell the
truth then.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Yes. They could not
vilify any particular race or creed, or set up a lot of straw men in order to knock them over, or do the various types of things they can do when they are on the air alone.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does my hon. friend
mean during elections?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, I would do it during elections; I would do it at any time. I think it is a good plan to have matters discussed in that way.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We would sweep the country.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not know that there is a great deal more I want to say, except that we are supporting the report of the committee. As I indicated, there are some matters I should like to see covered in that report which are not covered. I think the officials of the corporation are protecting the interests of the Canadian people and are doing a good job. When I look back over the number of years I have been interested in broadcasting I realize that in many people whom I know, in my own circle of friends and my own family, the appreciation of good music has increased because of the good music we get over the radio. Many of the musical programmes of the C.B.C. are of a very high order, particularly when we consider that the amount of money at the disposal of the C.B.C. is very small indeed when compared with other radio organizations. As a matter of fact, the bulk of the radio revenue in this country does not go to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; to a very large extent it goes to the private interests of this country.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Why not; they are in competition.


Major James William Coldwell: All I want to say is that, as far as we are concerned, we hope the house will approve the bill now before us and give the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, set up originally by one government and modified but carried on by another government of a different sort, an opportunity to perform the functions for Canada that forwardlooking and progressive people believe it can perform.


Mr. DANIEL McIYOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the different branches of the Christian church all over Canada, to thank the radio management or the minister, or whoever is responsible for the free service we get over the air every day of the week-


Arthur Leroy Smith: It is the
private broadcasting stations which do that.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: -and double service on Sunday. It is a very fine thing that when a man sits down to breakfast in the morning he can listen to a voice coming over the radio from one who knows what he is talking about, telling him of a way of life that is second to none; telling him that he will have problems that day and that if he wants a partner to help him he may have that partner who knows no weakness and no foolishness. At the head of the lakes we have a service every morning, six days a week, free; then on Sunday afternoon we have double service all over Canada. We hear many things coming over the radio that are mere twaddle as far as building up citizenship in this country. It may be good music; it may be pleasing, but man needs something to pull him up when he is being dragged down by the devil himself. If the radio did nothing but give that free service over the air it would be justifying its existence in a splendid way. I have spoken over the radio, and I have received letters from people who were shut in, people in hospitals, people who did not have a dollar to put on the collection plate and who did not have to use that dollar to pay for the radio service. I take this opportunity of thanking radio; I hope they will keep it up, and I should just like to say, God bless them.


Ernest George Hansell: I must compliment the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) who has just preceded me, on those very fine remarks. I would suggest to him, however, that he could not have paid any greater compliment to private radio in Canada, for the private radio stations have not been behind in offering service to religious organizations day and night, seven days a week. If on occasion, and per-

Radio Broadcasting

haps on most occasions, they have charged for that service, it has been given at very reasonable cost.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, involving the expansion of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, is based-I think I had better say, is supposed to be based-upon the report of the parliamentary committee on radio broadcasting. Here and now I want to raise an objection to this bill being brought in before the report of the committee was concurred in. I believe that reports coming from such committees as that on radio broadcasting should be presented to the house, concurrence moved and full opportunity given for discussion, and a recorded vote taken by the house on the report.
I have been interested in radio for a number of years, and as a member of parliament, I have been on previous committees. I, too, wish to compliment the chairman of the committee and his associate, the deputy chairman, on what I believe to be the very fair way in which they handled the proceedings of the committee. I believe, however-and in saying this I am casting no reflection upon anyone because it can be applied to all members of the house-that this field of radio is so complicated and so tremendously involved that it takes years to understand it. I feel that with what little knowledge I may have I am only beginning to touch the fringe of this involved subject. So I would say that it behooves each and every member of parliament, including each and every member of a committee of this kind, to become fully acquainted with all that is involved before he decides to vote one way or the other on this measure.
This is not intended to be critical; but when the report was drafted I could not help feeling that at the last meeting, while the report was being drafted, the evidence was not reviewed perhaps as diligently, as carefully and as exhaustively as it should have been. When the report was finally drafted and accepted by the committee, and when I read it over next day, I had to say to myself that, so far as the report was concerned, the C.B.C. officials might just as well have written it several months ago and saved the committee all their trouble.
I would say, further, that the leader of the C.C.F. may just as well have written the report himself, and saved us the trouble of doing all that work. I listened to him with a good deal of interest to-night, and I felt that he was just not up to his old form. He seemed to be somewhat agitated throughout his speech. I could not help thinking that perhaps it might be because he recognized he was doing

a good job for the Liberal government; for I am going to say this, that I will challenge anybody on the government side of the house to give a better speech in favour of government ownership, in favour of the report as it is, in favour of the government policy on radio, than was given by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). It is obvious that the government and the leader of the C.C.F.-and I suppose he spoke for his party- are the Siamese twins of radio policy in Canada.
A few days ago I listened to the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), who is now the leader of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan.


Mr. KNOWLES:: The leader of what is left of it.


