1946-08-24

SALES ABOVE CEILING PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). I tried to communicate with several departments this morning, but was unable to reach the right officials, although I did eventually reach the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Gibson). My question is this: Is the government aware that in some areas in Canada the price of bread is being increased, and bread is being sold above the ceiling price? If so, has the government or the wartime prices and trade board taken any steps in the matter, or do either intend to do so?


Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) in this instance followed his usual courtesy of sending notice of his question, although I am sorry we did not receive it earlier. When it is brought to the attention of the board that price ceilings have been broken, prosecutions frequently follow. If the hon. member will furnish either the board or myself with the names of the parties to whom he has referred, they will be dealt with immediately.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended asking a question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) but perhaps in his absence the Minister of Reconstruction would answer. Has the controller appointed in the steel dispute been able to do anything in regard to a settlement since the committee on industrial relations finished its work?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction):: Mr. Speaker, I have had no direct contact with the controller recently, and therefore I am unable to answer the question. However I would point out that one party to the dispute refuses to obey any directions of the controller, and therefore he is some-

Radio Broadcasting
what handicapped in trying to work out arrangements between the workers and the managements.



PAYMENT OF INCREASED WAGES BY STEEL COMPANY OF CANADA

Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he can tell the house whether an opinion has been sought or given as to the legality or illegality of the action of the Steel Company of Canada in paying triple wages to those now working in its plant at Hamilton.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): No opinion has been sought and no opinion has been given.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the government regard it as legal or illegal?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The government does not regard it at all. It has not been brought to the notice of the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are doing it now, and the plant is under the control of the government.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If the hon. member will be more specific, perhaps some opinion could be expressed, but I should be very much surprised if there was a lawyer anywhere who would attempt to give an opinion based on nothing more than the statements made in the house this morning.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A question has been directed to the Minister of Labour time and time again, and he will not answer.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member put his question and then asked another and was answered by the right hon. minister. I cannot permit a debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But I did not get an answer.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-EXTENSION OF SALMON SEINING IN AREA 17

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN L. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni): I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that British Columbia members have received telegrams with regard to salmon seining in area 17 in British Columbia can the minister advise the house as to what decision he has made in that regard ?
Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries):: The whole matter in connection with extending the boundaries of area 17 is receiving active consideration by myself and departmental officials. I would also add that the director of western fisheries left for British Columbia last night to make a further investigation.



IMPORTS FROM WEST INDIES-CONCESSIONS TO CANADIAN GROWERS AND PROCESSORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, which possibly may be treated as a notice. In view of the increased price of sugar which is imported from the West Indies, will the government, with a view to encouraging production in 1947, consider granting similar concessions to growers and processors in Canada as have been ordered in the United States of America?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I shall take that as notice and give the hon. gentleman an answer later.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton):
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction ami Supply. I have not been able to send him notice of it, because it is based on a telegram. Has the minister any information concerning an increase in rents being charged by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to its tenants in what was formerly known as the Jesuit military hospital in Edmonton?
Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no knowledge of any increase in rents, but I shall be glad to make inquiry and answer later.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.



VETERANS AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
888. Departmental administration - further amount required, $484,923.
John Bracken: Will the minister make a brief statement on this item? I think it would help us to expedite its passage.
Housing

Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): The need for these supplementary estimates is brought about by accelerated demobilization. We had an estimate of a monthly demobilization rate of 38,500 per month, and the actual rate was 66,500 per month for a six months period. This has entailed additional expenditure. First, there is the provision for one year's free treatment. As I say, the men are coming home much sooner than we thought we could get them home. There is $6,000,000 needed as a result of the action taken this year by parliament in reestablishing the insurance principle. An amount of $1,000,000 is needed for war veterans' allowances, but the main item is in regard to the year's free treatment. Some additional amounts are required under the Veterans Land Act, but most of these items have been sanctioned by the parliament this session as a result of deliberations by all parties. Departmental administration has naturally been increased because of the men coming home earlier than was expected, but this cost should go down substantially next year. Broadly and briefly speaking, those are the main reasons for the increases.


Mr. PROBE:: I think the Minister of Veterans Affairs should be complimented upon the manner in which he treats the committee,
. especially when we consider the action taken by other ministers when their estimates are before us. I have sat here many times when a minister has brought in an enormous estimate which he expected us to digest and pass without making a statement of any kind. I resent being thus treated as a cipher, and for that reason I want to say thank you to the Minister of Veterans Affairs for making the statement he has. Is it not true that we have passed the peak in the demobilization activities and that from now on there should be a considerable decrease in the Department of Veterans Affairs personnel?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: We have passed the peak in regard to demobilization and reconversion, but we will not reach the peak in regard to expenditures until about March of next year.


John Oliver Probe: Is it not true that the staff in the department is being reduced? Has the minister any figures which will indicate when the peak was reached?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Most of the staff is occupied in connection with hospital administration and treatment. We expect that they will be required until next spring, because of the provision for free treatment for all demobilized and discharged ex-service men.
(Mr. Fleming.]


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: How many veterans and dependents have still to be brought back to Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not sure, but I think about 12,000. I shall find out definitely.


George Hugh Castleden: How many houses are still required for veterans? There is a terrific shortage of houses for veterans in Ottawa and right across the country. What is the present deficiency, and what are the prospects of meeting it?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That matter is definitely under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Reconstruction. This year we have built over 2,700 houses, and then we have been assigned to construct 4,000 units for next year, which is part of the 8,000 units in Canada. We do not intend to intrude into the field of urban housing. Under the Veterans Land Act we want to make our housing a matter of settlement in addition to providing occupational opportunities by locating close to industrial areas.


George Hugh Castleden: That does not answer my question. According to the minister's figures he will have 2,726 houses with an additional 4,000. That is out of a total programme of 8,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


George Hugh Castleden: That takes care of about 7,000 veterans.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no urban housing at all.


George Hugh Castleden: What is the lag in urban requirements?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have none, except in the one case at Calgary. The Calgary area is extensive; the city offered us tax free land and we did engage in certain housing there, but apart from that there will be no urban housing under the Veterans Land Act.


John George Diefenbaker: Last year I brought up a question with regard to hospitalization, and the utilization of the natural facilities available at Watrous lake, the chemical waters of which have been found to be beneficial for the treatment of neurological diseases. Ever since the Indian tribes used to gather there more than two hundred years ago, use has been made of the waters of this lake in the treatment of certain types of disease, particularly unsettled mental conditions and the like. Within the last six months the government of Saskatchewan made an investigation to ascertain the properties of the waters of this lake, and I understand they have been found to be particularly beneficial for neuro-

Supply-Veterans Affairs
logical complaints. I do not think there should be any difficulty in arranging with the government of Saskatchewan to make available to soldiers requiring neurological treatment certain facilities that were built there some fifteen years ago. I should like to have a statement from the minister with regard to the matter. Last year he gave me a most considerate answer and said that the matter would be looked into.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I appreciate my hon. friend's bringing this matter to my attention. The real question is this: are there enough ex-service patients whose treatment would warrant the development of Watrous lake? I am told by my parliamentary assistant that it is an ideal site for a health and occupational centre for the treatment of veterans. I can assure my hon. friend that if it is deemed necessary to expand in that direction, his recommendations will be most carefully reviewed.


Mr. QUELCH:: How long will it be before veterans can take advantage of the amendment to the Veterans Land Act permitting loans of $3,000? I have received several letters but I understand that no application has yet been granted.


Mr. TUCKER:: One has already been
settled under the provisions of the amended section, and there is no reason why the policy should not be applied right along.


Mr. SKEY:: Would the minister make a
brief statement on Sunnybrook hospital? When will it be completed and staffed and in operation?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are beginning now to send the first patients into Sunnybrook. As my hon. friend is well aware, all the units have not yet been completed, but we shall have a gradual infiltration of patients into Sunnybrook from now on until the unit is completed with the conjoined units of the health and occupational centre and the Davis-ville estate. The three units will form the finest hospital centre in the dominion.


Mr. ADAMSON:: The first to be completed was the out-patients building?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Have complete surgical facilities been installed? When will the surgical part of D.VA. be removed from Christie Street to Sunnybrook?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There will be certain surgical facilities available in the unit now,
but the hospital will not be completed for some months yet because of difficulties in regard to labour, bricklayers particularly, and the shortage of supplies and material, all of .which were beyond my control. But I can assure my hon. friend that it is the earnest and urgent desire of this department to have Sunnybrook finished as soon as possible, and I hope that every single member of parliament will attend the opening ceremonies.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Does the minister expect that he will be able to staff Sunnybrook adequately when it is completed?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Last December on the minister's estimates I brought his attention to the extremely low pay which the D.V.A. nurses are receiving as compared with the pay of nurses in the armed services and in hospitals throughout the country. The minister said he would give the matter consideration and see whether anything could be done to increase the compensation for nurses.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have substantially increased the salaries of doctors working for D.V.A., and we have received complaints from civilian hospitals that we are paying our nurses more than they can afford to pay. We make certain allowances for board and lodging which increase the comfort of their existence.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: If the civilian hospitals are
forced to pay their nurses more, it will be a good thing.


Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):: In regard to the Veterans Land Act houses in Westminster township, I understand that the water mains are being laid from the city of London and that the public utilities commission has a flat rate for each hydrant placed in any area. What arrangements have been made in that regard? The drainage system that is being installed there comes to a dead end, with no outlet. What arrangements are being made to take care of that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I regret to say for
once that I am waterlogged. I have not the information, but I shall be glad to get it for my hon. friend.


Mr. GILLIS:: The civil reinstatement act
was amended in 1942 to bring it into line with the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to those who might be affected by an industrial dispute. Consideration should be given to amending the act, because hundreds of exservice personnel are involved in industrial disputes which were none of their making;
Supply-Veterans Affairs

the conditions which brought them about arose during the war when the men were in the service. They came back and took employment in an industry and soon found themselves out of work. Under the civil reinstatement act they are entitled when out of work to certain benefits. There is a great deal of criticism throughout the country, particularly in areas in which industrial disputes are in progress because of difficulties between management and labour largely brought about while these boys were overseas because they do not receive out-of-work benefits. Has the department given consideration to applying the statutory provision for out-of-work benefits to certain periods when these men are out of work?


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member, having
been concerned with labour matters much longer than I, knows how difficult the situation
is.	He knows that under the Unemployment Insurance Act a man who is out of work through a labour dispute cannot get unemployment insurance.


Clarence Gillis: That is quite all right.


Walter Adam Tucker: There are many veterans
who are not entitled to the out-of-work allowance, and if they are out of work because of a labour dispute they cannot get unemployment insurance. If we stepped in and said to the veteran: You are entitled to the out-of-work allowance and we shall pay
it,	it would lead to a charge of discrimination. So it was felt that to avoid that charge the same policy should be followed in this matter as is followed under the Unemployment Insurance Act, which apparently met with general approval. The hon. member knows that there are many difficult cases; they have been brought to our attention, and certainly we are most sympathetic. Some of the boys who came back and had been at work a week or so found themselves in the centre of a labour dispute. That was so in the Ford strike, for which they were in no way responsible. The thing was looked into very carefully to see if there was not some way of dealing with such cases. The only way in which we have been able to deal with it was to say to the ex-service man unemployed on account of a strike, if it was likely to be long drawn-out, that he should take training under our act, make use of his time and get the allowance while he was taking training. There has been that attempt to deal with it without introducing discrepancies or giving rise to the feeling that there is discrimination in the administration of the two acts.


Clarence Gillis: I appreciate the government's desire to bring about uniformity as between the two acts, but I do not agree with my hon. friend that the charge of discrimination would be justified. I agree that the Unemployment Insurance Act is fair, and those who went on strike knew that the act would not apply to them. They knew very well what they were up against. But the boy who was overseas and who did not know the Unemployment Insurance Act came back here feeling that if he was out of work he was entitled to certain out-of-work benefits. We arranged that for him. Then he happened to drop into a first class row between the employer and the ordinary civilian employee. He is a victim of circumstances, and the out-of-work provisions of this act should be applicable to him. I do not think any member of the union who was not getting unemployment insurance would raise a cry because the government gave the soldier that benefit. There is a very clear line of demarcation between the two cases. I suggest it be given consideration.


Walter Adam Tucker: We do endeavour to find work for those unemployed veterans. The only place we stopped short was at the very thing which has'been described by the hon. member. It was stated in our literature which was distributed overseas that if they were then not entitled under the Unemployment Insurance Act they would not get any allowance. It was looked at sympathetically, but it was thought that if anything were paid to the veteran under this provision, veterans whose rights had expired would have an unanswerable case for similar treatment. It was held that you simply could not do this without upsetting your whole Unemployment Insurance Act, and that it was better to try to deal with the situation in other ways.


Mr. McKAY:: Have many veterans taken advantage of this training programme while they are out of work in lieu of the out-ofwork benefits they would otherwise have received?


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes; many have applied. We have not here the actual number, but it was the definite policy to assist these veterans. They were made aware of it, and I understand that a substantial number did take advantage of the chance to get training when otherwise they would have been unemployed.


Eric Bowness McKay: The hon. gentleman is certain that a number have actually received that particular training?

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes.


Mr. CASE:: Which classes of veterans are not entitled to out-of-work pay?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Those who have been discharged over twelve months.


Victor Quelch: Would the minister or the parliamentary assistant explain the situation regarding the veteran with a dishonourable discharge? It will be remembered that when the Minister of National Defence stated that an amnesty had been granted to those who had deserted in Canada, he said they would not be in a similar position to those overseas, because they would not get the rehabilitation benefits. I was under the impression from what he said that those who had deserted overseas would not be denied rehabilitation benefits; those who deserted in Canada would.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As my hon. friend knows very well, for he was on the committee, we set up a board of review last year. Over a thousand veterans who were given dishonourable discharge have been granted gratuities, but not all the benefits under the legislation provided by parliament.


Victor Quelch: In view of the statement made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, is it intended that now those men will be granted full benefits and not merely a gratuity?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can assure my hon. friend that the matter will be completely reviewed in the light of all the evidence that a sympathetic and humanitarian department can discover.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I should like to ask the minister a number of questions about an unfortunate veteran of the second war, but perhaps it would take a good deal of time to deal with them. Will he not be just as well pleased if I ask the questions under item 961, and will he give me all the latitude I would have on this item? Then we can allow these items to pass.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Certainly.
<100,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Payments to or for veterans and dependents-
898. Hospital and other allowances-world war I-further amount required, $
Mr. COCKERAM:: I think I brought this question up before: Will the minister consider the payment of gallantry awards to the
men of the first war who won the military medal? There is an allowance for personnel who won the military medal in the last war.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was that for Canadians or for imperials?


Alan Cockeram: For Canadians, who are getting it now.


Walter Adam Tucker: As the hon. member knows, the imperial government paid these awards in regard to the first great war, and when we assumed the obligation to pay it to Canadians who participated in this war, of course immediately the question arose, should we not pay holders of the military medal in respect of the first war the same as we are paying those who won it in the last war. Of course we never assumed any obligation to pay any of the gallantry awards of the first great war; so the question arises whether we should make this principle retroactive to the first great war. That is of course a new principle. We have done some other things: for example, clothing allowance has been increased very considerably; the claim is that it should be made retroactive, and that arises in all these things. Representations have come in, but our committee did not make any recommendation on the matter. Of course if very strong representations are made the matter will, I suppose, receive consideration.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Do I understand that the United Kingdom pays a gallantry award to winners of the military medal whereas the Canadian government did not in the last war?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, no.


Walter Adam Tucker: As a matter of fact the situation is that there was no gallantry award paid in respect of military medal awards in the first great war. Now a policy has been adopted in England and here to pay it in regard to this war. But as soon as we said we would pay it in regard to this war and assumed it as a Canadian obligation, some people suggested that if we recognized that there should be some monetary award in respect of the military medal in this war we should pay it in regard to the last war. That obligation has not been recognized in other parts of the empire, and if we paid it here there would probably be certain pressure in other parts of the empire to do the same thing. I think it would be a matter for some kind of common agreement.


Agar Rodney Adamson: On what basis are these paid?
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They were all placed on the record about ten days ago, when the main estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs were under consideration by the house. I have not before me the page number of Hansard.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soldier Settlement and Veteran's Land Act-
901.	To provide for payment of grants to veterans settled on provincial lands, in accordance with agreements with provincial governments under section 35 of the Veterans Land Act, 1942, and payment of grants to veterans settled on dominion lands, in accordance with an agreement with the Minister of Mines and Resources, under section 35 of the Veterans Land Act, 1942, as amended (P.C. 1550 of 18th April, 1946) and item 466 of the main estimates- further amount required, $.1.
Mr. HERRIDGE:: This item provides for payment of grants to veterans settled on provincial lands, $1. That would indicate a somewhat limited programme. I should like an explanation.


Alan Cockeram: That is a Scotch dollar, too.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can assure my hon. friend that it is only a change in the wording of the vote to make it possible for us to go ahead with a development with which he himself is very' familiar.


