1949-12-07

Mr.  A. J. Baler@The Balllefords: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure to announce that Mr. H. M. Guillat, a farmer in the North Battleford district, was crowned international crested wheat grass king at the international grain and hay show recently held at Chicago.
Mr. Guillat has been recognized as a progressive farmer for many years, and has won high honours previously in various shows, both in the district and farther afield.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: On a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, yesterday's Votes and Proceedings No. 60 contains what I believe is a serious mistake on page 345. Among the items of estimates reported to have been adopted in the committee of supply is No. 934, an item which reads in part:
Loans to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation repayable with interest-to cover capital costs of television installations and to support the development of the service, $4,500,000.
I believe that is a mistake in Votes and Proceedings, because I certainly did not hear that item called. I was following the proceedings closely, and it was just at eleven o'clock. I have asked my colleagues around me if they heard the item called, and they did not hear it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. gentleman has stated his question of privilege, and it occurs to me he might bring up the matter when the house is in committee of supply.



STEAMSHIP SERVICES


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, for a great number of
years there has been a regular steamship service between Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, and a point in the eastern United States, providing an essential transportation link between the southern part of Nova Scotia and the northeastern United States. Recent announcements indicate the possibility of abandonment of this service and the company operating such service can no longer give any assurance that it will be continued.
This situation has caused considerable concern both to the federal government and the government of the province of Nova Scotia. If Nova Scotia is deprived of direct water communication with the east coast of the United States it will cause considerable damage to her economy especially in relation to the tourist trade which brings in to Nova Scotia annually many thousands of dollars.
At the present time the S.S. Yarmouth operates between Yarmouth and Boston during the summer months making three trips per week. She is a vessel of 5,000 gross tons, with capacity for 500 passengers, 800 tons of freight, and 45 automobiles. It is felt that if this vessel is going to discontinue the service, some method should be found to increase the number of tourist cars which may be carried to Nova Scotia during the summer season. Both governments likewise feel that the situation cannot be left in a state of uncertainty, and that the tourist traffic into Nova Scotia should not only be maintained but increased.
I am therefore pleased to announce that it has been decided to build a vessel which will not only be adequate to carry the present traffic but which will serve to increase the tourist trade between Nova Scotia and the United States. The proposed vessel will be a fast modern car ferry with a capacity for about 200 cars and about 1,000 passengers. The service will be based on Yarmouth, and will operate between that port and a port in the eastern United States. Being a modern vessel it will offer facilities considerably better than those now available at a much cheaper cost to tourists and more in line with present and anticipated needs.
Officials of both governments are actively engaged on the project and plans are now under way for the design and construction of the ferry in a Canadian shipyard at an estimated cost of $3 million. The federal government and the province of Nova Scotia

Steamship Services
will share equally in this cost, the share of Nova Scotia being limited to not more than $1,500,000.
It is expected that construction of the vessel will be completed in time for the 1951 tourist season.


Mr. Brooks:: May I ask whether any consideration has been given to the service between Saint John and Boston, which was operated for many years but has been discontinued?


Lionel Chevrier: This statement of course deals with one thing only. The matter to which my hon. friend refers will be given consideration in due course.


Mr. Fraser:: I should like to ask the minister if he will give the same consideration to the car ferry service between Rochester and Cobourg.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would call the hon. member's attention to the fact that this statement is not debatable. Questions directly relating to it are allowed, but I would ask hon. members to make their questions brief and relevant.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: May I ask the
minister whether any provision is being made for service between Nova Scotia and Maine for the season of 1950? I would also ask him whether consideration is being given to renewal of the direct service from New York to Nova Scotia.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot allow questions of that kind.


Percy Chapman Black: May we have an answer to the first question, whether any provision is being made for the 1950 service?


Lionel Chevrier: I think that question should be answered, Mr. Speaker. The maritime commission is now in consultation with the present operators, and it is hoped that provision will be made for operation during the 1950 season.


Mr. Hatfield:: The minister mentioned 200 cars. Did he mean automobiles, or railway cars?


Lionel Chevrier: It is obvious that this is not a railway car ferry, but a passenger and automobile car ferry.


Heber Harold Hatfield: It should be.


Percy Chapman Black: One other question, if you will permit it, Mr. Speaker. Who will operate this service? Will it be operated by the Canadian National Railways or by the respective governments?


Lionel Chevrier: That matter has not yet been decided. It is being considered at the moment.
(Mr. Chevrier.]



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Weir:: 1.	Have the railway companies granted a special freight rate lower than the general tariff in the movement of purebred livestock and the movement of livestock to fairs and exhibitions?
2.	If so, what was the relationship between the said special rate and the regular tariff rates?
3.	Does the federal government contribute to the freight cost of shipping (a) purebred livestock; (b) livestock moving to fairs and exhibitions?
4.	If so, on what basis and to what extent?
5.	Has notice been given to the effect that the railways are urging the discontinuance of the said special rate on the movement of (a) registered livestock; (b) livestock moving to fairs and exhibitions?
6.	Has any department of government taken any steps towards retaining the special freight rate on the movement of (a) registered livestock; (b) livestock to fairs and exhibitions?
7.	If so, what actions were taken?


Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West):: 1.	Yes.
2.	There is no uniform relationship between the so-called special rates and the regular tariff rates. To answer this question more precisely it would be necessary to know the number and kind of animals involved, and the points between which they are moving. It would then entail some considerable time to work out the relationship between the regular rate and the special rate.
In general, however, the following applies:
A.	Purebred livestock: (1) Within western Canada-one half regular tariff rates subject to certain exceptions. (2) Within eastern Canada-one half standard mileage tariff rates, less carload only. (3) Between western and eastern Canada-approximately one half regular tariff rates on carloads, and one half first class rate, minimum weight 6,000 pounds per shipment for less carload.
B.	Exhibition livestock: Where the movement to one exhibition and return is involved in western Canada, the full tariff rate to the exhibition point is charged and the return movement is free. Within Ontario and Quebec the going and returning rate is 60 per cent of the regular rate. Between eastern and western Canada the western basis applies. Where more than one exhibition is involved, the over-all rates from the original shipping point back to the same point are adjusted by reductions of from 40 to 50 per cent.
3.	(a) No. (b) Yes, to the Royal Agricultural winter fair only.
4.	Each provincial government, excepting Ontario, pays the freight on livestock moving from the province to the Royal Agricultural

winter fair. The Department of Agriculture of Canada reimburses the provinces to the extent of 75 per cent of the freight paid. The amount of this expenditure is approximately $10,000 per year.
5.	(a) Yes. The tariffs applicable were cancelled June 1, 1949, upon full statutory notice.
(b)	Yes. The tariffs applicable are to expire December 31, 1949, unless sooner cancelled, changed or extended.
6 and 7. Yes. Officers of the Department of Agriculture have assisted livestock associations in preparing briefs which were submitted to the railway companies by breed associations. The Minister of Agriculture has written the presidents of both railway companies supporting the representations of the breed associations.



MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTION ACT


Mr. Catherwood:: 1.	Has the Department of Mines and Resources a record of convictions for violation of the Migratory Birds Convention Act for the nine months ending September 30, 1949?
2.	If so, what is the total number of convictions and what amount was collected in fines?


Mr. Maybank:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Thirty-five convictions, and the amount of $420 collected in fines.



LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT

Mr. Gagnon:: 1.	Has the staff of the library of parliament been increased during the present session?
2.	If so. by how many persons?
3.	What are the (a) names; (b) places of birth;
(c)	salaries of the said employees?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.



SHIPMENTS FROM HIGHWOOD AREA, ALTA.

Mr. Hansell:: How many tons of coal have been shipped to eastern Canada from what is known as the High-wood area, lying southwest of Calgary, during 1947, 1948 and as late in 1949, as records show?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: In 1947 there were no shipments of coal to eastern Canada from the Highwood area in Alberta. In 1948 and 1949 one company in this area made shipments to Ontario.
Since only one company is involved, the tonnage figures cannot be released, in accordance with the Statistics Act.
Questions



*NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Mr. Siewari (Winnipeg North):: 1.	Have any employees of the national film board been engaged, as such, in activities in the United States?
2.	If so, where?
3.	What was the nature of the assignment or assignments?
4.	On whose request were the activities undertaken?


Mr. Winters:: The question in the form in which it appears on the order paper is quite general, and I doubt whether it would be possible to give the hon. member information that would be of value to him. I have discussed the matter	with	him,	and
I understand that he has agreed to drop the question in this form, on the understanding that if he reframes it in a more specific way, I shall be pleased to try to answer it.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: I	can
reframe the question now, Mr. Speaker, and the minister may answer it later if he cannot do so immediately. Have employees of the national film board been in the United States recently for the purpose of making films of atomic energy plants or installations?


Robert Henry Winters: The answer	is	that
employees of the film board have been filming work in the United States recently on radioactive isotopes for use in connection with cancer research. The work was done jointly at the request of the Department of National Health and Welfare, in Canada, and, as I understand it, in the United States by the Medical Film Institute, which is an agent for the American Association of Medical Colleges.
BOARD OF TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERS Mr. Kirk (Anligonish-Guysborough):
1.	How many members are there on the board of transport commissioners?
2.	What are their names, present and former addresses?
3.	Who is the chairman?
4.	By whom are they appointed?
5.	For how long are they appointed?
6.	What are their respective salaries, or remuneration, and expense allowances?
7.	Are there any vacancies at present?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Six.
2.	Hon. Mr. Justice Archibald, at present, Ottawa, Ont.; formerly, Halifax, N.S.; Hugh Wardrope, at present, Ottawa, Ont.; formerly, Hamilton, Ont.; A. Sylvestre, K.C., at present, Ottawa, Ont.; formerly, Chicoutimi, Que.; F. M. MacPherson, at present,

Questions
Ottawa, Ont.; formerly, Cranbrook, B.C.;
H.	B. Chase, C.B.E., at present, Ottawa, Ont.; formerly, Montreal, Que.; W. J. Patterson, at present, Ottawa, Ont.; formerly, Regina, Sask.
3.	Hon. Mr. Justice M. B. Archibald, chief commissioner.
4.	Governor general in council.
5.	Statutory period of ten years.
6.	Chief commissioner, $15,000 ($3,000 by the board; $12,000 by Department of Justice); assistant chief commissioner, $12,000; deputy chief commissioner, $10,000; commissioners, $10,000 each and expenses as authorized by treasury board.
7.	No.