Ernest George Hansell: I heard him deliver quite a tirade against our socialist friends. I heard him attempt to prove that there was no difference between the C.C.F. socialist party in this house, and the communist party and that their ideologies were the same. Well, now, here is at least one measure in which our C.C.F. socialist friends and the Liberal administration agree, heart and soul.
It is as well for the country and for parliament and those who are interested to know that the report as submitted was not unanimous by a long way.


Arthur Leroy Smith: And how!


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, "and how".


Stanley Howard Knowles: How do you spell "how"?


Ernest George Hansell: As regards the way the report reads-and they all read the same- "the committee recognizes this"; "the committee recommends that"; "the committee reviewed this"; "the committee concluded that"-as a matter of fact it was only a fraction of the committee that concluded "this and that."


An hon. MEMBER:: Only a majority.


Arthur Leroy Smith: A supine maj ority.


Ernest George Hansell: "Supine" is the word- and how! The report submitted by the radio committee, almost every section of it, was vigorously opposed. I will say this, that some of us were prepared to leave the committee before it started, after we read the draft report. We knew there was not very much use in staying there and fighting. But we stayed and we talked the thing through until almost two o'clock in the morning.
I am alarmed by the growing authority being placed in the hands of the government-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Radio Broadcasting
It has already been pointed out that the corporation is the one authority which has authority over its competitors. I am not going to labour that point particularly, because it has been covered before. But I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is no other government enterprise I know of in Canada or in any other country, except in the totalitarian countries, where a government enterprise has vested within it regulatory and authorative powers to regulate and boss and police its competitors. Yet that is exactly what we find in the present set-up of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. And the act over the years has been written up to solidify and entrench that authority in the hands of the corporation.
Just for the sake of illustration let us suppose that the government should decide to bring into existence another corporation known as the Canadian Daily Newspapers Corporation. It would not be known as the C.B.C., but rather as the C.D.C.-not C. D. Howe. It will be known as the Canadian Daily Newspapers' Corporation. I wonder wrhat the people would say if that happens? I think they would lift their eyebrows in some alarm, and say, "What is the idea? I thought we believed in the freedom of the press?" And the government would say, "Oh, yes, we are not going to interfere with the press. The newspapers will operate just the same. The only difference is that we are going to have a government-owned daily newspaper corporation. We are going to have a board of governors to govern it. We are going to have our sub-boards, our committees, our departments, our specialists. And we are going to have vested in that daily newspapers' corporation regulatory authority which will regulate all other daily newspapers in Canada." What would you say to that? That is exactly what happens in the field of radio in Canada to-day.
Let us suppose, further, that the government said, "We will also vest in the Canadian Daily Newspapers' Corporation the right to control all national advertising. We will be the agents for all the national advertising, and the other dailies must carry only such advertising as we see fit. They can refuse it if they want to, but they cannot get any other if they do not take ours." What would you say to that? What would the minister who is piloting this bill say to that? What would the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe), who is the licensing authority, say to that? That is exactly what is happening to-day in radio.
63260-334J


Mr. JOHNSTON:: That is within the realm of conception.


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member for Bow River says that is within the realm of conception. That sort of thing could happen and it does happen in totalitarian countries. Supposing that this daily newspapers' corporation should have an editorial board and editorial writers. They might have a dozen writers, or even forty; it would not make any difference. They might say to that editorial board, "We want you to write daily or weekly editorials, and we are going to insist that all the daily newspapers affiliated with us accept those editorials." What would you say to that? That is exactly what is happening to-day in the field of radio.
Somebody in the past has said that in connection with its regulatory authority the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation acts only as an umpire in the field of radio. If I am not mistaken it was a previous chairman of the board of governors who said that, although I stand to be corrected there. That sounds all very nice, but did you ever hear of an umpire who was also one of the players in the game? Did you ever hear of an umpire who was also the pitcher in the game and who was able to call his own balls? That is exactly what is happening to-day in radio.
That is why we are advocating a separate body with semi-judicial powers. That may not be the right legal term to use, but-


An hon. MEMBER:: It is good enough.


Ernest George Hansell: -it is good enough. We should have a separate regulatory body which would be absolutely neutral in the field of radio. There is one sentence in the submission by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters where reference is made to police powers. This reads:	.
We submit that no government with any claim to being democratic combines in one body the legislative, executive, judicial and police powers.
No one has disagreed with the truth of that statement. "Police powers" is the phrase that is used there. Did you ever hear of a policeman who, on occasion, was on trial and also the judge and jury at the same time? That is exactly what is happening to-day in the field of radio. One may say, "If that is so, how did this all come about? Surely somebody sanctioned it?" I know the old arguments, but the way it all came about can be told only be referring to the history of radio. Why is it that the C.B.C. has been given so much power and authority? Surely there must have been some reason, or it would not have happened?
Radio Broadcasting

The history is simply this. Originally there was established a radio commission, the purpose of which was to protect the public from the possibility of irregularities in the field of radio. This commission was brought into existence years ago, I believe under a Conservative administration.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear!