Eric Bowness McKay: With what provinces have agreements been arranged?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans Land Act-
902.	To provide for purchase of land and improvements; cost of permanent improvements to be effected; removal of encumbrances; stock and equipment; refunds of surplus to veterans (section 19); and for protection of security under the Veterans Land Act-further amount required, $10,000,000.
George Hugh Castleden: There seems to be a change here. The total amount in the main estimates was $13,000,000, and now we have supplementaries for $10,000,000. For 1945-46 it was $5,000,000; in the main estimates it is increased to $13,000,000-one would imagine the department would have a fairly good idea of its requirements-and then there is a request for $10,000,000 in the supplementaries. What is the reason for this eighty per cent increase?


Walter Adam Tucker: There is $72,000,000 in the main estimates, and this work is proceeding more expeditiously, a greater number of applications being put through


George Hugh Castleden: What is the total amount?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is $82,000,000, including the main and the supplementaries.


George Hugh Castleden: This is not itemized. The supplementaries give veterans affairs, loans and investments, soldier settlement and Veterans Land Act.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is the same type as in the main estimates. It is 72 increased to 82 millions.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Veterans Affairs-
961. Treatment and pension examination- world war II-further amount required, $7,471,250.
John Horne Blackmore: I hesitate to delay the committee in connection with a matter which I feel it my duty to consider, and I am not sure I would have done so if I had not received a letter by air mail yesterday from Vancouver. The member from Temiscouata the other day told us about his receiving fan mail sometimes, and I too have received fan mail, as no doubt other members have done. This letter is in some respects an example of fan mail. I had better read it in order to open the discussion. It has reference to the case of an aircraftman named Lowell T. Campbell, R-160565. The letter is as follows:
John H. Blaekmore,
Dear Mr. Blaekmore:	I would appreciate
your taking action before leaving Ottawa regarding the above named. He was discharged from the Shaughnessy Military Hospital August 6. 1946, with a check for approximately $20. This is to cover the needs of himself and dependents until such time as the Canadian pension commission settle his pension status. Of this amount ($20) the proportion accruing to Lowell is $3.30 and the remainder for his dependents.
As you will note by his file, he has been receiving the sum of $117 covering himself and his five dependents. This is now arbitrarily cut off at a time when he has to make what preparations he can under the circumstances to get his children in readiness for school. His children, as you know, are scattered around among several families who have their own obligations to meet. This is a very urgent matter.
Please note Lowell Campbell was discharged from the Shaughnessy Military Hospital with his back in an iron brace'to support the injured spine. In this condition he has been forced by the department to take a job as a watchman in order to maintain his family in lieu of pay and allowances until his pension is adjusted by the commission.
I think this crude action by the department should be publicly exposed. Here is a disabled man forced to take a job when every movement of his body is difficult and when he is in need

Supply-Veterans Affairs
of constant rest instead of performing duties as a watchman. The Minister of Veterans Affairs needs assistance in the running of his business when such things as this can take place.
Will you please take action in this matter before leaving Ottawa and kindly notify me accordingly.
Thanking you for what you have done this session in cooperating with the writer in these matters I am,
Yours sincerely,
Walter H. Kirchner,
' Secretary.
The letterhead is that of the Canadian Combat Veterans Association in British Columbia Incorporated.
I am not in a position to judge of the accuracy of any of the statements either in this letter or in the extensive file which has been forwarded to me in connection with the case of Mr. Lowell T. Campbell. I have desired throughout this whole affair to be perfectly fair with everybody concerned. I believe all hon. members will realize that if a member receives a letter like this he is under considerable pressure to take action. I have not been called upon to take action in connection with veterans' affairs this year. My party assigned me to three other important tasks at the beginning of the year and I have been attending to them; consequently I have not been able to give to veterans' problems the attention I have given them in the past.


Mr. HANSELL:: You have been doing a good job.


John Horne Blackmore: I am therefore not in a position to discuss veterans' affairs at all, but this matter must be looked into. I will ask the minister a number of questions shortly, and they will enable him to give all the facts and answer all the statements that are made in the brief which I have received and put the whole matter clearly on the record for the defence of his own department.
My own impression has been, in watching the minister, that he has been very conscientious and sympathetic, and I think he is deserving of high praise and commendation because of his work. I do not believe for a moment that any of the irregularities complained about are in any way attributable to the minister's oversight. If anything, they are due to the tremendous responsibilities that rest upon him.
In order to be fair, this morning I called the minister's office at 9.50 and told his secretary that on this case a number of questions would be asked during the consideration of the minister's estimates. I did that in order to give the minister an opportunity to read carefully the tile on Mr. Campbell. At 9.45 I called the office of the parliamentary assistant and left the same message. Hon. members will understand that I am not in any way treating this as a political issue.
I believe there is an unfortunate situation here which ought to be examined into with the greatest of care, and the minister should be given the fullest opportunity to explain the facts so that we may be able to assess properly the condition set forth in this letter, regrettable as it is. .
May I say one other thing before I proceed with my question? I believe this unfortunate soldier is at present in Vancouver. He is of a family personally known to me. His family lives in the constituency of the hon. member for Macleod. Had Mr. Kirchner known of the hon. member for Macleod, and the action which he takes on problems such as this, he wrould have brought the matter to his attention, and I am sure the hon. member would have been doing the same thing that I am doing at this time. Having made this explanation may I now ask the minister a number of questions? Then I shall send the questions over to him so that he will have the opportunity to answer them one after the other, if he chooses. If he feels that he should like to look through his files in order to obtain accurate answers for the record at a future time, then he should have that opportunity. These are the questions which I have drafted. They are not complete as yet, but I think they will elicit practically all the information essential in the matter almost up to the time that the letter takes on.
The questions are as follows:
1.	Was Lowell T. Campbell, R160165, discharged from Shaughnessy hospital on August 6, 1946?
2.	Was veteran Campbell's back in an iron brace to support an injured spine when he was discharged?
3.	Had veteran Campbell been receiving SI 17 a month to support himself and five dependent children?
4.	Had Lowell T. Campbell's wife been lost to him in February, 1945, leaving him under the necessity of placing his children in the homes of various relatives?
5.	Would Lowell T. Campbell have been required to pay for each of these children, and was he required to pay $25 a month for board and lodgings and pay additional costs to cover clothing?
Supply-Veterans Affairs

Hon. members will of course see the significance of question 5. We are trying to assess the adequacy of $117 which had been allowed Mr. Campbell.
6.	Is each of these five children now between six and twelve years of age, therefore, requiring school supplies in addition to the $25 per month for board and room, the cost of clothing, the cost of medical and dental care, et cetera?
7.	Would the British Columbia welfare organization demand at least 130 a month per child, plus family allowances, if that organization were to assume charge of the children?
I might explain to the members of the committee that I am informed that Mr. Campbell has placed his children out with various relatives of his. He did that some time ago when he came into great difficulties domestically through his illness and weakness, and these relatives have kept the children for a considerable length of time; but finally because of their own family responsibilities they find themselves unable to do so without money which would help them to defray expenses. What they request is $25 a month for board and room, plus the cost of clothing and of course plus the cost of equipping the children for school, and dental and medical services. All hon. members will understand that.
8.	Would the cost of supporting his five children therefore constitute for veteran Campbell a monthly expense of at least $125 besides the family allowances?
9.	Did the minister's department give effective thought to the question, how was veteran Campbell to get $125 a month out of $117 a month which the minister's department allowed him?
10.	When veteran Campbell was discharged from Shaughnessy military hospital on August 6, was even the $117 a month cut off arbitrarily?
11.	Was veteran Campbell discharged from Shaughnessy military hospital on August 6, with a cheque for approximately $20?
12.	Would $16.70 of his cheque be apportioned to veteran Campbell's five children to support them and fit them up for school, leaving, of course, $3.30 to support veteran Campbell until, with an iron brace on him to support an injured spine, he could take a job and receive his first pay cheque?
It would be a good thing if I asked no more questions at this time but gave the minister an opportunity to answer, if he sees fit, some

of those I have already asked. I shall then come back to others, because the questions I have asked so far complete one aspect of the veteran's case.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I wish to thank the
hon. member for Lethbridge for the courteous and considerate way in which he has presented the case. Unfortunately, although he and I have had extensive correspondence about this case for many months, I did not until about ten o'clock this morning get notice of his intention to raise these questions on the estimates this morning.


John Horne Blackmore: If the minister will
permit me, the letter came to me by air mail only last night; I took the first opportunity.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not criticizing
my hon. friend in the slightest degree. It so happens that the chairman of the pension commission is absent on other duties this morning, and I was not able to get in touch with him in regard to the details of this case. Every question asked by my hon. friend is now on the records of this parliament, and I can assure him that a reply will be given to every one of them so far as we are able to do so. I think I know the details of this case fairly well, but I would not be prepared to answer the questions specifically at this moment. I can assure my hon. friend, however, of my sympathy and of my readiness to review every single question he has asked and supply him with an answer. If I am absent, my colleague, the hon. member for Rosthern, will supply the answer before parliament prorogues.


John Horne Blackmore: It would be to the
great credit of the minister if the veterans all over the country could have been looking in on him and could have seen his face and his eyes as he gave that little speech, because the minister is full of sympathy and consideration. I wish to put that on record because the expression of his countenance cannot go on Hansard, but it is a part of the whole proceedings.
If the minister will agree I shall give him some more questions so that he may have them all before him at the same time. We now enter another aspect of this case which, if reports reaching me are correct, is literally fraught with regrettable difficulties.
13.	Did veteran Campbell on March 19, 1942, enlist as a member of the ground crew of the R.C.A.F.?
14.	Was veteran Campbell at the time of his enlistment sound in physical health?

Supply-Veterans Affairs
15.	Was veteran Campbell sound economically on enlistment? That is, was he able to work at various jobs and support his family, and was he doing so-raising a family of young Canadians for future time?
16.	Was veteran Campbell upon enlistment sound mentally and emotionally? I may say to the minister and to the committee that veteran Campbell has been lacerated because of certain remarks put on his file which would seem to reflect upon his intelligence and emotional stability. This has greatly aggravated the mental anguish under which this veteran now suffers, and that is the reason for the question.
17.	Was veteran Campbell injured while on military duty?
18.	Of the successive incidents which resulted in further development toward veteran Campbell's present state of partial physical incapacity, were several the result of official decisions and actions taken by various men for whose official decisions and actions the government of Canada is directly responsible?
19.	For example, was it a Canadian officer before whom veteran Campbell came on sick parade on the April morning following his injury?
20.	Was it a Canadian officer who on May 5, 1942, told veteran Campbell that his back was normal, and that the injury was just a sprain, and that aircraftman Campbell could carry on with full duty?
21.	Was it a Canadian officer who assigned aircraftman Campbell to work in hospital at No. 2 S.F.T.S., Uplands, Ottawa, where one of this aircraftman's duties was to wax floors?
22.	Were they Canadian officers who, when aircraftman Campbell reported his condition to them, treated his reports lightly, asked him such questions as: "Where is the pain this morning?" in a partly flippant and ridiculing manner, and who treated him with physiotherapy by means of heat pads, while the aircraftman assured them that the pain was only intensified by the treatment?
23.	Was it a Canadian officer who, after
June 24,	1942, ordered that aircraftman
Campbell be sent to Ottawa civic hospital where under the care of Doctor Young a body cast was applied to the aircraftman for four weeks, and later a body cast extending down the left leg to the ankle for eight weeks, and later more heat treatments were given?
24.	Was it a Canadian officer upon whose orders aircraftman Campbell was then taken to the Daly building to Doctor J. P. S. Cathcart, psychiatrist, where he was questioned
about his past life, his family and his father's family?	1
25.	Was it through the remarks or hints of a Canadian officer that it was intimated to aircraftman Campbell by October 1, 1942 that the aircraftman would do well to seek his discharge?
26.	Was it through orders of a Canadian officer that discharge papers were brought to aircraftman Campbell to sign, which papers the aircraftman refused to sign?
27.	Was it through a Canadian officer's orders or hints that the padre, approximately the last of October, 1942, told aircraftman Campbell that he had been struck off strength, thereby causing aircraftman Campbell to ask for immediate discharge and to receive it on October 31, 1942?
28.	Was it on order of a Canadian officer that aircraftman Campbell was transferred to Christie street hospital, from which aircraftman Campbell was discharged on December 21, 1942, and sent home to Alberta?
29.	Was it on orders of a Canadian officer that Campbell was discharged from Belcher hospital, Calgary, on May 5, 1943? May I at this point observe, for the sake of hon. members who, I notice, are following my remarks closely, that it was clearly to be seen that the aircraftman was unable to do heavy physical work. And1 yet when he was discharged from Christie street hospital and sent home to Alberta he had no alternative but that of engaging in hard physical work such as ranching and other kinds of work he has been doing. The result was that, naturally, on account of his weakness, he became afflicted again and had to seek admission to Belcher Hospital. He was discharged from Belcher Hospital after a very few days. Of course by that hon. members can clearly see that someone representing the government needed to have his actions reviewed.
30.	Was it on orders of a Canadian officer that Campbell, in his weakened condition, was denied allowances adequate to support himself and his family without going to work at heavy labour?
31.	Was it through Canadian officers that Campbell was refused attention by Shaughnessy hospital when he applied for attention, (1) alone; (2) in company with the provincial president of the army and navy veterans in British Columbia, although later, after Campbell had consulted Doctor Frank Emmons, he was finally admitted to Shaughnessy hospital on January 16. 1945?
The minister has suggested that the parliamentary assistant will deal with these matters at a later time, when he has had time to
Supply-Veterans Affairs

examine them. Therefore I believe I have given sufficient for the present. I shall have more questions after the parliamentary assistant has had a chance to review the case.
These questions, I may tell the parliamentary assistant have to do with the responsibility of men in Shaughnessy hospital who operated on Campbell, even although there was present Doctor Frank Emmons, a specialist, whose skill at diagnosis revealed for the first time the ailment from which Lowell T. Campbell suffered. According to the information I have -andl I shall put the questions to the minister so that he can answer them categorically-this soldier had tried in various ways to get officials in Shaughnessy hospital to permit Doctor Frank Emmons to consult with them and to be present when the operations were performed. Doctor Frank Emmons had conducted careful diagnoses with X-ray plates which, to a skilful man like Doctor Emmons, indicated exactly what was the matter with this man. He had been injured in exercise and a dislocation of certain vertebrae in his back had taken place. The only possible cure would be an operation which could remove that deficiency. But men who apparently did not possess the skill to diagnose the case nevertheless ventured to operate on the man, and to treat the case without knowing even how to diagnose it. Notwithstanding the fact that Doctor Frank Emmons, who was the private doctor of this soldier, was willing to come and either operate or consult while the operation was being performed, his offer was not accepted. I have asked a number of questions which will probe into all that. Hon. members will realize that all this has an important bearing upon the responsibility which the dominion government must assume with respect to the weakened condition of this airman.
May I thank the minister and his parliamentary assistant for the most attentive and sympathetic hearing they have given, and I should like also to thank the members of the committee for their earnest attention. In order to bring out the seriousness of this matter I should like to suggest something which perhaps need not be suggested. I was thinking how easily this might have been the case of the splendid young member for Vancouver-Burrard whom the minister honoured the other day in appropriate terms by commending him upon winning the Victoria Cross. How easily it could have been any one of the excellent young soldiers who have been sent into this house, every one of whom constitutes an asset to the house. How easily it could have been one of my sons; how easily it could have been my brother or the son or

brother of any hon. member. When we realize that I think we will appreciate more readily how serious this matter is and agree that even at this late date in the session, we can afford time to probe into it. After all, this is the high court of parliament, and if there is any court that needs to have a reputation for justice, it is this one.
I believe we should delay long enough to see that justice is given. May I ask the minister when this matter can come up again? I suggest that the item be held over until some time this afternoon, when the parliamentary assistant can answer. If it is not held over, what can be done about giving me an opportunity to ask these questions.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend has asked something like thirty-one questions, and it will be necessary to consult with the defence services, because they are involved in regard to Campbell's service. It will be impossible to make a reply this afternoon. The reply may have to be in the form of a return, because it involves two or three of the services and it may not be possible to get this information before prorogation. However, I give the assurance to my hon. friend that it will be obtained, and I suggest that the item be allowed to pass with that assurance.


John Horne Blackmore: May I be permitted to ask the remaining questions this afternoon, and in the meantime perhaps the item could stand? I should be happy to allow the matter to be then put forward as the minister has suggested, but I am entirely in his hands.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think I have been as reasonable in this case as anybody could be, and I think we should pass this item. I have given a specific ministerial assurance as to the attention that will be given to this matter. I cannot possibly be in position to give more information this afternoon than I can give now. I think my hon. friend has done his duty in presenting this case to parliament, and I think I have done my duty in giving him the assurance I have, that the case will be completely reviewed in conjunction and in consultation with the other services involved.


John Horne Blackmore: I accept the minister's word on this matter, because I know he will keep it, but I should like to have the opportunity this afternoon of putting the other questions on Hansard.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Put them on now.


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to have more time in order to have them more specific.

Radio Broadcasting


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Surely my hon. friend knows in a general way what he wants to ask without having to be specific. Let us pass this item.


John Horne Blackmore: I want to be very careful about the wording of my questions, because we are dealing with men and I do not want to hurt anybody's reputation. This question is likely to cast a cloud over some of these men who were charged with the responsibility of dealing with Lowell T. Campbell's case after he was admitted to Shaughnessy hospital. Apparently some of these men have been guilty either of culpable ignorance or of culpable dereliction of duty. We cannot blame a man for being without the knowledge which would enable him to diagnose, but we can blame him for neglecting to use the services of a man who had established himself as being able to diagnose.
Certain men dealt with Lowell T. Campbell on his admission to Shaughnessy hospital in 1945. An explanation should be given why these men took the measures they did, most of which resulted in a serious aggravation of Lowell T. Campbell's condition. They operated on him several times, making serious blunders. My information is that they treated him by injecting substances into his hip and buttocks, whereas the private doctor of aircraftman Campbell stated that before the man had gone into the hospital there had to be an operation.
I should like the minister to go into detail with regard to the decisions that were made regarding Lowell T. Campbell's treatment after he went into Shaughnessy hospital. It will be necessary for the minister to establish that those men were not derelict in their duty. The result of their work has been that Lowed T. Campbell apparently is unable to do the work which it is necessary for him to do in order to raise his splendid young family of five chddren, give them an education, and discharge his other responsibilities as a citizen.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With regard to my hon. friend's last question, I want to say that I think I know Shaughnessy hospital as well as anybody in Canada. If I can say it without being boastful, it is largely my own creation and is supposed to be the most efficient military hospital in the Dominion of Canada. Until recently the administrator there was George Derby, our western regional representative, one of the ablest men in the Department of Veterans Affairs. He had been twenty-seven years with the department. The present administrator is Mr. William Roaf, who distinguished himself overseas in the present war.
I do not know who the doctors were on this particular case, but the doctors at Shaughnessy are as efficient as any in the Dominion of Canada. I know that to be true. But I must tell my hon. friend that if he is making allegations of improper attention in this case I shall have a court of inquiry established at once. Of course that will take some time, and its findings will not be available for this session. But they will be available for the next session of parliament. I am absolutely satisfied in my own mind that we have as able a staff in Shaughnessy hospital as there is in any hospital in the country.


John Horne Blackmore: I agree completely with the minister. I am not making any allegations; I am just a poor, ordinary member of parliament-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not complaining.


John Horne Blackmore: -trying to help.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Let us get on with the work.


John Horne Blackmore: This case has been brought before me; I should like to read to the minister the findings of Doctor Frank Emmons, this man's specialist, as made on December 4, 1944. As a result of this doctor's examination he found, and I quote the doctor's words:
A rupture of two of the cartillagenous discs, cushioning the vertebral bones of the spine, with pressure on the spinal cord.
In the light of that diagnosis the minister will see the absurdity of such treatment as putting this man in a plaster cast, applying heat, and injecting substances into the buttocks and other parts of his body.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am sure my hon. friend does not want me, a layman, to adjudge questions of medical treatment. We shall be glad to look into the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, April 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. McCann for the second reading of bill No. 391, to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936.
Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose last night I had made a few remarks on the monopolistic position of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. With more and more power being placed in

Radio Broadcasting

the hands of the corporation, the situation is getting worse. The corporation writes its own regulations, both for itself and for its competitors. It dictates to the private stations what they shall carry, and it controls completely the dissemination of all radio news when broadcast over its own network and indirectly, through restrictive orders, when carried over private stations. The corporation has power over all broadcasting, and there is no appeal from its decisions except through the channel of parliament. Yet it can be dominated by any political party which might favour the continuation of this semi-public system as the most important and powerful factor in political control. I think the country should be freed from this unhealthy state of affairs.
I think also that the private broadcasting stations should be afforded some relief. That is why they came before the parliamentary committee. From the evidence given before the committee there is no doubt that the corporation does not intend to give up the power it has unless it is forced to do so. As has been stated, it is in the peculiar position of holding in its own hands legislative, executive, judicial and police powers, and that pertains not only to its competitors but in seme degree to the listeners as well, because C.B.C. can and does decide what the listener shall hear and when he shall hear it. With the development of television and facsimile the situation will get worse. The range of facsimile being so small, and the facsimile stations having to be fed from one source-a complete monopoly. I submit that no government which pretends to be democratic would allow such powers to be placed in the hands of the corporation. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters indicated how therr had to go about making any representations to the corporation. The situation as stated by them, and this is on evidence in the record, was that they were required to state their case to the board of governors in the presence of senior officials of the C.B.C.-


Mr. IRVINE:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I wonder if the hon. gentleman will broadcast a little louder, because his transmitter is somewhat weak.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I think I need a new transmitter this morning. As I was saying, they are. required to state their case in the presence of senior officials of the CJ3.C. Then thej^ retire, and in camera the board of governors hears and decides on their representations. No opportunity is given to the private broadcasters to make any rebuttal

or to correct any misapprehensions there may be on the part of the board. It is said in the report that the private broadcasters have no grievance, but that method of hearing their representations is a serious grievance in itself. To me it seems intolerable. The one recommendation which the Canadian Association of Broadcasters made to the committee was one which they had reiterated for many years before former committees. It was this:
We believe and recommend that the public interest would be served by creating a radio board of appeal-an independent tribunal holding open meetings to which both branches of the radio industry possess free access in the customary judicial manner.
This has been an urgent and burning question for some years, and although the report says "Your committee in making these suggestions desires very emphatically to declare that it is not even tentatively giving its blessing to the proposals," the committee was by no means unanimous on that point.
The position of CFRB has been dealt with ably by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). It is not for CFRB that I am speaking particularly, but for the metropolitan area of the city of Toronto, and farther afield than that, in connection with CFRB. Its coverage extends as far as London on one side on Kingston on the other and far to the north. There is no doubt that CFRB has given this area a splendid service. It was established before the committee that CFRB has the largest listening audience notwithstanding the two public stations of the C.B.C. serving this area. I am certainly not convinced by the evidence given before the committee that any better service can be given than is given by CFRB; nor am I convinced that we shall get as good a service by C.B.C. taking over that wave length. If CFRB is deprived of its present wave length, it will be required to spend at least $300,000' on new equipment, without compensation of any kind when it is assigned a new wave length. This is a very serious matter. I do not agree that no compensation should be paid. I am not a lawyer, ' and I cannot express any opinion on the legal position as to compensation. Certainly that is not a question for the committee to decide, but one for the courts. But not only that; at a time like this, when taxes are so high, the least we can expect is that a government or a government corporation should try to reduce its expenditures as much as possible. The taking over of these three wave lengths, in Calgary and Winnipeg and CFRB, Toronto, is going to cost the corporation anywhere from one to two million dollars; as a matter of fact nearer two million dollars.

Radio Broadcasting
The corporation in its operations over the last couple of years, instead of making money, has gone behind in the neighbourhood of $300,000. Also it has not set up a reserve. It is said that this is only a matter of bookkeeping, but the facts are clear: if you make a deficit and do not put up a reserve you have lost that much money.
Station CURB have given a good service to the city and region. Thinking that they would be able to retain their wave length, at considerable expense over the years they have developed their facilities and have encouraged professional talent, in this respect doing something which a great many stations have not done. I have spoken to a good many professional people in the city, both on CURB and CBL, and I know what they have been doing. I believe they deserve some consideration, as do the listeners of Toronto. Further than that, this private station CFRB has not cost the taxpayers of Canada one cent, and over the years has paid into the treasury taxes in the amount of $575,000. If C.B.C. takes over this wave length the corporation will be required to spend on the station they take over, for equipment for broadcasting alone, at least $300,000.
Private stations are being reiegated to the position of subservient vassals of the C.B.C. by the policy of the broadcasting corporation. The very fact that it is said they like a broadcasting chain goes to show that they want to get on the chain, but instead of being developed they are being dominated more and more all the time. Mr. Dunton stated in the committee that in the scheme of radio there is a "big place" for local commercial stations. The national radio authority, he declaimed, sought to encourage their operation on a local basis, "under impartial and benign supervision." But it is abundantly clear that what he called "a big place" is destined to diminish to the point of being negligible, if not invisible, under the actual and ruthless application of C.B.C. policies.
I want to say a word about radio frequencies. We can go back to the time when Mr. Bennett had the investigation made and the commission set up. One reason for this was the increasing chaos in the field of broadcasting ; things were getting in very bad shape. The second reason was that Canada was losing channels to the United States, and while the voice of the broadcasters singly could not be heard, the voice of the government of Canada diplomatically could be heard. Order was brought about through the North American conference, frequencies were allotted to 63260-335i
Canada, and a Canadian programme was outlined. But times have changed very rapidly. Is Canada again going to lose and suffer more radio interference through the policy which the C.B.C. have followed of keeping down the power of stations which should go up? It seems to me it is a stupid policy. Not only that, but when the conference took place the officials and engineers of C.B.C. were the ones who were there making the arrangements. At that time the private broadcasters asked that they also be represented-they had a big stake-but that was not permitted. It is all very well to say that we have the best engineers in the country, and so on, but you know that in a big law case one does not depend on one person; he calls in counsel and gets their opinions. Canada is a country of approximately twelve million people scattered over a vast area. As time goes on, there is no doubt about it, we shall fill up and we shall need all the channels we can get for our broadcasting.
In regard to radio frequencies we had the evidence of Colonel Bailey, professor of electrical engineering at the university of Toronto, a man of very high standing, who did a great deal of secret work during the war for the government of Canada. He must be a good engineer; he received the O.B.E. for his services in a technical field. Profesor Bailey has been before the radio committee in times gone by, and has pointed out at various times that through the policy of the C.B.C. of keeping the power of stations down to one kilowatt and less, we were losing channels and that we will be losing more all the time. As a matter of fact I believe it was through his evidence that the new policy of allowing five kilowatts as the maximum for private stations was decided upon. I take a little credit to myself for that. But if this policy is still followed and we do not have our stations go up to full power, Canadian stations will be in a much inferior position and will be subject to more interference all the time from the United States. Professor Bailey stated at a meeting of the committee in 1943:
I think that after the war is finished and we get the completion of the occupation of frequencies on the Havana agreement, we will be perturbed as to how small our coverage is, especially at night.
In his evidence on page 433 before the committee this year, in answer to a question which I asked him if, by keeping power down, we were in danger of more and more interference from the United States, he said:
While admittedly the Toronto area is probably the worst area in Canada because it projects down so close to the American border,
Radio Broadcasting

the tendency is more and more that people to the south of us are filling up the air with five to fifty times the speed which we are.
He gave some very interesting information as to the difficulties. As soon as possible we should give our stations the opportunity to go to their full power. If Canada has lost the full use of the channels which were allotted to her, and if she loses more in the future, the C.B.C. and government policy will be directly responsible for this arbitrary action.
It is wrong to say that we have two types of broadcasting in Canada. There are or should be three. We have a national system, a high-power network, but there are also the regional stations, of which no mention was made. A regional station such as CFRB could be more useful if it were high powered and it covers a larger area than a single community; but there are also the small community stations. Some of these stations are not really doing the job because they have been hampered by arbitrary limitations of their power. There should not be such limitations. In Canada to-day we have three networks; the trans-Canada, consisting of seven C.B.C. stations and seventeen basic stations affiliated with them, operating sixteen hours; the French network, three C.B.C. and eight basic stations affiliated with the C.B.C.; and then there is the dominion network which has one C.B.C. station and twenty-eight private stations.
The policy is to operate the dominion network longer, that is, to increase the number of hours on the air; and the reason given is that the listener should have a choice of two programmes. I agree that in certain parts of Canada there should be a choice of two programmes, but the private stations have not found it possible to bring this about. In my section there are a number of choices of programmes. There is a choice among many private stations; there is a choice among United States stations, so that Ontario listeners in that section have more than two selections.
Why spend the taxpayers money to give them more than they have now? It is better to use the private stations already established and let them go up to their full power in the meantime. Changes in radio to-day are so rapid that we do not know what will happen in the near future. Why not wait, therefore, for a year or two, and allow the private stations to go up to their full power? In fact, make them go up, instead of biting off more than you can chew and losing more money on the corporation in the next year or so.
The question of networks comes up. Without networks, stations cannot perform their

proper function. There is no doubt about that. It was stated in the committee that the private stations could not be allowed to buy wire from the wire companies because C.B.C. had to have the use of the wire. But the C.B.C. does not use all the wires in Canada; there are many more. There is no reason why from time to time private stations should not be allowed to perform the function of network broadcasting, thus giving the people another choice. Not only should they be allowed to do it; I say they should be made to do it in the interests of the country.
A word now about radio fees. Last year we collected 84,260,379 and the cost of collection was $527,435, or about twelve per cent of the amount collected. These were licence fees for private receiving sets only. There were 1,745,916 licensees from whom we collected money last year. There is also the cost of policing, seeing to it that people pay their fees. There were 8,749 convictions last year. The sum of $2.50 is collected from a man who has one radio set and from the man who may have fifteen sets. That is what is paid, and the old pensioner has to pay the same sum, $2.50, for his receiving set. There is no justice in that. But why should a person, because he has a radio, have to pay a licence? Why should not the person who listens pay, whether he has a set or not?


An hon. MEMBER:: You might as well pay a licence fee for a washing machine.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Yes. There is no rhyme or reason in it and it ought to be cut out. Apart from these 1,745,916 licences that were issued, I wonder how many more ought to have been sold. I do not think it is possible to see that everyone pays the licence fee.
So far as the minister's own department is concerned, I have made a rough calculation and I believe it costs eight tenths of one per cent to collect his whole revenue, and here is twelve per cent being paid to collect these licence fees, or a loss to the people of Canada of $527,500. The minister asked me in the committee whether I had a suggestion to make. I have. The corporation must have a limitation upon the amount they should have. Taking the collections amounting to $4,260,000, and the population of 12,000,000 so that is roughly 33 cents per capita. Suppose we gave the corporation forty cents per capita; that would be a basis on which to suggest how much money they could spend. Many people do not like to be bothered with this licence fee, especially nowadays when nobody may be in when the collector of the fees calls; or the householder may have forgotten to buy the licence and someone comes to the door

Radio Broadcasting
and tries to collect. It is a nuisance, and it is ridiculous to have these people prosecuted as criminals for not paying their licence fee.
As I said at the beginning, it is about time we had an independent tribunal set up-not a political parliamentary committee, because that is what committees always are-to review the whole question of radio broadcasting in Canada. The report which is now before us might Just as well have been written by the C.B.C. In fact I almost thought it was when I went to the meeting. There is no criticism in it. It is the greatest piece of whitewashing that I have ever seen.
Although the C.B.C. have done a good job -I am not uncritical of them-what is needed is a revision of the act, and it should be done as soon as possible.
I shall not discuss the bill now. I shall wait until we get into committee.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) :: I rise at this time to make a few remarks about this bill, and to criticize some of its provisions and also some of the omissions from the report and from the bill.
First of all may I say that as one who listened to the speech of the Right Hon. R.
B.	Bennett when the bill setting up the
C.	B.C. was introduced, I should like to correct one general misinterpretation. Those of us who sat in the house at that time did not visualize or realize the C.B.C. set-up which we have to-day. I say that unqualifiedly. Those of us who listened to the speeches on that bill visualized something like the Canadian National Railways. We visualized a set-up like the present air service, so that if anybody wanted to enter into competition with the Trans-Canada Air Lines they would go before a different board entirely and ask for a licence. If you want to run a railway you do not go before the Canadian National Railways, and ask for permission. The same principle applies to air services. I think we should definitely keep that in mind, when discussing the C.B.C.
I have heard the leader of the C.C.F. and some hon. members on this side say that there is something -wrong now when we criticize the C.B.C. W'hen I have taken exception to some of the things that have happened they say to me: "You voted for it. didn't you?" Of course I voted for it, but I doubt whether I would vote for it to-day if it came before the house, particularly in the light of what has taken place since the commission was set up.
Nothing much was done on the committee, and I am not making any carping criticism of the members of that committee with regard to the appeal board, but anyone who
has had any experience at all in going before the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and I have, cannot help but feel if there is one thing needed more than another it is a board to whom the public and the people of Canada can appeal when unjust decisions are made.
I want the Minister of National War Services (Mr. McCann) and the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) to consider the case I have in mind. In the city of New Westminster we were good enough to have a licence for a radio station granted. It was meant to serve the district and the city of New Westminster. The owner of that station was given a frequency of 1230 on the dial and 250 watt power. After they had been in operation they experienced a great deal of criticism from the stations in Vancouver because of the aggressiveness and the splendid programmes put out by the owner of the station. Protests were made to the C.B.C. that the station in New Westminster was crippling them. It was not long before we found out that 250 and 1230 on the dial covered only a certain portion of the district. During the day you could hear the station fairly well for a distance of about twenty miles out; but those living close to the boundary found that at night time there was so much interference from radio stations across the line that it practically blacked out radio station CKNW. Therefore an appeal was made by the owner of CKNW to have a change made. I do not like to say this, but I think he made the unfortunate error of asking a member of parliament to assist him. I know there are a lot of carping statements made about the interference, so-called of a member of parliament. I am making no apology, for when one of my constituents appeals to me and tells me that he believes an injustice has been done I shall make some representations on his behalf. I maintain that it is the duty of a member of parliament, if he is truly representing his people, when an appeal is made to him with regard to an injustice, to see what he can do about it. An appeal was made after being refused by the CJ5.C. Since we were sitting in Ottawa I was asked to go before the board, and I did so. I think perhaps it was a mistake, because it was intimated quietly to me that it was just too bad for a member of parliament to appear on behalf of anyone.
Taking the view of the leader of the C.C.F. that politics should be kept out of it, I wish to say to him that if he wants to represent his people fully and truthfully and faithfully he will fight for them when he believes they have a grievance. Apparently it is now felt
Radio Broadcasting