Ernest George Hansell: Someone says, "Hear, hear." That was years ago, and radio has expanded; times and circumstances have changed. I think the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar by this time knows Mr. Bennett's statements by heart. I do not know why he brought down his manuscript to read, because he has quoted Mr. Bennett so often in the committee as an authority on this thing. Perhaps I could ask him, "If Mr. Bennett is such an authority on this matter, why do you not take him as an authority on a few other matters?" Oh, no; he could not do that. Why? Because this particular statement of Mr. Bennett's just happens to suit his purpose.
Do you suppose, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Bennett might have made that statement in those days if he had thought that over the years, with the changing scene in radio, there would be so much authority vested in the corporation? I do not believe he would have. If Mr. Bennett were sitting here to-day he might be speaking along similar lines to me. I am quite certain that he would not be in favour of all that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are asking for and getting. Believe me, there is not a thing they have asked for that they do not get in this report, unless it is a little more money and they will be back later asking for more.
Governments come and governments go, and it does not always follow that what a government will do at one time, it should or would repeat at another time, say a number of years afterwards. Many developments have taken place since the establishment of the old radio commission. Radio is a comparatively new science which is expanding rapidly. We do not know what lies ahead from one year to another, but these changes have been slow. The old radio commission grew into what is now known as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
The growth of radio has caused the corporation to adjust its policies and regulations over the years. The changes have been gradual; but they have been changes which have had the effect of giving to the corporation a little more power here, a little more power there, a little more now and a little more then, perhaps all unnoticed by an unsuspecting public. Perhaps they were not

regarded as being serious by the governments in office. However, I feel sure that if what has happened in this respect over a number of years had been done all at once the country would have been seriously alarmed and public opinion would never have permitted it to happen.
What is happening now? With the adoption of this report and this bill, I believe this year is a more or less crucial year. I have no hesitancy in saying that we are just about to decide whether private radio is to exist any longer in Canada. That is about the picture. You are going to drive them out of business completely. It is all very well for the officials of the corporation to say, "Oh, we do not want that". But it is another thing to do it.


James Joseph McCann: That was never suggested.


Ernest George Hansell: That is going to happen.


James Joseph McCann: No, it is not.


Ernest George Hansell: The minister says it is not going to hoppen. I say that if we continue in this way, that is exactly what is going to happen. The minister might say: We are going to let the private stations continue. It is true that you are going to give them a licence. But suppose there are two powerful networks set up in Canada using these high-powered stations; would it not be possible-and I asked this question in the radio committee-for the corporation to run those two networks and not have any need of private stations? The answer was no, but a kind of reluctant no.


James Joseph McCann: An emphatic no.


Ernest George Hansell: They were not sure. I asked the chairman of the C.B.C. and he said: "No, I do not think so." He went on to say: "I cannot tell you what future boards might do." And so forth and so on. It is al very well to say that a private station can have a licence; but remember this, a private station has to have an audience too.


Mr. MAYBANK:: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Ernest George Hansell: Oh, I suppose I can.


Ralph Maybank: Thank you, even though you seem to be reluctant. Would the hon. member be able to quote the page where these reluctant answers which he has been describing were given?


Arthur Leroy Smith: They are so obvious.


Ralph Maybank: You were there?

Radio Broadcasting


Arthur Leroy Smith: I was there.