by some that it is wrong for a member of parliament to listen to an appeal. If a man has a case before the Canadian pension board and fails, are we to tell him when he comes to us that it is political interference? Will any member of parliament care to do that? It is up to us to fight on behalf of our constituents when we feel they have a case. Parliament is the court of last appeal. If any member of parliament cannot be appealed to on any matter, then democracy is gone. I view with alarm what has taken place in the past.
Let me return to the case to which I was referring. Station CKNW was allotted, as I said before, 1230 on the dial. The only other station on the same wave band is in the district represented by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). That station is located at Prince George and appears at 1250 on the dial. Prince George is in the interior.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Thomas Reid: When the house rose at one o'clock I had been dealing with the highhanded methods, or what I termed the highhanded methods, of the C.B.C. in dealing w'ith appeals which came before them from private stations. I am going to repeat what I said, because I think it is worth repeating. I was pointing out that when the C.B.C. was set up, not a man in this House of Commons ever visualized that it would ever have or obtain the control and authority it has to-day.
I have maintained that we are acting dangerously for our democracy in that we are taking a heritage of the people, and not making the board responsible to the people. We have in fact set up a board which is above the people themselves. I had mentioned that perhaps it was unfortunate that I appeared before the board on behalf of the local station in the city of New Westminster-at least that is my view, until I get a better answer as to why they refused the application. Until I get that answer I will stay by the statement I am now making. Be that as it may, the residents in the Fraser valley, twenty miles or more out from the city of New Westminster, found that this radio station was practically blacked out at night time. They have a frequency of 1230 on the dial, and because these people live close to the boundary line the frequencies allowed United States stations come in, with the result that radio programmes presented 
over CKNW after six o'clock at night are not heard twenty miles away-in fact sometimes only sixteen miles-from the radio station.
The owner applied for a change in that frequency. To prove what I am saying regarding the high-handedness of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, may I point out that there are only two stations in British Columbia which have a frequency of 1230 on the dial, and 250 watt power. The other station is some 600 miles away, and conditions are such at that point that, even if the station in Prince George had 5,000 or 10,000 watts, we in the valley and in Vancouver and New Westminster would not hear the Prince George station. That is well known, because I believe even the Vancouver station, with over 5,000 watt power, is not heard beyond the mountains. Prince George is just through the mountains so that their radio station with a low power of 250 watts, and 1230 on the dial covers only a small district around Prince George. As I say there could be no reason at all for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to reject the application made by the local station in New Westminster to change the frequency because it was not interfering with, nor would it interfere with, any other station in British Columbia. Oh, yes; it did interfere with some of the larger stations who, shall I say, became a little bit jealous because the station for which the licence was granted in New Westminster soon became one of the most popular stations in the Vancouver-New Westminster area. I do not know whether the committee studied what I am going to mention, but I have looked through the report and I cannot find mention of it anywhere. I am subject to correction, of course. I cannot find where they discussed whether the C.B.C. was as popular, or discussed its popularity as compared with that of private stations.
Let me tell you why I am asking that question. I have here-and private individuals are not supposed to have them be'cause they are given only to radio stations-a publication put out by a firm in Toronto called Eric Hayes Limited. This company goes out and take surveys, similar to gallup polls, among radio listeners. For instance, they telephone to housewives and say, "Are you listening to the radio?" Mostly the reply will be "Yes". The next question asked is, "What station are you listening to, and what programme?" With this information they turn out a report each week to every private radio station. This report, which I hold in my hand, shows the following, that the programmes of the C.B.C. have the least number

Radio Broadcasting
of listeners in the New Westminster-Van-couver area, or a lesser number than those of the private stations. I do not know whether the committee discussed that matter or that phase of it. But if they did not, I suggest that when the committee meets next year they certainly should take it up, and try to get an opinion on the question whether C.B.C. programmes hold a place in the public life and confidence of our people as favourably as that held by private stations.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: May I tell the hon. member that that was discussed, and evidence was given with respect to the Toronto area. It disclosed the same condition in that area that the hon. member has mentioned with respect to British Columbia, namely that CFRB in Toronto, according to the Hayes rating, was above the C.B.C. 50,000-watt station in Toronto.


Thomas Reid: I thank the hon. member for that information. So that we in the cities of New Westminster and Vancouver are not alone in the matter to which I have just referred.
I am going to continue with one further point. In the report of the committee and in the bill before us there is a proposal to increase fees. Yes-not exactly to increase fees; they are not honest about it, because they are actually increasing licence fees in a subtle way. Why do they not come out boldly before the public and say, "We need an extra fifty cents"? They will get pretty close to forty cents from the people of Canada, because the cost of collecting those fees is not going to be deducted, if this bill passes, from the $2.50 radio fee. In other words, Mr. Speaker, about fifty per cent of our people who have no radios, and no licences for radios, are going to be taxed for the collecting -of fees. If you take the number of licensed owners as 1,745,916, and multiply it by four, which would be the average number listening in on each radio in any home, you will find it comes to about seven million people. So that there must be about five million people who do not listen to radios, or who have no radios at all. But these people are going to contribute to the public treasury of Canada a sum running up to $500,000 to pay for the collection of radio fees for which they receive no benefit. As I say, it is one of those subtle ways of raising the licence fee. Why do they not come to the people of Canada and say, "Look here, we are giving you first-class programmes"-which is a debatable point-"we want more money, and we recommend that the licence fee be raised
by twenty-five to fifty cents." But no, they know that would not be popular. That however is the test. If the C.B.C. stands high in the estimation of the people of Canada they would gladly agree to an increase in the licence fee. Just note that they are not proposing to the people of Canada in this report that they raise the licence fee, they are doing so however, and that is one of the reasons why I am going to oppose the bill.


Mr. HACKETT:: No, you won't oppose it.


Thomas Reid: Did I hear someone say no? I sat over there once, and watched the scene over here. The hon. member who has just interjected knows that what I am doing is for the people of this country-and that is the only reason that is prompting me. I am trying to safeguard the interests of the general public when I speak to-day. Oh, I know that if you want the emoluments of office, or if you want to be put into the senate, or want recognition as a cabinet minister, you had better slap backs, not slam them. I know that. I have seen men do it. I have been here sixteen years. I was elected by the people of New Westminster constituency, and I have always considered I have a duty to all those people. I have never been afraid to get up here and champion their cause, without looking for personal reward. If I had been looking for personal reward from the government I might have been a back-slapper and everyone knows what that means. I am also going to try to keep this government Liberal, if I can.


Mr. GRAYDON:: You have undertaken a life time job.


Thomas Reid: The trouble is that I might have to live too long to do that. I am sincere however, in my opposition to this. It may not be popular in my riding or in the government. I feel keenly about this usurpation of power rvhich belongs to the Canadian people, this placing of power in the hands of boards which are becoming our masters rather than our servants. Every time I know that a man is up against any body or official I am going to do my utmost to see that justice is rendered; for where else can the appeal be taken?
While one of the hon. members from Toronto was speaking the other night I asked him a question. I was wondering whether he was in favour of giving newspapers the right to operate radio stations. This is something we should be very careful about. The newspaper is one of our media of free expression, and it is able to control news and other items which it publishes. If a man however is denied his rights, if he is not permitted the use of a
Radio Broadcasting

newspaper, he should be able, if he wishes, to use the radio to tell the people about it. If the same people are to also have control of the radio station that in my opinion would be placing too much power in the hands of one person or business concern. I am going to suggest that when the committee meets next year it deal with this very matter and bring in a recommendation that newspapers be not also granted the right to operate radio stations.
I know everyone wants to get home, and I may be accused of delaying the house, but I felt that I must get up in my place and say what I have. I contend that there should be an appeal board. I have referred to the case of CKNW in New Westminster, which found itself thwarted because the corporation would not grant it its just request. I went before the corporation with this case on the suggestion of a minister. I asked if it would be all right, and he suggested that I go before the C.B.C. This was a worthy case and there was no reason why this station should not have been permitted a change in frequency or granted more power. It would not have interfered with any other station. Their present frequency of 250 covers the Vancouver area. The nearest station having a greater frequency was 600 miles away at Prince George. For this and other reasons I am protesting against the present bill.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) has made a most gracious speech, and one with which I can agree very largely. I take it that we are discussing two things to-da3', the report of the radio committee and the bill which is before us for second reading. Inasmuch as I was not a member of the committee I must confine myself to the discussion of the bill.
Before saying what I have to say I should like to pay a tribute to the men who pioneered radio and brought it to the state of efficiency that existed a considerable time before there was any Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Those men performed a signal service for the people of Canada. I should also like to pay a tribute to the group of private stations which are performing a great service for this country and which are assisting the achievement of a standard of democracy evidenced by the reports that have been made to the people through the broadcasts - known as "Reports from parliament hill." Their representatives have been very helpful, especially their genial manager, Mr. James Allard. This does not say that I am not also appreciative of the services rendered by the C.B.C.

I do not intend this afternoon to debate the question of government ownership of radio. Last night I thought that we were getting into that sort of debate. About all I heard from my friends to my immediate right was the need for more and more overriding ownership of radio by the C.B.C. As a matter of fact radio in Canada to-day is under the control of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It is a fait accompli, so there is no sense in our discussing the merits or demerits of government ownership at this stage. However, I think the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) was presumptuous when he attempted to compare the merits of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its administration of affairs in Canada with what is being done in the United States by private corporations. It seems to me that the people in the United States are pretty happy with their arrangements. Who is the leader of the C.C.F. to say they are not satisfied? If they were not satisfied they wrnuld change and get something like the C.B.C. or worse.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been given wide powers, and it is my observation that they have assumed some powers that were not intended to be given. As the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) has said, they have been entrusted with great responsibilities-we might even say, with sacred responsibilities. I should like to mention some of these. One of their sacred and grave responsibilities is to give the people of Canada clean and wholesome entertainment, to provide cultural education. They have the obligation to bring to the people factual information in the form of news. We all listen to the newscasts which are an important part of the work of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It is also their obligation to present over the waves points of view on events, both current and historical, by means of what- we call commentaries. That also is an important responsibility. Then they have the obligation of presenting political and economic programmes to stimulate the thinking of the people. Finally, they are to control the airwaves of Canada in the national interest.
How well the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has measured up to these responsibilities can be judged only in the light of its record. I believe the corporation has done some good work and a number of commendable things. I believe it has filled a need in Canadian life. I am not in position to criticize the idea of having a corporation like the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but I certainly have criticism to make of the powers that have been assumed and the way in which they have been exercised by the C.B.C.

Radio Broadcasting
It is not always realized, nor is it always remembered, that sacred responsibilities are usually accompanied by great danger. In the case of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that danger is definitely to the Canadian people as a whole, and not merely to the members of the corporation. Dangers are inherent in the type of set-up represented by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and it seems to me it is of urgent necessity that this parliament build up adequate safeguards against them. I do not mean against the corporation, but against dangers inherent in that particular set-up, so that the responsibilities of the corporation may be discharged as fully as possible without in any way endangering the things that Canadians hold most dear.
To-day, Mr. Speaker, I claim that the very freedom of the Canadian people is at stake. It does not require very much vision to see that personal freedom is rapidly being put in jeopardy in Canada. I am not pretending for one moment that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is alone responsible for this condition. I would say it is a result of a combination of circumstances and of forces that are at work in our society. But while the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is an institution potentially capable of bringing the understanding of the Canadian people up to that point where freedom is made secure in Canada and where democracy is real and virile, that same institution is perfectly capable of contributing in very large measure to the enslavement of the people under a totalitarian state. Adequate safeguards against such a dreadful contingency have not in my judgment been provided by the government and this parliament. There is still plenty of room for either malevolence or stupidity to get in their deadly work within the organization of the corporation. I am not so sure that some of it has not been in evidence over the years.
One great danger of government by commission, especially monopoly commission, is that the commissions are apt to become very powerful and a law unto themselves. They become sacrosanct, so that very few people in the land have the courage to criticize them or to demand a thorough investigation of their affairs. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is fast becoming a law unto itself, and I suggest too that there has been developed a sacrosanctity about the corporation which in time could remove it entirely from the realm of democratic and parliamentary control. It would be a very sorry day for Canada if that should happen.
One of the main reasons, Mr. Speaker, why the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been able to exercise authoritarian power and 63260-336
has been able to assume wider and wider powers as the days have gone by, is that there never has been a' well-defined government policy laid down to guide them. That has been perfectly evident. This afternoon I am going to give to the members of this house an example of the abuse of power by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to illustrate the effects of a lack of a well-defined government policy to guide it. I am also going to say that this material which I shall present indicates the existence of a condition which is a complete prostitution of the responsibility of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
In 1927 the university of Alberta purchased a broadcasting station from a private corporation which was operating in the city of Edmonton. In 1939 certain capital funds were required by the station if it were to perform the functions for which it was purchased from (he private corporation. Accordingly an application was made to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in that year for an increase in the power of the station from 500 to 1,000 watts, and also for permission to enter into the commercial advertising field as a means of assisting the university to pay the expenses of the larger and more powerful station. The university in that year was granted permission to increase the power of the station up to
1,000	watts, but it was refused the commercial privileges. The university therefore was compelled to seek assistance from the provincial government in the form of a grant. They did obtain that assistance to the extent of $25,000, and immediately set about to increase the power of the station. Between 1939 and June, 1944, the university, in connection with the educational pursuits of that institution and in collaboration with the Department of Education, developed one of the finest and most outstanding examples of education by radio that has ever been developed in America. This experiment, which proved finally to be a very wise and important one, resulted in the establishment of the School of the Air through which more than a thousand boys and girls in the far reaches of the northern part of Alberta were enabled to complete their high school courses by correspondence and by radio instruction. Anyone desiring to investigate the effects and the results of that experiment can apply to the university of Alberta for a brochure that has been issued called the Chalmers' report on the School of the Air.
The station was found not to be adequate to the needs in the frontier places, and as a result, the university decided that they should step up the power further, beyond 1,000 watts, and rebuild the station- relocate the trans-

Radio Broadcasting

mitter and build a new studio that would take care of the demands for space and of the equipment which they required. After discussing the matter with me while I was in the department of education it was decided in June, 1944, that the university should make an agreement with the Alberta Government Telephones for a transfer of the licence held by the university of Alberta for CKUA on the channel 580 kilocycles, and for power of
1.000	watts. Accordingly an agreement was reached between the Department of Telephones and the university for that transfer. The reasons that were given to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at the time for desiring that transfer were these. A very large additional grant would become necessary if the university were to carry on the station themselves. This large additional grant would throw out of balance the per capita tuition costs of the university of Alberta as compared with the costs of other universities, and it was felt that that would put the university at a disadvantage in attracting students from other quarters of the globe.
The second reason was that in view of the existing procedure with respect to government accounting at that time, the disposition of funds by the university was not subject to scrutiny in the legislature as it would be if the operation of the station were in the hands of Department of Telephones.
The third reason was that the Department of Telephones of the government had the engineers and technicians and the transmission lines over which the network arrangements had to be made. They had the money, and they had the management to make a real success of the operation of the station CKUA. This was no means a unique arrangement. Already in the province of Manitoba the Manitoba Telephone Department had been operating for some years two radio stations, CKX and CKY.
The fourth reason why the government and the university desired that this transfer be made was this. The people through their representatives in the legislature twice passed, by overwhelming majorities, resolutions to the effect that the transfer should be made. There is no better reason in the world than the expressed wishes of the people.
Another application accompanied the application for transfer of licence. This was an application for a private commercial broadcasting station licence. I contend that this was a reasonable request, for the following reasons. In the first place, the frequency of 580 kilocycles with a 1000 watt power gave station CKUA a very large listening audience. In the next place, from surveys made it
[Mr. Low.l
was evident that Edmonton could readily support three commercial stations, having at that time only CFRN and CJCA. Calgary, with a similar situation and a smaller listening audience, has supported three commercial stations for some years. Particulars of the surveys and supporting statistics were filed, along with the application for the private commercial licence. It was pointed out at the time the application was made that radio station CKUA could not possibly compete with existing commercial stations in Edmonton on a fully competitive basis, by reason of the fact that the university would be given first call upon such time as they required to continue the regular university programmes and also to enlarge the educational programmes generally, both for themselves and for the department of education. The policy of the government of Canada expressed through the policies of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was that radio stations should be operated on a commercial basis. I make that contention, supported by the following evidence.
Various unsuccessful attempts over the years have been made by the university of Alberta to obtain from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation financial assistance in providing educational programmes. I say, unsuccessfully; that was in itself a tacit admission that the stations were expected to be operating on a commercial or semi-commercial basis. Further than that, in April 1943, in response to the university's application for a commercial broadcasting licence, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation indicated its approval- I -want you to note that, Mr. Speaker-of a commercial licence, subject to these two conditions:	first, that the gross advertising
revenue for CKUA should not exceed 825,000 per annum; and second, if CKUA took in any existing business from CFRN, then in Edmonton, the commercial licence of CKUA might be cancelled. I maintain that never has such an authoritarian thing as that been done by any government commission in Canada before this, in my time and within my knowledge. I do say, however, that this approval, although qualified, establishes the principle of the right of CKUA to a commercial licence; and further, it indicates that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation policy was dictated, not by the needs of the people, but by the financial appeals of the Edmonton station CFRN.
I suggest, sir, that any objection to permitting a university-owned and operated station to enter into commercial broadcasting had certainly disappeared by virtue of the fact that station CKUA by this time was the property of the Alberta Government Tele-