Ernest George Hansell: We are going into committee on the bill, and I will give my hon. (riend the page and the line that I referred to and read the question and answer exactly as it was asked and given. I say that a private radio station must have an audience. Suppose there were two great networks on the air, one broadcasting Fibber McGee and Molly, and the other Lux Theatre. Perhaps they are both on the same network to-day. But suppose two great networks were broadcasting two popular programmes like that. How many people do you think would tune in to the local station to hear perhaps the local piano teacher putting on a recital, with her little junior pupils playing the piano? How many people would listen to that programme?
It is true that the radio corporation can say to the private stations: We are giving you a licence; you are still in business. But that is not. the thing. I know what will be said. It will be said that radio broadcasting has always been under parliamentary scrutiny, that the C.B.C. acts upon the recommendation of parliamentary committees, and that parliamentary committees have confirmed this and that policy over the years. When it is suggested that the policies of the C.B.C. are likely to become hard-and-fast, as immutable as the laws of the Medes and Persians, the cry always goes up from the radio officials: Succeeding radio committees have the right and the power to recommend changes. That is so in theory, but it is not so in practice.
Suppose, for instance, there should be a change of government, and there will be some day. I do not know when, but it is a foregone conclusion that the government that is in is on its way out. It must be. I do not know how long it will take, but that must be so. Then suppose another government takes office and changes the policy with respect to radio broadcasting. They may say: "We believe that there should be two networks on the air and that one of these networks should be absolutely controlled by the private stations. We believe in a separate regulatory body." A committee is set up and, the majority on the committee being members from the government side of the house, the committee brings in a report that changes the whole radio picture. Would you say, Mr. Speaker, that that government would not be accused of political interference? Certainly they would. It is all very well to say that the C.B.C. is run on the recommendation of parliamentary committees, and that the operations of the corporation and its regulations are under parliamentary scrutiny and can be changed any time parliament sees fit. I say again that may be so in theory but not in practice.
I have not much time left. I have a few more things to say when the bill is in committee. In conclusion, let me say there is not the slightest doubt in the world that there is a radio monopoly in Canada under government ownership. My hon. friend the member for Rosetown-Biggar, who is championing this bill, I should not say more ably but as vigorously as the minister himself could, is against monopoly, so I understand. I believe I have heard something to that effect from my hon. friends who sit immediately to my right. I have a press report here of the recent C.C.F. convention in the province of Saskatchewan, and I find that Professor Scott made a speech to the convention in which he said:
This Canada we live in, despite all that was promised during the war, is still dominated, except in Saskatchewan, by monopoly and private profit.
Mr. David Lewis, the national secretary of the C.C.F. also spoke, acording to the report in the press:
The same note ran through the national executive's report read by David Lewis, national secretary. " The report stated that monopoly was "king in Canada," that it was dictating national policy.
Further on in the report I find this:
National Leader M. J. Coldwell told the convention that the return of the country to private enterprise "is subjecting Canada to economic and social problems which could have been avoided if a proper system of democratic planning for reconstruction had been introduced."
Here are three men, one talking against private enterprise and the others deploring monopoly in Canada. Let me ask the leader of the C.C.F. or his deputy leader or the deputy to the deputy leader, or whoever of them wants to answer it, this question: Is there a monopoly in radio networks in Canada to-day?


Mr. CASSELMAN:: No answer.


Ernest George Hansell: I still pause for a reply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is there not all the difference in the world between a private and a public monopoly?


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Is there a monopoly in the postal service in Canada?


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend asks me if I know the difference between a private monopoly and a public monopoly. My reply to that is that in principle there is absolutely no difference. His colleague asks, "How about the post office?" Well, -we are always hearing about the post office when they want to talk government ownership.
Radio Broadcasting


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Do you object to that monopoly?


Ernest George Hansell: The post office is the king's royal mail-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It is a monopoly.


Ernest George Hansell: -and has always been that.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Oh, not always.


Ernest George Hansell: Well, it has been since the pony express, anyway. And another thing: nobody has ever proved that the post office is doing any better than private enterprise could do.


Charles Edward Johnston: It goes in the hole every year.


Ernest George Hansell: How does anyone know that private enterprise could not do the same job for two cents instead of four?
I wanted to say something on commentators, but I do not know whether I should go into that at the moment, because it is quite a long subject. But the matter of taking over the class 1-A channels has given us some considerable concern. I am not going to repeat what the hon. member for Eglin-ton (Mr. Fleming) said. He gave an excellent speech and reviewed what had happened with respect to notification being given or not given-not adequately given-to the stations that were about to lose their channels. But I will deal with the alternative suggestion that was made by those who now operate Canadian station CFCN on wave length 1010. They proposed to the C.B.C. some months ago-I believe it was last fall-that they might be able to retain their wave length and that the same purpose would be gained if the corporation should take another wave length, namely 1060, step up its power, and operate from another location, and the argument was, of course, .that that wave length was the wave length on which a station in Mexico wras operating. The officials of CFCN said, "Well, now, we believe that you could do the same job and cover the same people in that area of the country in Alberta if you would negotiate with Mexico for the use of that channel and set up directional antennae that would not interfere with the Mexican station covering all that they require." That was a reasonable suggestion. However, the point I want to put over is this, that when the officials were asked if they had investigated that suggestion the answer was, no. The only conclusion I can gather from that was that it was already predetermined, that they were going to take this wave length anyway, and regardless of any suggestion or negotiation with other countries-that could

go by the boards-"we are going to have this thing anyway." I think that at least they could have investigated the situation and sought out the possibilities which may lie in that direction.
In that connection I have a suggestion to make which may be a new one; I am quite certain it will not be acceptable to the C.B.C. It is this, that we permit CFRB and CFCN to stay on their present wave lengths and let them go up to the 50-kilowatt power, thereby reserving for Canada those channels, and let the C.B.C. wait before investing any money in new radio equipment. My contention is that, with the present rapid development in frequency modulation and in other branches of radio science, perhaps even in television, although that may be further away, it may not be many years until the new equipment which they contemplate using will be absolutely obsolete and that the money we are now voting for them will be a mere flash in the pan which will be spent, and nothing realized thereby. It may be of interest to some to know that the national broadcasting system in the United States has already spent in the neighbourhood [DOT] of 815 million on frequency modulation and television research alone, without getting a nickel out of it. That is what the C.B.C. is faced with in the next few years. And goodness knows what would happen if television ever came into its own.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They will be broadcasting the House of Commons.