Radio Broadcasting
phones, and that the relationship between Alberta Government Telephones and CKUA was almost identical, if not identical, with the relationship that existed between the Manitoba telephone system and radio station CKY in Winnipeg and CKX in Brandon.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, at the time the application was made, were assured that they could expect the same cooperation from the radio department of the Alberta Government Telephones as they were then receiving from the radio department of the Manitoba telephone system. The province of Alberta felt, with perfect reason, that it was entitled to exercise its right of ownership of radio station CKUA by engaging in the' business of commercial broadcasting. The C.B.C. contended that if CKUA were granted a commercial licence it would detrimentally affect radio station CFRN. There is no force at all in that contention, for the reason that CKUA had no affiliation with a broadcasting corporation, either the trans-Canada network or the dominion network, as did the other stations in Edmonton. CFRN had affiliations with and was sustained by fees-large fees every year, from the dominion network of the C.B.C. CJCA, the other station in Edmonton, which, by the way, was the top money maker for 1,000 watt stations in the whole of the Dominion of Canada-and that is an important point and has a bearing on this whole case-was affiliated with the trans-Canada network, and received from C.B.C. large fees to sustain it in the field, in addition to its commercial gatherings. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the statistics which were submitted by the department of telephones to the government of Alberta at the time indicated very clearly that the Edmonton area afforded ample business for three radio stations.
An objection was raised by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that radio station CKUA, being government owned, would pay no income tax, while the other competing stations would be subject to payment of income tax. The answer to that proposition is that this identical situation existed in the province of Manitoba with respect to CKX and CKY.
To cut a long story short, eventually, after several months of deliberation and handing it back from one board or bureau to another, Mr. Walter A. Rush, the controller of radio, notified the department of telephones in Edmonton that C.B.C. had recommended a denial of the application, and1 he did so in the following terms:
In reply to your inquiry, I may say that the board of governors-
63260-3361	.
I want hon. members, Mr. Speaker, to note this particularly.
-have not recommended favourably on your application for a transfer of the licence of radio station CKUA from the university of Alberta to the department of telephones of the government of Alberta for commercial operation, for the following reasons:
Having noted that the present licence to CKUA-
Note the barefaced audacity of that.
-ivas issued for educational broadcasting purposes, and having reviewed all circumstances surrounding the radio station in Edmonton with respect to the commercial field, the board feels obliged to recommend denial of this application' for transfer of the licence.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What date is that?


Mr. LOW:: That is dated August 25, 1944. Now, I was interested in finding ou.t whether or not the licence had actually been granted to radio station CKUA for educational purposes only, and this is what I found. Mr. Clem L. King, executive assistant to the president of the university, examined personally the licences, and this is the statement which he provided:
So far as I have been able to determine, the licence was secured by purchase from an Edmonton company which had a commercial licence. The licence then issued-
In 1927.
-to the university of Alberta was a private commercial licence.
He further says:
The licences were issued as private commercial licences prior to April 1, 194.1, and the first licence upon which any restrictions as to the basis of operation appeared was that for the year April 1, 1941 to March 31, 1942. This restriction read as follows:
"This licence is issued subject to the condition that the station be operated on a non-commercial basis."
I have already pointed out that following that, in 1943, when the university of Alberta made application to the C.B.C. for a commercial licence, they were granted permission to have such licence on a restricted basis. I have already pointed out that the station was to be restricted to an income of $25,000 per annum gross, and secondly they were told they could not take any business from CFRN. Now, who were CFRN that they had to be protected by the C.B.C.? As a result of the refusal of the board to grant a licence in 1944 the government of Alberta, after making further applications and being turned down, then made application for a powerful station of 50,000 watts to be set up at Red Deer with power enough to serve the great northland. The application was refused.

Radio Broadcasting
I suspect that right here was born in the minds of C.B.C. the idea that they had better get in to Alberta and put up a 50,000 watt station somewhere before the province of Alberta made itself too vocal. I am satisfied that had pressure not been put on by the department of telephones and the university of Alberta we would never have this present move by the C.B.C. to take over the channel now held by CFCN in Calgary.


John Thomas Hackett: Who is the owner of the station whose income of $25,000 a year had to be protected?


Solon Earl Low: The Sunwapta Broadcasting
Company, which is affiliated with the Edmonton Bulletin.


John Thomas Hackett: What is the Edmonton Bulletin?


Solon Earl Low: That is a Liberal paper. I do not know whether that has anything to do with it.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Just a coincidence.


Solon Earl Low: I have given the facts with respect to this whole business, and I give them simply to show to the members of this house, and to get it on the record for the people of the country, what we are up against in relation to this fast growing and ever expanding octopus or Frankenstein monster the C.B.C. I believe it would be well for parliament to reject the bill now before the house at least for this session. I do not favour in any way the expansion of the C.B.C. until such time as we have assured ourselves that we have built up adequate safeguards against a system of creeping paralysis that is being cooked up for Canadians by forces behind the scenes for the definite purpose of curtailing individual right of free speech and free thinking in Canada.
I am not accusing the C.B.C. of being the force in society that is cooking it up. There are plenty of others that are doing that-cooking up, I say, a definite curtailment of the right of free speech and free thinking in Canada. I do not want in any way to lend my hand or to contribute to the creation of a bigger Frankenstein monster until we have learned how to control the one that we have.
There are four short suggestions which I should like to make, and which I think would be adequate to keep the government busy until next session at least. I like to be constructive, and I do not want the minister to feel that I am criticizing him. I know he is new in the business and has his hands full. However, I should like to be helpful, and in everything I do I hope I shall always strive to be constructive.
I think the government should busy itself in the drafting of a well defined policy subject to complete review by this parliament every year; that it should be satisfactory to the people of Canada; that it should be laid down in no indefinite terms-a policy which will at least make certain that the oyster does not control the man rather than the man the oyster. When I was on the west coast some years ago a native showed me with pride the great oysters produced out there, almost as big as my hand. Those were the oysters they could produce in the warm waters off the coast, and they told me there was a tradition there that men did not know whether the oyster controlled the man or the man the oyster. I believe, when I see what the C.B.C. has been doing, that it is high time we decided whether parliament shall control the C.B.C. or whether the C.B.C. shall control the people. Instead of section 2, subsection 4, of the bill as it is now before us, I suggest that the general manager and board of governors of the C.B.C. should all be removable at any time for cause- observe, I say for cause-without our having to submit to the condition that the recommendation shall come from the board itself. That condition I suggest, is a monstrous thing, and I shall fight it every step of the way. Imagine expecting us to put in a general manager who may be removable for cause at any time-how? On the recommendation of the corporation! Bless ray soul! Talk about making a closed corporation to get them away from the control of parliament and to enhance their sacrosanctity! No. I cannot believe that is the thing to do. It certainly is not a safeguard against the potential power and danger in such a set-up as the CJB.C.
My next suggestion is this. I believe that the policy laid down by the government should allow competitive networks of private stations in the provinces. The proposal made by my colleague the hon. member for Macleod last night is an excellent one. I do not know just what way could be found to do it, whether it would be wise to grant a certain channel to each province to be used as they see fit, either for a government-owned station or for a privately-owned concern, but I do say that there should be left sufficient private stations in the province to take care of local needs, and also to be able to form networks whenever they think it wise and desirable in order to get to the people the things the people want.
There is no argument under the sun that can convince the members of this house and the people at large that the C.B.C.. from its regional stations, can meet the needs of all the various localities in the dominion. They cannot do it. We have built up in Alberta a fine
[Mr. Low.)

Radio Broadcasting
listening audience around CFCN in Calgary, with a certain desirable wave channel. I understand the C.B.C. proposes to take over that channel and set up a great 50,000 watt regional station.


Mr. McCANN:: That is from the Liberal newspaper you were criticizing.


Solon Earl Low: I do not think it was from the Liberal newspaper.


James Joseph McCann: You say it is CFCN.


Arthur Leroy Smith: CFCN has nothing to do with any newspaper in the world.


Solon Earl Low: I said CFRN. At least I intended to say CFRN.


James Joseph McCann: I beg your pardon.


Solon Earl Low: I hold in my hand a map showing the area in which the facilities of this proposed new C.B.C. station should give service. I notice that the station is to be located somewhere about Red Deer. Is that not a coincidence? I wonder what put that idea into the minds of the C.B.C. Furthermore there is a large circle around the area in which the station would serve the people. I notice that the area of coverage is entirely in the southern half of the province, in the populated areas which are now adequately served by the private stations, and it does not extend into the far north at all. The station which the university of Alberta, in conjunction with the department of telephones, had proposed to put up at Red Deer was designed to cover that whole north, and would have covered it. We had in mind, sir, that the American broadcasting services were to be withdrawn. I understand that they have since been withdrawn and that their directional transmissions into that great north land have been discontinued. These people in the north need facilities; they need broadcasting programmes of every description in that north country. As time goes on the need will become greater. I cannot see anything in the present proposals of the C.B.C. in setting up the regional station which can possibly serve the needs of these people in the north country.
There is one other thing. The C.B.C. already have a regional station at Watrous, Saskatchewan. I live away down in the very southwestern part of Alberta, and at almost any hour of the day or night when Watrous is on the air we get the signal clear and strong enough to suit our needs. Who will answer this question:, why in the name of common sense does C.B.C. have to come into Alberta and take away the channel which has been used so successfully in building up the
finest listening audience in the populated sections of western Canada when they could not possibly present- a programme which could in any way take its place?
It is argued of course that the air waves are the property of the people of Canada. I agree, as did my colleague, the hon. member for Macleod in his splendid address last night, but that does not mean that the air waves are the sole property of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I say to you, sir, that the people themselves have some rights, and they should have the right to speak their mind. I submit to you, that they are already doing that. The statistics covering the listening audiences will amply demonstrate exactly what they are thinking.
The fourth suggestion that I should like to make is that there should be a board of appeal, as was suggested by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). I thought that was a splendid idea. I do not know why it was that I thought of it; perhaps it was a case of two minds thinking alike; but certainly there must be a board of appeal. I noted in the correspondence between the university of Alberta, the government telephone department of Alberta and the various departments down here in Ottawa including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's offices, the Prime Minister's office, the Minister of Transport's office, and the Minister of Reconstruction's office, all of which correspondence I have before me, that nobody seemed to know exactly who had the responsibility to do what. Everybody seemed to rely entirely upon the advice of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's board, as has already been pointed out two or three times. I do not need to labour the point. Certainly the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation cannot give just administration when it sits in the chair of both the judge and jury; nor can it, as the hon. member for Macleod said, give justice if it is the pitcher and at the same time is allowed to call the strikes. I say, too, that we should exercise care in selecting the board of appeal. If there had been a board of appeal to whom the university of Alberta could have gone in 1944 we would not have had nearly the difficulty we did have, and there would not have been the miscarriage of justice that there was in connection with that station.
I wish to say a word about commentators. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should exercise great care, much greater care than they have ever exercised before, in the selection of commentators. There, sir, is one of the gravest responsibilities resting upon the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at the
Radio Broadcasting

present time. People should be told who their commentators are; they should be told what philosophy they follow. Too often men posing as commentators find their way into a position without the people knowing who they are, what they are, and what philosophy they follow. As a result of day after day broadcasting they are able to mould the thinking of the people, and direct it into channels which may be questionable and injurious. They are able to pour out uncalculated quantities of that type of poison which brings results such as we have suffered from in this country, namely, discordant loyalties. It is high time that we began to use much more care in their selection. I have no objection to any person getting on the radio, to any particular philosophy having its spokesman over the radio, but I do say that the people ought to know who they are and what they represent. If they know that they can make up their minds whether to listen and whether to believe. The position of commentator is a most important one, and the commentator should be chosen with care.
I am certain that no one in this house, if he stops to think at all, wants to see the people of Canada forced into a straitjacket where free speech and free thinking are the privilege only of those who control the daily lives of the people. I do not, and I shall fight against any such possibility with all my strength. I will not support the bill now. When I am certain that our freedom is assured and that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is in reality subject ^o the democratic control of the Canadian people, then I shall be pleased to vote for the appropriation of as much money as they may require to take care of their expansion, their research and their activities.


John George Diefenbaker: 
John George Diefenbaker: Yes, and as the hon. member for Stanstead suggests, highly improbable. And let it be emphasized that I believe in the C.B.C. as a national institution. There are some who are endeavouring to place certain hon. members in the position of opposing government ownership; but there is no reason for that viewpoint. What we are asking is that there should be fairness under the law established by parliament in the relationships between the C.B.C. and the private stations. They are entitled to justice, under the law-no more, no less.
An independent body set up for the purpose will interpret the law as passed by parliament. It will determine whether or not the C.B.C. is properly carrying out the wishes of parliament. To argue that a body composed of one of the litigants can determine impartially and without bias the rights of one of the opposing litigants is certainly contrary to experience and reason. I submit that unless such a body is set up, a paralyzing blow will be struck by parliament at "freedom of the air," or at least at what is know'n as "fairness of the air." If the C.B.C. continues uncontrolled, private stations in this country will become vassals, permitted to survive only at the sufferance of the overlord. The great danger of that is the danger of developing totalitarianism in this country.
The other day the Minister of Reconstruction rose in his place and reversed a stand he had taken two years ago, which in turn was a reversal of a stand he had taken in 1937. All honour to him. This is one of the few times a minister in this House of Commons has ever admitted that experience had proven that an opinion he expressed tw'o years ago had not been borne out by subsequent events.
Experience in continental Europe has been that placing control of radio in the power of any government has given government control of the thinking of the country. In asking for the setting up of an independent board such as this, the great and abiding principle at stake is freedom of the air. Can there be freedom when all power rests in one institution? Freedom of the air is often believed to be the same thing as freedom of speech. But there is this difference between the two: a newspaper circulates among those who accept its general viewpoint. Broadcasts go into the homes of people of different opinions. The limitation on broadcasting is the limitation that it shall not contravene the law of libel and slander; and there is another social limitation, namely that the listener has the right to use his thumb and forefinger when things are being said with which he disagrees. What is
Radio Broadcasting

happening here to-day is that the thumb and forefinger controlling what is to be broadcast is a body under the control of the government of the day. Human nature being what it is, can you expect that broadcasts dealing with current events will be not tinged or tainted by the individuality or views of the person using that instrument?
The hon. member for Peace River mentioned commentators. While I may not be in general agreement with his viewpoint, I will say that whoever has charge of commenting on the news .controls the future thinking of the nation. When day after day certain points of view are pounded into the subconscious minds of the listeners, the ultimate effect is that those subconscious minds are changed by the continued operation of the propaganda, whether designedly done or not. That is why every effort should be made to ensure that the private stations shall have an opportunity to broadcast points of view different from the points of view currently represented by the government of the day.
However free the C.B.C. programmes may be from direct influence, there will be a bias in the government sponsored announcements that are made from time to time. The government has a preferred place in the mobilization of public opinion. It does not need to be intentional, but the bias is there. Whatever announcement is made, always behind it is projected the personality and point of view of the person broadcasting. It is because of that fact that I believe public policy decrees that there should not be unified control of radio in a national body independent of control. Government monopoly of the broadcasting facilities of this country will in the end lead to all thinking alike, and as some one has said, when all think alike, no one thinks much.
In Rose's book on radio broadcasting he uses these words, which I shduld like to appropriate as my own:
Democracy's only protection is an awakened and informed public opinion. This public opinion can be obtained only when no one is allowed to dictate what the radio shall, or shall not carry, or is permitted to present its point of view without adequate rebuttal by the opposition.
I am not in opposition to national control of broadcasting, but I contend there is a field for the private broadcaster who should be assured that he will be permitted freedom to the end that what he is broadcasting shall not be subject to the direction of the C.B.C., a government owned institution.
Mention was made of commentators, and I gathered from the remarks of the hon. mem-

ber for Peace River that he was referring to what I have heard criticized on a number of occasions, the communistic turn to some of the comments that are made. There is no medium more effective for mobilizing public opinion than the radio. Canada cannot compromise with communism. While I have been a critic of the operations in certain particulars of the Taschereau-Kellock royal commission, I have always agreed that it did a fine work when it brought to light of day the insidious activities of communism in our midst. If democracy is to live, we in Canada, in the empire and in the United States must show that democracy is the superior form of government in a world divided between two contending beliefs. In the place of programmes tinged with a communistic viewpoint, let there be a continuation of certain programmes now being broadcast over the C.B.C. wherein will be brought home to the people of Canada the benefits of democracy, its meaning, and what its antithesis will mean if ever control is secured by communism in our country.
There are those who will not agree with me, but I think good work has been done by the present government in Saskatchewan in bringing parliament to the people by means of broadcasting the proceedings of the legislature. I have found all over the province that while the session is on the people are interested and are ready to take advantage of this opportunity offered. How many people in our country would like to have the opportunity of being present to hear parliament in session, of seeing democracy in action. I believe consideration should be given at an early day to broadcasting the proceedings of parliament. A great work has been done by private, broadcasters in that connection. I think James Allard and those associated with him should be congratulated upon having given the opportunity to members in all parts of this country to broadcast the doings of parliament. These broadcasts have done much to increase the knowledge of the Canadian people as to what is taking place in parliament.
Then there is another type of programme which I think the C.B.C. should put out. We in Canada are alongside the United States, and many programmes originating from stations in that country' glorify crime and lawlessness. Our people are bound to be affected. Programmes advocating obedience of law would be of benefit to all; for without law enforcement the whole process of democracy is destroyed. We are living in a period of increased lawlessness, and I refer particularly to offences against the criminal code, which have multiplied over I he last few years-why,