Ernest George Hansell: I am told that it would cost three-quarters of a million dollars to put on one show for one hour only on a national network, under television. That is a lot of money. I believe the corporation would be on safer ground to say to the present operators of these wave lengths, "We will let you boost your power to 50 kilowatts. It may cost you a little money." They will be further ahead if, when they eventually had to make a change, they compensated these stations for any money which they might have spent in boosting their power.


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


Arthur Leroy Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it was promised by the government in this house, when the hon. member agreed not to discuss the resolution, that he should have as much time as he wanted when the bill came before this house.
I remember that distinctly.

Radio Broadcasting


William Ross Macdonald: With the unanimous consent of the house the hon. member may continue for five minutes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: On another point- of order, sir, we adopted a different method. We brought a report in from the committee, and it was arranged with the leader of the house at that time: he told the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) who raised the point, that when the bill came in he should have as much time as he required at this stage of the discussion of the bill. I am anxious to see that undertaking carried out.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) is quite correct, but the only guarantee that a member of the government can give is subject to the unanimous concurrence and consent of this house.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I gather that the government concurred.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I repeat that with the unanimous consent of the house the hon. member for Macleod may continue for a period of five minutes.


Ernest George Hansell: The time did seem to go very fast.


James Joseph McCann: You have been broadcasting.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am glad the minister has heard a good broadcast at last. It did not come from his side of the house.


Ernest George Hansell: I appreciate the remarks
of the hon. member for Calgary West in coming to my rescue, but I have arranged my material in such a way that I think I can facilitate the business of the house. I just want to say a few more things; it will take only five minutes. The rest of my forty-minute speeches I shall be willing to give in committee. That is the way I have arranged it. However, five minutes will do now. I have another suggestion to make and this one will not be acceptable. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar read a statement made by Mr. Bennett that the air waves could be likened to the natural resources of the people, and that these air waves belong to the people. All right. The natural resources belong to the people and they belong to the people of the provinces. Here is a suggestion I am going to make. It is true that the air waves belong to the people and it is true that under the present broadcasting act the federal government seems to have jurisdiction over those air waves; but there is no reason in the world why provincial governments should not also have some jurisdiction over wave lengths, particularly when
those wave lengths are confined within the provinces themselves. If we want to have real competition in Canada, which I believe would be a good thing for radio-and I am not saying there should be no supervision at all; that is why we recommend a neutral body-then I suggest that each provincial government be given a wave length which will be their own to do with what they please. If they wish to have a station of their own, all right; if they wish to allow a private radio company to have that wave length, OH. It is their business; it is their wave length. Furthermore, I am going to suggest that the provinces could very well unite in a second network to be run by private radio stations. In that way each province would have a wave length which would be the people's, and you would have two national networks-no monopoly, and one running in competition with the other. That is my suggestion and I feel positive about it.
Even with my Liberal friends going socialist as they have gone during the war, I cannot understand this plunging the whole radio business into such a monopoly as they are doing. I cannot believe that the ministers who are piloting this bill through, and who seem to look so wise and intelligent about it, can at heart be really in sympathy with that policy, and I have concluded, perhaps wrongly-I do not believe wrongly-that the officials of the corporation have unduly influenced the government in respect of radio policy, and that what we are dealing with in the bill is not essentially government policy but is essentially C.B:C. policy, because they want their position solidified and entrenched. With these words, I shall now conclude my remarks and what I have to say otherwise I shall say when we are in committee.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, I believe that one of the things that add zest to being a member of parliament in this house is that there are at least four parties in it. Some of my hon. friends have blamed the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) for agreeing in this particular instance with the principles of the Liberal party on the other side. Surely, after all, once in a while one has to agree with someone, and: may I say to my Conservative friends to my right that when they bring forward such a good idea as that advanced by the Liberal party in this particular instance they may be sure of our support in that regard. There is nothing sinister in the kind of alliance that I have named, because we in this particular group agree with the particular party in this house that we think for the time being is right.
Radio Broadcasting

May I say that I am very much interested in this matter of radio in general, and in particular I am very much interested in the work of this c-ommittee of which I was a member. I am seized with the importance of radio as one of the greatest media we have for the spreading of news, of information and of education and for the promotion of good taste in music, in literature and in the arts. I am somewhat disappointed in my hon. friends, both to my left and to my right, that they have not any one of them to-night mentioned that particular phase of the matter. It would appear to be a struggle between two interests, or two ideologies or two ideas, and one in which, I submit, there is a substantial amount of cash involved.
Radio is a great blessing and a great gift, and it involves great responsibility. I said there was cash involved. I remember, when we thought that everything was very dear, we used to joke and say, "Well, at least the air is free." In this particular respect, even the air is no longer free. The air has become big business, and if you wanted any evidence of that, all you had to do was to attend some of the sessions of the radio committee, of which I did not miss any meetings. If you looked at the faces of the people around you, those occupying chairs and those who wished to occupy chairs but for whom there was no room, you would understand that there must be some money somewhere in this business of radio.
There are those who would like to sift the air through their fingers and retain something in the process. There is a question, to whom does the air belong? The matter was expounded by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) and again in this connection my leader the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar stated! that the air over Canada belonged to the people of Canada. The question fortunately was settled in the main for this country in 1932 and again definitely in 1936 when the broadcasting act was passed. The resolution that preceded the bill was introduced by the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. I shall mention his name again, although for some reason my Conservative friends do not seem to relish quotations from that right hon. gentleman. Perhaps this is one of those mild reforms which the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett advocated and then, or shortly afterwards, he ceased to be the leader of the party of my hon. friends. However, I shall quote from that resolution of 1932:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the constitution of a commission to be known as the Canadian Radio Broadcasting 
Commission, for the purpose of acquiring, operating, regulating and controlling radio broadcasting in Canada.
To whom does the air belong? As I said before, I suggest that it belongs to the people of Canada; and it is for us to decide-and when I say "us" I mean the people of Canada -not certain radio institutions that have managed to get their fingers upon some of what I at least consider to be the public domain; it is for us to decide what should be done with it. The hon. member for Macleod has challenged us to say this is not a monopoly, in which he says we believe. All right, I shall accept the challenge. If it is a monopoly of the people, let it be a monopoly, provided that the people have it in their hands and have power to control it through this parliament. As I said a moment ago, this ownership, whether it be the ownership of the people or the ownership of private interests, involves responsibility for what goes on the air, the type of programme, the kind of music; and I maintain that this responsibility can be better fulfilled by a body which is under public control than it would be fulfilled by any commercial enterprise which has as its main object the profits it can command from the handling of the air waves. I believe we can have more freedom of speech under a system that is publicly owned than under a system under which any man with sufficient money can buy his way on to the air, while the man who has no money cannot have the same privilege because he cannot afford it. Where profit is the motive, I am afraid some of us sometimes lose our moral sense. Where profit is the motive, I am afraid there is a temptation, shall we say, to take too much time for advertising, too much time on profitable announcements.
I could go into the record of the private radio stations in this country. I shall not take time to do so. but I have here a publication which show's the comparative amount of time spent on sustaining programmes and on commercial or paid programmes in this country over a period of two weeks. I can show the house where at least four of the private stations whose names have been bandied about here to-night during those two weeks devoted about twenty per cent of their time to what might be called public service and eighty per cent of their time to a straight money-making commercial proposition.
Another point I wish to make is that there is a temptation to accept the sponsored propaganda of those having one set of ideas when there is insufficient time to give those with opposite ideas an equal opportunity on the air, or when the people who hold those other ideas, as I have said, do not have sufficient

Radio Broadcasting
money to pay for their expression over the radio. There is also, I think, quite a temptation to accept anything that is paid for, irrespective of its merit or its effect upon the culture of the country in general.
That, of course, brings up the question of whether commercialism has a conscience. I would submit, sir, that commercialism finds itself in a constant struggle with its conscience, a struggle between the desire for profit and its conscience. Little has been said to-night of this matter of culture. You may say that many good men are in private business, and I would agree. But I would also point out that regulations are necessary in this country to curb that very thing of which I am speaking; that greedy, avaricious commercialism which cares about nothing except the profit it makes. If you do not believe that, let me mention the fact that regulations are necessary in this country to keep commercial interests from selling cigarettes or liquor to children; that there are commercial interests who would cheerfully sell drugs to drug addicts if they could get the money for them and if the regulations and the policemen did not prevent them from doing so. If you think commercialism has any particular conscience, look at our news stands and see the type of literature, so-called, offered to our young people there. Those who put out these publications for profit are apparently not concerned with the effect of that type of reading upon the people. You may say, "Well, after all, these people are in a commercial business." That is exactly the answer I got when I put that question to the editor of a great newspaper. I found some fault with the sort of thing they were publishing, and saying it would have a harmful effect upon the mind of the body politic. His reply was, "Sir, we are not running a Sunday school here. We are going to give the people what they want and what they are prepared to pay for. We are running a commercial institution." That very thing has always been a problem in my mind. To what extent is it the responsibility of an editor, or of a radio broadcaster, or of the C.B.C., if you like, to try to elevate the public taste? I say we have more chance of having the public taste elevated by an organization controlled by the people of this country, through this parliament, than by a mere commercial institution which is primarily in the business for the money it makes. I hold that men not motivated by the desire to make money out of programmes will make better decisions, more nearly in conformity with the public good.
I now come to the matter of this radio committee. One could see that what was
chiefly stirring there was this matter of money interest. Evidently something was going to be done that would cost somebody some money, and there was a good deal of protest against that. I come to one of the main recommendations of the report. I agree with the report when it says it is best for the C.B.C. to retain its dominant position in Canadian broadcasting. I believe-and this is where the money lies-the national system is fully justified in taking over the three wave lengths which have been mentioned, whose power is to be increased under the Havana agreement. Earlier the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar read from page 732 of the proceedings of the committee the questions he asked Doctor Frigon away back in 1942, so I need not repeat that. One of the claims of these private companies was that they did not understand they would have to surrender these wave lengths, and, second, that they did not get sufficient notice from the C.B.C. that those wave lengths would have to be surrendered. I cannot accept the word of these private companies on either count. That whole matter was discussed in the committee of 1942, while counsel for these private interests sat by in a chair and, as the evidence showed, himself took part in the discussion. Can anyone tell me that the head of any great corporation where millions of dollars are involved or the counsel for any such corporation, would not understand the conversation which was going on in that committee, particularly when he was taking part in it, and that then these same interests should come back-if not the actual men-four or five years later, and say that they did not understand that they were to lose those wave lengths?
Then there is the matter of insufficient notice being given. They said that on their licence in 1941 there appeared some new, mysterious words which had never been on there before: "This licence is granted subject to regulation, number so-and-so". But they said, "We did not pay any attention to it". Counsel who are employed by corporations of that kind are not men of that type. There is no doubt in my mind that those men knew, just as well as if the regulations had been translated for them, and I have no doubt that they were looked up, and thoroughly understood and discussed.
I would say, "The nerve of them!" I should say they should have been thankful for the use of those wave lengths for three or four years in this country, which has been able to establish them and get them on their feet, instead of at this date protesting that they
Radio Broadcasting