Radio Broadcasting
I do not know. But we have a medium at hand to bring into the homes the necessity of obedience to the law, which if properly utilized would have the immediate and effective result of imbuing the people of our country with a greater appreciation for law and order.
What is the situation in our country? There is a growing contempt for law. Lawlessness does not become lawful because of the numbers engaged in breaking the law. Anarchy is the absence of law or, where there is law, the lack of enforcement. Destroy the law and ve destroy the principle of equality, and ultimately democracy within our nation cannot survive. I make this appeal to the minister, that in order to offset the effect of the glorification of lawlessness so often heard on the air waves, the C.B.C. has an opportunity to render a service which will pay great dividends in citizenship; for if lawlessness ever achieves primacy over parliament, or if lawlessness is condoned, then there will be anarchy. If the law can be circumvented or scoffed at or unenforced, the moral fabric of the nation will be destroyed: Is that the work of the radio? The great uplifting bodies are the pulpit, the press and the radio. There is an opportunity for service in citizenship in this direction which can mean much to the people of this country.
Radio has no boundaries. Some countries may have set up an iron curtain against the invasion of new thought, but those curtains are no defence against democratic broadcasts. All of us are influenced by broadcasts, and being so influenced the work of the C.B.C. could be greatly enlarged by making citizenship and the creation of better citizens its prime purpose and its main aim.
I am going to deal for a moment with the financial situation. Looking over the accounts of C.B.C., I have been struck by the fact that in repent years, while its advertising is increasing, deficits are approaching. In its report dated March 31, 1945, the net operating deficit is shown at $72,000. According to the statement of C.B.C., that loss included an allowance for depreciation and obsolescence amounting to $227,000. For the year ended March 31, 1946, the tentative financial statement shows a loss of $78,400, but without taking into consideration any allowance for depreciation and obsolescence. In other words, if depreciation and obsolescence were no greater in 1945-46 than in 1944-45, the loss this year to March 31 would be $305,000. Therefore I ask the minister this: is there any reason why one newspaper in this country, the Toronto Star, should be bonused to the amount of $135 per day, 313 days in the year, amounting to a total of $42,000? How loose the business administration was is indicated by the fact that I came upon this transaction by chance in the course of an examination. There was no resolution on the books of the C.B.C. dealing with it, nothing in the books to support it. No action had ever been taken by the board at any time with regard to it. It indicates a looseness which ought not to characterize a government body. I asked the chairman of the board, Mr. Dunton, when he first found out about it, and he replied that it was several months ago, but he had not done anything about it or brought it to the attention of the board of governors because he was so busy getting ready to meet the parliamentary committee which he thought would be set up earlier in the session than it actually was.
In August, 1937, the matter was brought to the attention of the general manager and apparently there was disagreement among the directors as to the propriety of this transaction. In August, 1937, the present Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) wrote a letter to the general manager of the broadcasting corporation suggesting to him that he continue the Toronto Star in its position because there was some moral justification for that being done. Whatever the rights were in the past, those rights have long since ceased demanding that the people of Canada continue to bonus the Star, and I think the time has come to put an end to the preference. To me it seems passing strange that a matter as serious as this, involving $42,000 a year- because that is the amount it is worth to the Star; it is worth less to the C.B.C. as that amount is subject to advertisers' commissions -should not have been brought officially to the notice of the board. I think, too, that the relevation of this bonus indicates the degree to which the C.B.C. was under the control of the government.
I am going to refer to two or three letters in this connection, quoting only the pertinent portions because my time is almost up. Here is a letter to the Toronto Star signed by the general manager of C.B.C., dated May 17, 1938. In part it says:
I have felt that your zealous support and your pioneering have deserved special treatment; nevertheless, it has to be kept in mind that sooner or later the situation will have to be regularized in terms of the press as a whole.
That was in 1938. Even up to this date nothing has been done to regularize this matte*. I have before me a copy of another
Radio Broadcasting

letter dated September 30, 1938, directed to the Toronto Star and signed by the general manager of C.B.C., in which he says:
As you know, I have always done what was in my power to keep the Star in the picture at CBL; but, as I think I mentioned to you once or twice, the arrangement has not got the normal elements of permanence.
That was in 1938, and though the arrangement had none of the normal elements of permanence then, it apparently had the elements of perpetuity; for it has continued up to date. The reason why it should be continued is given in these words by the manager of C.B.C. in this letter:
I feel that it would be unfair to the Star, especially in view of its support of public service broadcasting, to deprive it of any place on the air as long as its competitors enjoy such a place.
I do not know who the competitors were, but whatever others have enjoyed they enjoyed as a result of payment for their privilege of broadcasting. In a letter from the commercial manager, Mr. E. A. Weir, dated April 19, 1938, to the Toronto Daily Star, the following appears:
We are not unmindful of the many courtesies and the broad general support which the Star has given to the corporation and the principle for which it stands. That has meant much to us and the whole plan of nationalization.
I think the time has come for reconsideration to be given to this matter. My hon. friend the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) points out that the majority of the committee refused to put a recommendation in the report that this privilege should be withdrawn. Whether or not the committee of parliament would make such a recommendation, my suggestion is that the time has come to bring an end to that, especially in view of the fact that the broadcasting corporation is now budgeting for deficits, and two periods paying $135 a day would go a long way towards reducing those deficits.
Now, sir, I conclude. I reiterate in my conclusion the suggestions I have made. One, which I have made over the years, is the setting up of an independent body or the board of transport commissioners in order to adjudicate as between the claims of the C.B.C. and the private broadcasting corporations in accordance with the law passed by parliament. There can be no criticism of setting up an independent body for appeal, unless it be that an independent body administering the law would come to a different decision than a body, itself the litigant, appearing before itself.
Second, the necessity of attention being given by the C.B.C. in an ever-increasing degree to showing the ramifications of com-

munism, the dangers of communism securing a grip on our country, and pointing out the benefits of democracy and what democracy means to every man, regardless of his position, in the land.
These are matters which I think will receive the support of the corporation. There must be equality as between all citizens in this land, between all private groups claiming rights of broadcasting in this country, subject to the predominant right of national broadcasting continuing to remain a national institution.


Mr. W. A. ROBINSON (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) even when I disagree with him in some respects. I would, however, like to associate myself with some remarks which he made, and those were the remarks in appreciation of Mr. Allard and his work in connection with our reports from parliament hill. I think that has been appreciated by all hon. members, and I am very glad to mention it at this time.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to the previous speakers on this measure, mostly, I am afraid, in criticism, and I feel impelled to rise at this time to say a few words in support of the measure.
The expansion plans of the C.B.C. are not by a~ny means an innovation. They are merely part of a well settled principle which has had the approval of successive governments and successive parliamentary committees. I think most. Canadians, including most members of this house, approve the idea of a nationally owned broadcasting system, and I think it has always been contemplated that this system should be expanded and enlarged to serve the needs of the listening public.
Perhaps it will not be out of place at this time if I review briefly some of the major steps in the development of our thinking on this subject of radio broadcasting.- I do so, not with the idea of suggesting that we should be bound by the past, but rather to show a certain continuity of development.
Following the haphazard development of radio in the early twenties, the Aird commission was appointed in 1928. This valuable body established, amongst other things, three facts of major importance. They were: that broadcasting was tending to concentrate in more densely populated areas, leaving more lightly populated areas ineffectively served; also, that the majority of programmes heard was from sources outside Canada; again, that there was a great demand and need for the development of Canadian broadcasting in the

Radio Broadcasting
interests of Canadian listeners and in the national interests of Canada. The commission came to the conclusion that the interests of the listening public and of the nation could be served adequately only-
... by some form of public ownership, operation and control behind which is the national power and prestige of the whole public of Canada.
This conclusion of the Aird commission became the keynote of the subsequent develop^ ment of radio in this country.
In later years, committees of this house reaffirmed and enlarged this basic principle. The first parliamentary committee met, I think, in 1932 and recommended in part as follows:
. . . that a nationally owned system of radio broadcasting be instituted and that all stations required for its proper organization be eventually acquired.
Following some years of operation, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was brought into being in 1936 by act of this parliament. Subsequent committees reaffirmed that basic principle, and I should like particularly to refer to the report of the committee of 1942-43:
Your committee now desires to reaffirm these principles as stated in the reports of the committees for the years mentioned in brackets:
(a)	The paramount importance of a single national authority to control all broadcasting in the public interest; (4932)
(b)	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 nationally owned system of:
(i)	The character of all programmes, political or otherwise, broadcast by all stations
and of the advertising content thereof; and
(ii)	All wire-line networks used for carrying broadcast programmes; (4936)
I think it is clear that the broad principles behind the development of the C.B.C. have been plainly enunciated. We must realize, however, that the corporation is only in its infancy. It was created in 1936, and is now only at its tenth or tin anniversary. If we have any pride in our national system, surely we can cooperate now to put it on a gold, or, at least, on a silver basis. Its development, its approach to maturity has been retarded for two very good reasons. First, it has been feeling its way in a rapidly developing art where the premature expenditure of money might prove unwise. Secondly, of course, the war has naturally restricted its orderly expansion. Surely, now that the war Is over and the corporation has an experience
of ten years behind it, we can allow it to develop in the manner which has always been contemplated.
It is inevitable but at the same time, in some respects, I think, regrettable that the expansion of the national system foreshadows the allocation of new wave lengths to certain private stations which had previously used clear channels allotted to Canada under the Havana agreement. I think I can say without. fear of contradiction that all members who sat on the recent committee were very much impressed by the able representations, made on behalf of two of the stations affected, and I refer to CFCN, Calgary and CFRB, Toronto.
We could not fail to recognize, and have recognized in the report, the good community service which has been rendered by these and other private stations. Nevertheless I cannot agree, as has been suggested by one hon. member opposite, that the private stations are not receiving "fair play" or that insecurity of their tenure of a particular wave length constitutes a "sword of Damocles" hanging over their heads. As a matter of fact, the two private stations I have mentioned, in their representations to the committee, attempted to show that they were taken by surprise to some extent by the present proposals, and I think it can be fairly said that they failed in this, and for three reasons. First, the statute law is perfectly clear that a proprietary interest in a wave length cannot be obtained. Secondly, since 1941, endorsements have been placed on the licences issued to these stations by the Department of Transport, which endorsements the department intended to operate as notice of a possible change in the future. I quite agree that the endorsements were not phrased as clearly as they might have been to indicate such an intention. That was made quite clear in the committee. But at the very least, these endorsements should have had the effect of giving to the affected stations good cause to weigh carefully the insecurity of their occupancy of these channels. Third, and I think possibly most importantly, the principle of public ownership of high-power stations was enunciated in parliamentary committees as far back as 1932. The committee of 1942 was particularly clear on this point, and I should like to refer to some of the proceedings of that committee.
In the committee of 1942, Doctor Frigon of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was examined at some length by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I will read a portion of that examination as reported in the proceedings of the committee.
Radio Broadcasting

First, I might explain that the hon. member for, Rosetown-Biggar was referring to the three stations CFCN, Calgary; CFRB, Toronto, and CKY, Winnipeg, which were not owned by the corporation. I quote:
Q. These are not all corporation stations?
A. No. There are two that are not corporation stations.
Q. What two are they?
A. CFRB, Toronto and CFCN, Calgarj.
Q. I understood there was another.
A. CKY, Winnipeg; that is owned by the Manitoba government.
Q. That is three stations that have been allotted clear channels.
A. Yes.
Q. That can be occupied up to fifty kilowatts?
A. Right.
Q. Have they an understanding with you that they will be required to vacate these channels?
A. First of all, the frequencies are allocated annually and the Minister of Transport has always the right to make a transfer in each year.
Q. And there is no possibility of any misunderstanding that these stations have a vested interest in those channels?
A. No.
Q. None whatever?
A. No.
Q. So that they can be renewed at any time that the corporation needs those channels?
A. They can be turned over to the C.B.C.
Q. For its own purposes?
A. Yes.


Mr. FLEMING:: Does the hon. member say that this statement made by Doctor Frigon to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was notice to these stations themselves that the C.B.C., as a matter of policy, would take over their wave lengths definitely?


William Alfred Robinson: I am not suggesting that this is a direct notice to the people involved; but I will say that representatives of at least CFRB appeared later on in that committee, as will be seen by the proceedings; 'and, as the hon. member knows, the private stations took an active part and a great interest in the sittings of the radio committee. This is a matter of public record, and I think it is at least constructive notice. Following that-


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no vested interest. That is the law.


William Alfred Robinson: I refer the hon. member to the last question which I read:
Q. So that they can be renewed at any time that the corporation needs those channels?
A. They can be turned over to the C.B.C.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It does not say that is their policy.


William Alfred Robinson: Coming now to the report of the committee of 1942, it reaffirms the principle of-
. . . 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.
The report goes on to say, at page 1095:
The private broadcasting stations have no vested interest in the sound-waves they are allowed to use. The government and the .corporation should not hesitate to terminate any licence when it is in the public interest to do so. Any increase in power considered necessary and desirable to occupy the channels allowed under the Havana agreement should be made in stations owned or taken over by the corporation.
I do not think anything could be much clearer than the proceedings from which I have quoted, and these phrases from the final report of that committee, and I think it will be seen that the C.B.C. is only proposing to do now that which it had in contemplation some years ago and which has been delayed by reason of the war. At the same time I urge the C.B.C. and the government to give every assistance to the affected stations in allocating the best possible alternative wave lengths to them and to allow them to develop sufficient power on their new wave lengths to maintain and continue their present fine position as community stations.
In conclusion, I should like to say a few words as to the committee itself. I personally found the work extremely interesting. It was the first time that I had had the privilege of sitting on the radio committee. As the various statements were made, the witnesses were examined and the representations were given to us, I am sure that every new member of the committee, including myself, obtained an entirely new, and in most respects satisfying, picture of the present position of radio in Canada and of its future development.
I heartily concur in the recommendation that a similar committee be appointed each year. I should like to emphasize that it should commence its work early in the session.
I would go farther and say a few words about the personnel of the committee. Radio is a fascinating, but an extremely technical, subject. In the committee we were tremendously assisted by hon. members who had had the opportunity of sitting on previous committees and who had a good grounding in the subject. Perhaps I should not mention names particularly, but I should like to make some mention of the good work done by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) and the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross). I should also like to pay a tribute

Radio Broadcasting
to the able chairmanship of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank). Therefore I think any committee which is appointed in future should have a good proportion of old hands and a fairly generous sprinkling of new blood, so that a good many members of the house may be given an opportunity to study our radio problems.
I believe that a yearly committee is essential if parliament is to exercise the close scrutiny which should be exercised over such a powerful instrument, if we are to be assured that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is carrying out its declared functions, for instance, that it is giving coverage to remote and sparsely populated areas and equality of opportunity of discussion of public questions.
One of the questions which should certainly have the attention of any future radio committee was that raised by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and touched on by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), namely, the matter of appeal from Canadian Broadcasting Corporation decisions. It seems to me that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as a regulatory as well as an operative body, must at times be placed in a somewhat anomalous position. The present committee did not have the time to study this question carefully, but it has left the door wide open to future study. I agree that such study should be made.
I do not think I can be accused of taking up too much of the time of the house, but I feel that I have spoken sufficiently long at this late hour of the session on the general aspects of the measure before us. There are a few particular points which I should like to refer to later but I can do that when the bill is in committee.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: I just wish to make two or three remarks. Although not a member of the radio committee I have listened to the debate with great interest. With the exception of probably two members from the C.C.F. party, all members have spoken against the danger of the growing monopoly of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation over radio. The leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) quoted the words of the then Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), who said:
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.
From the record I am not sure when that statement was made, but in the light of what has happened elsewhere in the world as a result of government monopoly it now seems to me to be a terrible statement. The leader of the C.C.F. apparently endorses it, because he goes on to say, as reported at page 5297 of Hansard of yesterday:
In view of all that is happening to-day, in view of I will not say lobbying because that would not be true, but in view of the tremendous press campaign that has gone on across Canada in the last year, to limit the powers of the present broadcasting corporation ...
I take it from that that the leader of the C.C.F. is against limiting of the powers of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I wonder what would be said if the government were to apply the same ideas to the press. I do not see much difference between the press and the radio. If the government has absolute control over the one, why should it not have absolute control over the other? It seems to me that it is a most dangerous situation.
I should like to acknowledge my thanks to the private stations for the privileges which they have accorded hon. members in their broadcasts over local stations. There, again, that was a privilege granted by private stations, not by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. As a member of the house I have never received any facilities whatsoever from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. On the contrary, when time on the air was allotted to the various parties in the house this group of thirteen members was given the same time as a group which no longer exists in the house; the only member they had is now serving a sentence as an enemy of his country. The Labour Progressive party, the communist party, is given the same facilities over the nationally controlled Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as the Social Credit party with thirteen members in the house, and the movement which has formed the government of the province of Alberta since 1935. It is my personal view that members of parliament should be given a great deal more time and' greater facilities in the use of radio, over local stations. As it is to-day, listeners hear comments and interpretations of news from people who, so far as we know, are not responsible to anybody. We do not know their politics; we do not know what they stand for; we do not know for whom they are speaking.
My impression is that commentators should be limited to the giving of actual factual news. If commentators are to be permitted to interpret that news and thereby to influence the thinking of the people of Canada, then the people should know exactly who is speaking and for whom he is speaking. Put a label on all commentators.
Radio Broadcasting

I could name one or two of them; in fact I do not mind naming two. I would refer first to Dyson Carter, a man who frequently speaks for the C.B.C.


Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: Will the hon. member tell me when he spoke for the C.B.C.?


Norman Jaques: I understand he does.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Your understanding is wrong.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: How do you know?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: He did not speak for the C.B.C.


Charles Edward Johnston: How do you know; where is your proof?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: He is not an official of the C.B.C.


Norman Jaques: I never said he was an official of the C.B.C. I said he had facilities of the C.B.C., and I say he is a communist- even if he is not so labeled. He is a communist and when he was taxed with it he laughed and said, "Why, I was given the job by the government all during the war of saying these very things."
I might say that Matthew Halton is another. There is no label on him. But one has only to listen to him. One need not be very acute to realize where his sympathies are, and for whom he is speaking. I have heard him on more than one occasion, and there is not muen doubt about it. But the general public does not realize that. They hear a commentator over the radio and they take it for granted that he is absolutely unprejudiced. They say, "Here is the actual truth, not prejudiced or coloured in any way at all." Naturally they take it as authentic. A great deal of propaganda has been put over in that way.
My view is that, so far as broadcasting is concerned, the C.B.C. should confine its work on the radio to the news itself, and to entertainment. We cannot have too much good entertainment, including good music. But even there propaganda is used. I happen to be very fond of classical music. During the winter I listen to the philharmonic concerts from New York-never miss them if I can help it. I noticed that until Finland was taken over by Russia we heard quite a good deal of music by Sibelius. I have not heard any since Finland was conquered. Instead of Sibelius, we hear now Shostakovich. I do not pretend to be an authority on music, but I believe there are few people who, if given the choice, would prefer Shostakovich to Sibelius. Certainly I for one would not.

I would conclude by repeating the danger to which people are exposed by means of propaganda from men who are responsible to no one and who apparently speak for nobody. They make their comments as though they were absolutely unprejudiced when, all the time, they are making them purely for purposes of propaganda.
If the C.B.C. thinks my remarks are unfair, then they have an easy method of proving me wrong. I challenge them to do so. Grant any recognized Social Crediter the same facilities which have been granted to these

well, I call them reds, but you can call them fellow-travellers, if you like-and I will take my words back. But until that happens, I say that the C.B.C. has been used by communists as a means of spreading communist propaganda.
I object to this bill, which will increase the power of the C.B.C. I object to voting any more .money for radio monopoly.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, in rising to discuss this bill, I wish to say this, that on the occasions I have been privileged to speak in the house I have each time found it possible and convenient gladly to commend some parts of the legislation then offered by the government. I am not in that position to-day.
I disagree with this report, in toto. I disagree with every page, every paragraph, every line, every word of it; I disagree even with the title. The title says that it is a report from the radio committee. It is nothing of the kind; it is a report from a few people, advocating everything suggested by the C.B.C.
[DOT]-and that under the leadership of the new leader of the Liberal party, who is not in the house at the present time, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell).
Before approaching the various suggestions made in the report, I want to say that I have now been in Ottawa for two sessions and I have become acquainted with the man by the name of Bennett. It does not matter that I lived in the same town with him for thirty years, practised the same profession he practised, and that I have partaken of his bread and wine, and he has partaken of my bread-but not my wine. I have livedi in hotels with him; I have travelled with him, and I thought I knew something about him.
But I find I was all wrong. I come here to Ottawa, and I find that in almost ever}' debate, be the subject agriculture, the C.B.C., mining, or some other subject, our hon. friends opposite have always found something to quote from Mr. Bennett. The socialists to my left have always had something to say

Radio Broadcasting
and I have learned that he is not the man that I thought I knew, that he is a sort of ogre who has a baby as an appetizer before his dinner, who washes his hands in the red, warm blood of innocent children, and all that kind of thing. But when it comes to something like this they go back fourteen years and they quote Mr. Bennett. He is then Viscount Bennett, the great statesman. Frankly I am just a little bit fed up with it. If it had not been for the fact that Mr. Bennett was there from 1930 to 1935 many of them would have been mentally deficient in the contributions they have sought to make on many occasions to the debates.
Coming to this business of broadcasting, I want to begin by saying that during the sittings of this committee I had the pleasure of meeting a number of men connected with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Personally, of them and to them I say that I have never met finer people; I have never met men who were more seeking to do a good job of work in Canadian broadcasting. But it is the system under which they are acting that I express definite opposition to at the present time. Before the last sitting of the committee we were asked by the chairman to make suggestions, and I replied almost immediately with the following: First, that the committee should report against taking over the larger wave lengths in Manitoba, Ontario and Alberta and, second, that I was in favour of the committee, recommending that an independent tribunal should be set up to determine matters between the C.B.C. and the private broadcasters, the present regulations to govern such body with the right in that body to revoke or alter them.
I realize that this has been discussed already by a number of members. I am glad to see the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) in the house, and I see a couple more lawyers over there at the present time. I want to ask him this question: It is admitted, even in the report, that the C.B.C. is in competition with private broadcasting; that is true and no one seeks to deny it; no one can deny it. What do we find? We find that that same body, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, with respect to its opponent is at once the policeman, the judge and the gaoler. That is a simple statement of fact which no one can and which no one dare refute.
To the hon. gentlemen opposite who practise the same profession as I do, or to the lay brethren over there like the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) who is one of the best barbershop lawyers I know of, I put this simple question:	Will some one
over there rise in his place and justify that
sort of thing? Will they, before this debate is over, please stand up and, on their honour as members of this profession, make some attempt to justify that terrible state of affairs, because I can use no other word?
I realize that, in an endeavour to make a distinction between broadcasting and railroading, Mr. Dunton said that broadcasting [DOT] was cultural; that is the only distinction he made. However, it is also commercial. The C.B.C. now seeks to take advertising revenue from the private stations, because that is the purpose of this new business. There is no other purpose; that is what it is seeking to do. Will someone justify to me that sort of thing? Will he merely say that it is just? It is so contrary to natural justice and every other kind of justice that I am anxious to see someone justify it.
I know it will be said that this report has not found against the contention that I make. What the report says is that it should be given further study by the C.B.C., further study by the Department of Transport, and that some other committee should deal with it. Never in any report of any committee of this house will you find such a straight dodging of duty. That is all it is. What further investigation can there be of the necessity for the removal of a great and complete injustice in this country. I want someone over there or over here to answer that.
I turn now to something else. The basis upon which these wave lengths are to be taken from these people is that somebody said so some years ago that and subsequent committees have confirmed that position. I asked Mr. Dunton if he thought the creation of this new network and the taking over of these stations would create one extra advertising dollar and his answer was "no". The net result and the sole purpose must be to take from the private stations advertising dollars already in existence. Then we have the hypocrisy of its being said that the C.B.C. intends to encourage private broadcasting. Not only is that nonsensical; it is an utterly dishonest statement to make in the report.
For a short time I intend to deal with my part of the country. This was done quite well by the hon. member for Macleod, (Mr. Hansell), and I am going to be quite brief. Hon. members will be glad to know I am going to be brief in anything else I may say. Out there we have station CFCN which puts out the best news broadcast I have listened to and which is sponsored by the Alberta wheat pool. That station is to lose its wave length. I would remind hon. members who were not members of the radio committee that to that committee came a friend of mine,
Radio Broadcasting

Mr. Marshall Porter. With him came three men, the heads of the largest agricultural organization there. They had held meetings with the heads of practically every agricultural or stock organization in Alberta, seeking to obtain a membership of 15,000 or 20,000 farmers to take over this station. They said they had their own. problems to discuss and they wanted to speak in their own language and be spoken to by persons who understood them. Talk about remote control! 'It is suggested that this control lie 2,000 miles away in Toronto or Montreal. That is what is to be done about the problems of people in Alberta who want to talk their own language and discuss their own problems. That is just silly beyond words.
Will someone over there tell me why the government want another 50,000 watt station in the city of Toronto when they already have one? What possible excuse-there is no reason, of course-can be given for the erection of a second 50,000 watt station in Toronto? What other coverage is there that they are seeking? They have another 5,000 watt station now, and they have the 50,000 watt station. The Elliott-Haynes report was referred to a while ago by the hon. member for New Westminster, and that shows clearly that CFRB is easily the most popular station there. Its record of public service is unsurpassed by any other station in the Dominion of Canada. That was proven beyond question. The record of our own station CFCN is a model of public service, and no one has been able to deny that.


John Horne Blackmore: And public popularity.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Clearly so. We have heard a good deal of criticism of private radio broadcasting. I know the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has this book which I hold in my hand. It is called "Radio's Second Chance", and is written by Mr. Charles
A.	Siepmann who was a former employee of the British Broadcasting Corporation, who came to the United States and is now a citizen of that country. He is a consultant with the federal communications commission which has to do with radio in the United States of America. We have had this book thrown at us a good deal, and it has a lot of virtuous things in it, but I am going to read one paragraph from it which has not been read by those people who oppose the private stations. It is on page 9 of the preface; it is written by the author, and this is what he says:
Nor does criticism of the abuses of the commercial system imply, by any analog}- whatever, that government monopoly broadcasting is a desired alternative. Ours is a system of free 
enterprise within a framework of government controls, which is infinitely preferable. Radio organized by government has proved itself the most disastrous of all systems. No one who has lived in Europe could advocate that we should try that here.
So that when this man is being quoted let us remember that he also said what I have just read. That brings me to this.
I want to go right along with the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) in saying and repeating-and I said it publicly before the committee-that I am all in favour of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It has done a splendid work; there is no doubt about that. It is a national instrument, and there is a great place for it. But if you go over its history you will find this. The Aird report upon which our radio law is based is an interesting document. I am not being critical of something that happened in 1929, because no one then could possibly have foreseen the advances that would be made by radio in this country. But I would point this out, that in the appendix to that report one can see the way in which people's minds were working. The appendix deals with Australia in eleven lines, and incidentally in Australia they have a national system and also a private system, but the national system in Australia does not carry advertising. They have made the clean break there which was suggested so clearly in the Aird report itself as the system which should be adopted in Canada. Australia gets eleven lines; Great Britain gets six; the United States, with 603 stations, gets 2i lines; the German system, which is a state-ownership system, gets twenty-four lines, and we know what state-owned radio did in Germany. It was the greatest instrument that Hitler had at hand, and he used it to debauch the German people and bring on this last war. Without radio, he could not have done it for one moment.
The Aird report goes on to say that perhaps to help out the situation until the thing gets on its feet the national radio system should have some indirect advertising, limited in amount, and that amount was fixed later by Mr. Brockington at $500,000 as the maximum to which they would ever go. We have heard the figures on that given by the hon. member for Lake Centre, and we know we have gone away beyond that. But I am not opposed to that. They needed the money. That is the simple answer. They had to have the money. They already have $4,000,000 odd from the people of this country, and the private radio stations do not get any of that. The national radio system have had that money and they need more. I am not blam-

Radio Broadcasting
ing them for wanting more or for getting more if they do that in open ordinary competition with people who have sunk their money and a good deal of their lives in building up audiences, for an audience is radio's stock-in-trade, just as a subscription list is the most valuable thing a newspaper has, because upon it depends the amount it will get from its advertising.
Let me repeat. Radio, from this Aird report and from subsequent reports of committees, was aimed and destined to be a service vehicle for the people of Canada. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advertises that it now covers 94 point something per cent of the Canadian people-94 per cent. Then how in the world is the setting up of another network going to give them one more listener? It has reached the saturation point now- 94 per cent. Yet they come along and ask this parliament for 82,000,000. What for? To build these expensive stations-not to get another listener, not one-but in order to carry the 82,000,000, which at three per cent comes to $60,000 a year. They say they are going to pay it back, and the only way they can carry the loan and pay it back is by taking advertising now gathered up by the private radio stations. There is no other source of revenue.
So that when we consider whether or not we intend to approve this report I am anxious that all members of this house who, in times gone by, have suggested that they believe in individual enterprise should give some thought to that simple statement of fact which, once more, I defy anyone to contradict.
I am now going back to Alberta again, and perhaps some hon. members think I should go there and stay there. But I want to discuss our local situation.


Mr. BENTLEY:: You are not going there this week, are you?


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is
entirely in your hands. In Alberta we think we should be allowed to hook up the three private radio stations we have at Edmonton, Calgary and Lethbridge. They are almost in a line from north to south, though not quite. Why should we not be permitted to do that? We are not permitted to do that because C.B.C. just say no. It is utterly impossible for me to think of any reason why we should not have a little regional network if we want it. We are not interfering with anybody, not in the slightest. Yet you cannot get a wire in this country unless C.B.C. puts its imprimatur on your request.
I made the suggestion in the committee that rather than cost the taxpayers any more
money, the present transport commission should be the body which would deal with appeals of this kind, and it was suggested to me by the minister: Where would it get its law? Of course the railway commission gets its law from the Railway Act, and perhaps the Transport Act; I am not clear about that, I said: Let us appoint that board. They are not overworked; we all know that, and then put on the private broadcaster who is appealing, the onus of proving his position before the board. I even went that far in an endeavour to get something in the nature of an independent body. But the minister, as I say, suggested: Where would they get their law and jurisprudence? I said, "Let us take all the rules and regulations the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have now, holus-bolus; take the whole thing; put the onus on the private broadcaster to have them altered and abrogated"; but there was no support for the suggestion going even to the extent which I have just indicated.
I wish to close with rather a simple statement, or perhaps I should put it by way of request. I realize that these wave lengths have to be filled by a given time-the spring of 1947, I think it is. My suggestion is this. Parliament is going to meet again in the third week of January; and may I impress upon the house that, once these wave lengths are gone, they have gone forever. It is not something we can patch up again at a later time; we are through. We must occupy these places, there is no doubt about that, and once we have done this we are completely filled. My suggestion to the minister is this. There are no great things to be done between now and the last week of January. You have already your material on order for the stations you intend to build. You know you cannot get it yet, but the time will come when this material can be obtained. So why not let this matter rest? Remember that all the Alberta members-I am glad the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) is not here at the moment because he might not concur-at all events all of us who are here will agree that we do not want this thing; we are very happy the way we are and we want to be left that way. What is going to happen? They are going to build this station at Red Deer. What does that mean? It means that the Edmonton, and Calgary stations come off the network-that was admitted in the committee -and therefore the advertising revenue which they now have through a connection with C.B.C. is gone, just taken away from them like that! Someone may say that the private stations complained about the amount of the cheque they got for national advertising, most
Radio Broadcasting

of it from the United States. Let me frankly admit that the private stations would carry on for nothing if they had to, because we know that these United States shows are the things which build audiences. There is no use in fooling ourselves about anything of that kind; we all know that. We know we cannot have talent in this country. We know perfectly well that, once our talent is some good, it is gone. Look at the Canadians who are in New York, in Chicago, in Los Angeles now. Why should they not go there? Here they work for dollars a week; there they get hundreds of dollars a week. Clearly we are in this position, that these great nation-wide shows are what build audiences. So that these stations in our province not only will be deprived of the revenue they get from the C.B.C., which revenue at times, as we learned, does not pay operating expenses, but will have taken away from them the audiences which, through the years, they have built up.
I want someone in this House of Commons to try to justify treatment like that of people who have been encouraged to spend their money, people who have been seeking power increases many of which have been granted. I should like somebody to show the fairness of actions of that kind.
I have here one thing which I want to bring to the attention of members of the House of Commons, because there may be a little political turn to it after they have heard what I have to say. I have an analysis of editorials, from clippings of newspapers, on this subject up to July 23, 1946. I am not introducing something new; this is a record in the proceedings before the committee. The groups are divided in this way. In the western provinces the number of newspapers was fifteen; the number of editorials was eighteen; the number favourable to the private broadcasters' position was eighteen; the number unfavourable was none. In Ontario fifty-three papers commented; there were seventy-eight editorials; seventy-four were favourable and four were unfavourable.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The Toronto Star.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I will come
to that. You let me run this show for a minute. In the province of Quebec there were forty-three papers; the number of editorials was eighty, the number favourable was eighty, and there were none against. The maritime provinces have nine newspapers; there were nine editorials, eight of which were favourable and one opposed. The grand total is 120 newspapers; the number of editorials is 194; those favourable were 189, and those opposed were five.