is more or less a reproduction of a section in the act of 1932. As was suggested by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) seems to have carried in his pocket some lines of some of the speeches of the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett. It is true that in those days Mr. Bennett did favour government-owned radio, but it is well to remember the reason for his attitude at that time was that radio, which had been hardly more than a toy or plaything a few years earlier, had become a great agency for formulating opinion. It was learned one day in Canada that the air channels had been largely taken over by our neighbours to the south and nothing less than the government of Canada could redeem Canada's position in the air over this continent. It was, I think, by the use of that argument, the truth and sound basis of which no one at that time doubted or possibly still doubts, that there was recruited to the doctrine of government ownership people who generally are not so profoundly impressed by the wisdom of that doctrine. The leader of the government at that time used strong language, language which is now being interpreted as favourable to a government-owned monopoly of broadcasting to-day. I think it well that the house should know that the reason for that attitude was that anything less than the voice of Canada, speaking the language of diplomacy and speaking for the Canadian people could have redeemed for Canada her place in the air.
But this is a new science, something that has become one of the greatest influences upon human life that has been devised probably in the last two thousand years. Through it news is transmitted instantaneously from the remotest corners of the earth; through it information is spread; through it opinions are formed; and through its use or abuse minds are moulded and men galvanized into action in ways entirely unprecedented. I doubt if a Mussolini or a Hitler could have found his way to power as rapidly or as absolutely as they did had it not been for the device that is now under discussion. So that I do not think there is any reason to apologize if a person were to modify his position.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) seemed to think that everybody who had ever been associated with the Conservative party was absolutely bound by the statements that had been made some years ago in other circumstances by a capable and a distinguished Canadian. I for one do not feel that I am bound or that any member of this party is bound by anything that may have been said by a distinguished leader of 
the Conservative party fifteen years ago when he was struggling strenuously and successfully, to regain for Canada her place in the air over this continent.
But there have been changes, changes particularly in the use of radio. I am going to be very candid, possibly curt, in stating that my fear is that the government, not only this government but any government, will use this power, this great and unrivaled power, improperly to maintain itself in oflice or to defeat its opponents. I do not think it is wise that we on the northern half of this continent should unnecessarily expose ourselves to such a danger.
I have been looking through some of the reports of former years. I have before me seme of the reports that were made in 1943 and 1944. I am not going to weary the house by reading from them; but it was stated, not once, but stated a dozen times, that the broadcasting corporation would be non-partisan, that it would be free from political domination. I have cut most of my eye teeth. I do not pretend to be wiser or to have more experience than other hon. gentlemen who have lived in Canada and have had some association with public affairs, but I think we have to admit, in all honesty, if not in pride, that bodies like the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, closely associated with government, whose administrators are government appointees, in moments of stress yield to the temptation of government dictation. I believe that to be a fact; I know it to be a fact. I will go farther and say that if the party to which I belong were in power and were subjected to the same temptations, to the same possibility of wdelding that irresistible power of formulating public opinion by the statement of fiction as facts or by the colouring of facts or by the repression of facts or by keeping opponents from saying what they wished to say over the air, I am not certain it would have the grace to resist.
I do not think it is well that we in this country, cherishing and believing in freedom of speech as we do should subject ourselves further to that kind of danger.
I am not disposed at this moment to put on the record all the information I have here; but there are letters, some of which are already incorporated in the debates of this house, which show that the broadcasting corporation, under direction of the government, kept certain political opponents of the government from the air. That is not a healthy situation. It is not a type of thing which should be tolerated. When a political party is in stress, whether it be in. one province or whether it be in another, the agencies which are under its control, be it radio commis-

Radio Broadcasting
sion, be it liquor commission, be it unemployment insurance commission, be it old age pensions, all these bodies are more or less wracked, if not wrecked by the stresses and strains of the moment. I ask the government to amend this act in such a way as to relieve those strains and perils.
One point which I wish to develop further is the very minor position in which the private station finds itself. The private station is restricted to the humblest kind of local work. Radio in its essence is the defeat of distance.	If you restrict radio in its
flight, if you pinion it to a village or a locality, or one low-powered station, you defeat and deny it its own essence. It is the hook-up that is the essential characteristic of broadcasting, and when the private station is denied the privilege of becoming associated with other stations throughout the land it is put on a lesser and lower plane than the stations owned and operated by the government. The government-owned corporation enjoys the only privilege of communication throughout the whole area of this dominion.
It is stated that the private stations are mere money-making enterprises, and some rather harsh things have been said about them. If it be desired that a portion or a greater portion of the time of the private station be devoted to cultural work, to educational work, to music or to literature, all well and good. It is within the competency of the regulating body so to determine. And here I wish to associate myself with what the hon. member for Eglinton has said about the function of the C.B.C. which is both a competitor and a judge in the same race. The activities of the privately-owned station can be properly regulated. But to put the privately owned stations in such a position that they cannot compete with the government-owned station is to create and develop a monopoly of broadcasting in Canada.
There is something more. We have heard about the taking over by C.B.C. of one or two stations: I am not going into that. But if these privately owned stations are to be displaced and forced to seek other and less favourable channels for their broadcasting, private enterprise is going to say, "Well, there is no future here; we are only tenants, not even during good behaviour, but only tenants so long as it pleases the particular party in power to let us breathe." That is not a healthy situation.
We have developed in Canada something which is peculiar to ourselves. I am not certain that it is a wise policy but here we have government-owned facilities in competition with privately owned ones. We have the railways, the ships, the telegraph, the aeroplane. I sincerely hope that the semipromise given by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) the other day may be realized and that aerial navigation will not be a total monopoly of government as it was indicated it was going to be. But we have in transportation and in communications the publicly owned services in competition with the privately owned services, and they all serve to keep the privately owned and the publicly owned services alert, active, and not quite as arrogant as they might otherwise be. I believe that the minister who is guiding through the house the bill which is before us to-night should remember that competition has not been entirely banished from the realms in which government owned service operates, and that he would do well to suggest amendments to the act which would permit some rivalry between the publicly owned and monopolistic corporation and privately owned stations, degraded and humble though they be.
Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's); There are a few remarks I should like to make this evening. I was a member of the radio committee, and I have been a member for quite a few years. One thing I find difficult to understand:	I should have thought that,
before this bill was introduced, the particulars of it might have been discussed in the committee. As far as I can find out, that has not happened.
I am not in favour of the bill as it stands. The taxpayers of Canada believe-and I agree with them-that this is a time for economy, not for spending their money. Taxes are already too high in this country.
One other criticism I would make is that the committee was set up very late. The first meeting was not held until, I believe, May 28, long after the session started, and the heavy programme which the committee had to consider made it inevitable that the report would be brought down very late in the session. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, there were a great many aspects of broadcasting in Canada which, owing to the lateness of the sittings of the committee and in spite of the fact that in the last few weeks we sat two and three times a day, we did not have time to consider. Among other things, we did not get the financial statement of the corporation until almost the last day or so of the sittings of the committee and there was no opportunity to discuss it thoroughly. I think the house now fully
Radio Broadcasting

understands that the report of the committee and other reports of previous committees have been far from unanimous. As the hon. member for Eglinton aptly stated, it was a majority union report of the C.C.F. and the Liberal party.


An hon. MEMBER:: Good combination.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You said it, brother.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: And how! In anything I say I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am in favour of a nationally owned system of radio in this country, but I am in favour of radio broadcasting being properly controlled and not controlled in the manner in which it is.
A good' deal has been said about the original setting up of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but times have changed and the act which gave sanction in 1936 to the principles we have to-day are out of date in these modern times in view of the changes that have taken place from year to year. A great many members of the committee feel, therefore, that there is need for a change in the act. But there is only one way in which we shall ever get that change, and that is to have it go before an independent tribunal in open session and have witnesses called representing all points of view, including listeners. Then we may come to some conclusions which will be more suited to modern times.
I hold no brief for any private stations. I am not speaking to-night for anyone in particular, but I have great fear of the dangers that exist in Canada along the road we are travelling in the matter of radio and in view of the growing monopoly on the part of the C.B.C., and the grave danger that the people of Canada will eventually be listening to one or two voices but only one point of view, and freedom of speech will be lost.
I think it has been proved to-night that there is a monopoly of radio in Canada, and it has also been shown how the radio broad1-casting corporation is constituted. It maintains a monopoly of all telegraph wires and will not allow private stations to have full use of the facilities at their disposal. It has been ' shown how the whole thing works.
On motion of Mr. Ross (St. Paul's) the debate was adjourned.
At eleven o'clock the. house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order. LMr. D. G. Ross.]
Saturday, August 24, 1946