There is the newspaper survey. I have the list of papers, and I should be glad to supply any hon. member with information as to his own home town paper. Of the five editorials supporting this legalized theft from these people, the Marmora (Ontario) Herald was one, the Owen Sound Sun-Times was another, the Toronto (Ontario) Saturday Night was another, and that is edited by one of the governors of the C.B.C. Another was the Toronto Star, which has a hand-out of $42,000 a year in time from this corporation. There was also the Glace Bay (Nova Scotia) Gazette.
I have here a number of things that I am not going to bother the house with. May I once more appeal to the minister in charge of this bill to give it some further thought. Take this $528,000; of all the camouflage one ever saw, that really is the prize. What does it mean? It means that we turn over to the C.B.C. $528,000. Why not let us do it honestly? Why not just let us vote the taxpayer's money, instead of saying, we are giving you the gross licence fees instead of the net? The country pays the $528,000 anyway. If they need that sum or a greater sum I am in favour of giving it to them, but I am not in favour of giving it to them by the porchclimbing back-door method which has been adopted in this proposal.


Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: It is perhaps rather bold for someone who is not on the committee to try to speak after so many of those who have had the advantage of sitting on the committee have spoken, but perhaps there is room for the voice of ignorance as well as for the voice of experience and knowledge. At any rate the voice of ignorance will be very brief, I think not more than ten minutes at the outside.
I rise because it seems to me that this is one of the most important matters which have been before this house, and far more important than the matter of a few million dollars. I think it goes very deep into the fibre of our constitution, and of our democratic way of life which we are so fond of talking about. I really want to do what my hon. friend the member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) has done, to ask one or two questions of the minister.
Two things have emerged from this interesting debate and they are perfectly clear and unchallenged. The first is that what is proposed will make it so difficult for private enterprise that it is highly questionable whether it can go on in any effective manner. The second is- and no one will dispute it-that this proposal will greatly aggrandize and strengthen the position of the C.B.C. I am one of those who

Radio Broadcasting
wish to have national broadcasting; I believe in national broadcasting. But I do not believe in the various powers-going, coming and staying-which this commission is given in addition to its power to broadcast. I wish to ask why this is necessary.
First of all, why is it necessary to take away the powers and privileges which have been exercised by private interests? There is usually one of two reasons given when private interests are sought to be penalized and *weakened. The first is that they have been trying to act in a monopolistic manner. That cannot be said here; the shoe is entirely on the other foot. Not only have they not been so acting, but they have had no chance of becoming monopolistic. The second is that private enterprise has neglected the public interest, or has been inefficient, or what you will. There is no suggestion whatsoever of that here.
The second point I wish to raise is this. Why is it necessary to aggrandize the C.B.C.? Can they not carry on as they are? Is it usual to treat public enterprise in this way? Let us examine both these.
Is it usual for public enterprise to be, as lias been pointed out, the plaintiff in the case, the judge and jury, policeman and everything else? It is not. It is not true in the railway world where we have the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific. I need not press the point, for it is clear that what is proposed is not usual.
Then what is the reason? Now this is why I am on my feet. I want to know the reason, and I have not yet heard any reason given except one, which I believe is unfounded and is unsound, and which was given last night by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). And the only reason I could understand from him, apart from a lot of chat about Messrs. Sifton and their enterprises in the newspaper and radio fields, the only reason he gave, or the only thing approaching a reason, was that it was necessary, as I understood him. that in this way the C.B.C. should get sufficient coverage. He said that they had not sufficient coverage, and he mentioned particularly the Windsor area.
I have listened with interest to statements made by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and1 others refuting that position taken by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and if his view is mistaken, then no reason of any kind has been given for this proposal. Well, I come to what I consider the real reason, evidence of which we see around this place.
What is that reason? It is power. There is nothing that has interested me more in my brief life as a member of parliament than the study of power, the things it does to people, and the desire they have to get more and more of it. We have seen it in a matter now before the other place, in the case of the foreign exchange control board. I was interested to hear some of the things said there about power, and it is power here again. The point has been made-and I do not dwell upon it-that ministers sometimes hardly realize that they are being made advocates for civil servants who want power.
Like my hon. friend, I have great respect for the chairman of the C.B.C., and I have no doubt that if I knew the other members of the corporation I would have the same respect for them. But I do not- like to see power growing in this way, because there are real dangers -and they have been pointed out-inherent in it.
There is one more thing I have to say, and it is in fact the only real excuse I have for standing on my feet now. We know what the English situation is. There they have the
B.B.C., and there they hare a socialist government. I have here an English periodical, The New Statesman and Nation, which is strongly pro-socialist, and I should like to read two sentences from what they call the " London Diary." It is signed anonymously, but I have reason to believe it is signed by a man wholly in sympathy with the policies and principles of the New Statesman, and therefore I believe I am justified in saying that what I am about to read represents the views of one who is a convinced socialist. That gives additional point to the quotation. He refers to an incident which occurred recently in England, where a distinguished United States commentator who had been about to broadcast was, for some reason which I need not go into, refused that permission. Authority was taken away at the last moment.
I wish to ask the minister and hon. gentlemen opposite, who are Liberals with a big "L"-some of them would like to think they are liberals with a small "1" too-to listen to this quotation:
The effect of incidents of this kind is to make me think that we ought to have more than one broadcasting network in this country.
Here is the sentence to which I direct attention particularly:
I believe in competition in all things of the mind.
It has been pointed out here that the great danger of this proposal, as was demonstrated last night, is that, if it goes through, we shall
5?52
Radio Broadcasting

come out with but one means of influencing public opinion, and the effect of that we have seen clearly in other parts of the world. In other words, some other hon. gentlemen in this house who are as opposed as I am to other kinds of monopolies, as opposed as I am to monopolies in material things, are apparently prepared to have a monopoly of a far worse kind, an infinitely worse description of monopoly, namely, a monopoly in things of the mind. For this reason, ana Tor other reasons given by more practical men, who have a greater knowledge of the subject, I urge the government to consider the question very carefully. I urge them to consider whether they are not setting up a monopoly in things of the mind.
Mr. H. 0. WHITE (Middlesex East): I rise as a farmer to say a word or two on the bill, and first I want to compliment the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) on the stand they have taken on this question. Some time ago I received a letter regarding radio broadcasting. I know very well that the letter was inspired by others than the people from whom it purported to come. I am beginning to wonder who the society for adult education is and who the people are that are behind it. I have heard the C.B.C. referred to as a red network, and from -what I have heard to-day I am convinced that possibly that is the case. This information was forwarded through a federation of agriculture office and it makes me begin to wonder. The Canadian federation of agriculture has been very careful not to get mixed up with any political party; in fact, I believe it has leaned backwards to stay out of politics. It is the voice of agriculture for the Dominion of Canada, but I am wondering if it is being enticed backwards into a socialist rat-trap.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: A little less than a year ago I made my maiden speech in this house, and at that time I said I hoped my term of service here would be a useful one. That is what causes me to rise to-day, because I feel I would not be serving as useful a purpose as I could if I did not rise to speak against this bill. I shall be brief and I guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall be through before six o'clock.
We have seen in the course of this year a discussion of control of prices. The party to which I belong has advocated a policy of decontrol which would set our economy free to produce. We have seen the licensing under the prices board which gives the same power to the government in many ways that this bill gives to the C.B.C. We have seen controls

over wages and labour troubles and strikes and stabilization, and so on. We have seen agricultural and wheat agreements, agreements which give the government control over agriculture. W'e have seen the foreign exchange control board bill, a bill which gives the government control over money. We have seen the government endeavour to control housing and fail miserably. We have to-day a demonstration on parliament hill of veterans calling for houses for their wives and children. We have had evidence in the industrial relations committee that the government has the industry of the country in a strait-jacket. That is all control; that is all power; that is the thing about which the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) spoke. I shall tell the house where it leads. It leads to some of the things which are happening to-day in the United Kingdom, where they have to fill out a form to get a form to fill out. That is what power and control will lead to in this country. The only measure that we have is the evidence before the committee which endeavoured to establish that the necessity for these controls was culture. For a moment I should like to bring the minds of hon. members back to the rise of the nazi party in Germany and the kultur which they tried to inflict upon the whole of Europe.
May I close with these words. It is a reminder to the people of Canada that this bill seeks to put power into the hands of a government commission. The old saying is still true, that all power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
On motion of Mr. Cleaver the debate was adjourned.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Before Your Honour calls it six o'clock, I wonder whether I might have the unanimous consent of the house to refer to motions, so that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) may table an order in council which was passed to-day?
And unanimous consent having been given.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour) :: I wish to lay on the table copy of P.C. 3594 passed to-day amending P.C. 2901 of July 10, 1946, by which the government appointed a controller of the three basic steel companies of Canada, namely, the Steel Company of Canada at Hamilton; the Algoma Steel Corporation at Sault Ste Marie; and the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation at Sydney.

Labour Conditions
The amending order in council repeals section 9 of the original order which provided as follows:
It shall be the duty of every person in the employ of any of the said companies at or in any of the aforesaid establishments of the companies to perform the duties of his employment until the authority of the controller is revoked; and every person who fails to perform his duties as aforesaid as herein required without lawful excuse, the onus of proof of which is upon him is guilty of an offence and liable upon summary conviction to a fine of twenty dollars for each day or part of a day on which he fails so to perform his duties.
Hon. members will appreciate that the effect of the amendment is to remove the requirement that men remain at work and also the penalties which might be imposed upon men tvho remain away.
It is the government's belief that this action will meet the views of the majority of the members of the house. However, I wish to reiterate the belief that it was an error in judgment on the part of the steel workers in joining in a strike which is contrary to the requirements of the law. It is the opinion of the government that there is a moral duty resting upon these workers in their own interests and the interests of all Canada to cooperate with the controller and arrange to return to work at all three plants and take advantage of the machinery provided for the final settlement of the dispute as has been done by thousands of other workers in Canada.


Angus MacInnis: May I ask the Minister of Labour a question arising out of the order? Does this order change the person of the controller? Has the controller yet approached the steel workers to return to work?


Humphrey Mitchell: This order does not change the name of the controller. To my knowledge, the controller has not approached the steel workers. I say to my hon. friend that all the facilities of the Department of Labour are at the disposal of either the steel workers or the steel companies themselves to bring to a conclusion this regrettable dispute. My department is open at any time, on the application of either party to the dispute, to render any possible assistance we can in a settlement of the difficulties.


John Bracken: I should like to ask one question before this matter is disposed of. Will the minister give us copies of the order in council which he has just tabled?


Humphrey Mitchell: I can read it, if the hon. member wishes it in Hansard.


John Bracken: I wish to have it to study it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall send a copy to the leaders of the three parties.



STEEL STRIKE-INQUIRY WITH RESPECT TO MAINTENANCE OF LAW AND ORDER IN HAMILTON

John Bracken: I am not rising at this time to say anything about the order in council which the minister advises has just been passed. I think all hon. members will agree that an order in council of that nature should have some consideration before any hasty comment is made on it.
I should like the consent of the house to permit me to ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) with respect to this very matter. I understand the wire services have carried dispatches this afternoon with respect to the situation in Hamilton. These dispatches are to the effect that since noon the cabinet has had under consideration the question of the dominion government sharing with the provincial government in the maintenance of law and order in Hamilton, and in providing security for non-striking workers going into and out of the steel plant. Has the Acting Prime Minister any statement on that particular aspect of the strike situation which he could make for the information of the house and the country?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister): I do not know that there is much I can say at the present time beyond this:	I think it is well known that the authorities of Hamilton have applied to the government of Ontario for assistance for the purpose of maintaining law and order in the city of Hamilton. All I would care to say is that the government of Ontario and the federal government have been in consultation and that both governments recognize that such assistance as each can supply for the purpose of aiding the local authorities in the maintenance of law and) order should be supplied.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I move that the house do now adjourn to Monday morning. We have worked strenuously all week. A number of hon. members have said to me that they did not feel quite equal to having to come back from eight to eleven o'clock tonight, and that they did not think we would really make progress which would be com- ' mensurate with the inconvenience to hon. members if they were required to come back this evening.
Business of the House
[Stage Direction]
On Monday morning we shall take up item No. 4 on to-day's order paper. With respect to item Nos. 5 and 7, National Defence Act amendment, these are measures which it would be very convenient to have passed at this time for the purpose of enabling the recruiting of the army to be uninterrupted. The Militia Act fixes a limit of 10,000 upon those who can be recruited, for the permanent force, and that is a limit which it was felt the government should not modify by order in council under the Emergency Transitional Powers Act. But I understand that several members have gone away feeling that these two items were not to be considered at this session. Under these circumstances, the government would be disposed to defer the consideration of these items, but making the statement at this time that it is only because of the desirability of deferring them that it will resort to the Emergency Transitional Powers Act to remove the limitation of 10,000 that might be an impediment to the recruiting for the army now going on. Then at the very opening of the next session it will reintroduce legislation for the purpose of having this limit removed by parliament, because we feel that it is something which should be done by parliament.
I am just making these remarks because I should not like to have the reproach made, when we have come to parliament at the next session, that we had in the meantime presumed to deal with it by order in council. Then, after disposing of No. 4, we should take up No. 6, to amend the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, to extend to sixty days after the opening of the next session, instead of fifteen days, the duration of the measures adopted under that act. Then we shall take up the Militia Pension Act, item No. 10 on the order paper. Then supply in transport (air service), reconstruction, national defence (air), external affairs-and other departments, if there is time for it.
John Bracken: I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister two questions. First of all, has the government yet decided whether it still proposes to proceed with the Canadian information service measure?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The Canadian information service measure is a measure with which the government would like to proceed. But the government would not feel, if it appeared that it was going to take considerable time, that it would be proper to ask the house to continue in session for that bill alone, after other matters had been disposed of.


Gordon Graydon: Would the government
consider dropping it for good?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, the government would not consider dropping it for good. That is something upon which the opinion of the house will have to be taken.


John Bracken: The minister did not
indicate when the present debate would be proceeded with. Is it not intended to go on with it on Monday? I am referring to the radio debate.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	If it appeared on
Monday that it would be the desire of the house to go back to that debate the government would be prepared to facilitate whatever appeared to be desired.


John Bracken: But that is not the
government's plan?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It was not. But we would not like to take any attitude which would not meet with the approval of hon. members generally.


John Bracken: When I can I like to
support the government. On this occasion I support the motion made by the Acting Prime Minister. He is rapidly learning how to make progress in the house. I think by the action he has taken we shall secure prorogation earlier than if we had sat to-night.
I shall not make any comment now on the measures which he has said he would leave over, and his reasons for so doing. I think the decision was a wise one. In postponing consideration of those measures, the government proposes taking action by order in council in the meantime. I am sure that the government will expect to defend itself for so doing. At the present time we are not agreeing to what the government may do between sessions. We understand that it will be doing by order in council what it would be seeking to do, or what it would have sought to do by the measures it is withdrawing. The minister has been explaining that the government will have to do something in the meantime. I am saying that we are not now agreeing with what it may do.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The government will be prepared to defend, as having been the proper thing to do, an increase in the number
of men to be recruited for the peacetime-army.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If this goes much farther it will really get confused.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 6.05 p.m.

Questions
Monday, August 26, 1946