CANADIAN MARITIME COMMISSION

Mr. Kirk (Aniigonish-Guysborough):: 1.	How many members are there on the board of the Canadian maritime commission?
2.	What are their names, present and former addresses?
3.	Who is the chairman?
4.	By whom are they appointed and what was the date of appointment of each member?
5.	For how long are they appointed?
6.	What are their respective salaries, or remuneration and expense allowances?
7.	Are there any vacancies at present?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Three.
2.	J. V. Clyne, 445 Queen street, Ottawa, Ont.; 3738 Angus drive, Vancouver, B.C. L. C. Audette, 226 MacLaren street, Ottawa, Ont. Angus McGugan, 331 MacLaren street, Ottawa, Ont.; 6881 Monkland avenue, Montreal, P.Q.
3.	J. V. Clyne.
4.	Governor in council. J. V. Clyne, November 1, 1947; L. C. Audette, November
I,	1947; Angus McGugan, July 15, 1948.
5.	J. V. Clyne, five years; L. C. Audette, four years; Angus McGugan, for the unexpired term of his predecessor, H. J. Rahlves (resigned), which was for three years from November 1, 1947.
6.	J. V. Clyne, $12,000 per annum, and expenses as authorized by treasury board; L. C. Audette, $10,000 per annum, and expenses as authorized by treasury board; Angus McGugan, $10,000 per annum, and expenses as authorized by treasury board.
7.	No.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Kirk (Aniigonish-Guysborough):: 1.	How many Canadian National Railways directors are there?
2.	Are they regional appointments?
3.	What is the name, present and former address of each?
4.	Who is the chairman?

5.	By whom are they appointed and what is the date of each appointment?
6.	For how long is each appointed?
7.	What is the salary or remuneration and expense allowance of each?
8.	Are there any vacancies at present?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Seven.
2.	No.
3.	R. C. Vaughan, present address, Montreal, P.Q.; former address, Montreal, P.Q. (Mr. Vaughan will be succeeded by Mr. Donald Gordon whose appointment as a director and chairman of the board commences January 1, 1950). R. B. Brenan, present address, Saint John, N.B.; former address, Saint John, N.B. B. L. Daly, present address, Montreal, P.Q.; former address, Winnipeg, Man. W. J. T. Gagnon, present address, Montreal, P.Q.; former address, Montreal, P.Q. J. A. Northey, present address, Toronto, Ont.; former address, Toronto, Ont. W. J. Parker, present address, Winnipeg, Man.; former address, Winnipeg, Man. H. J. Symington, present address, Montreal, P.Q.; former address, Montreal, P.Q.
4.	Mr. R. C. Vaughan is the chairman and will be succeeded by Mr. Donald Gordon on January 1, 1950.
5.	The directors are appointed by the governor in council. The date of each appointment is as follows: R. C. Vaughan, October 1, 1945; R. B. Brenan, October 1, 1949; B. L. Daly, October 1, 1947; W. J. T. Gagnon, October 1, 1948; J. A. Northey, October 1, 1948; W. J. Parker, November 1, 1949; H. J. Symington, October 1, 1947.
6.	Three years.
7.	$5,000 per annum, and out-of-pocket expenses.
8.	No.



INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION

Mr. Kirk (Aniigonish-Guysborough):: 1.	How many members are on the international joint commission?
2.	What are their names, present and former addresses?
3.	Who is the chairman?
4.	What are the salaries or remuneration and expense allowances of (a) the chairman; (b) other members?
5.	For how long is each appointed and on what date was each appointment?
6.	By whom are they appointed?
7.	Are there any vacancies at present?


Mr. Pearson:: 1. The international joint commission comprises two sections, the United States section and the Canadian section. Each section comprises three members. The answers which follow refer to the Canadian section of the international joint commission.

2.	The Hon. J. Allison Glen of Ottawa, formerly of Russell, Manitoba; Mr. George Spence of Regina.
3.	The Hon. J. Allison Glen.
4.	(a) Salary: $7,500 per annum; allowances granted to cover expenses incurred in the course of duty as commissioner; (b) Salary: $7,500 per annum; allowances granted to cover expenses incurred in the course of duty as commissioners.
5.	The chairman and members are appointed during pleasure; the Hon. Mr. Glen was appointed on December 23, 1948; Mr. George Spence was appointed on October 1, 1947.
6.	By the governor in council upon the advice of the Prime Minister.
7.	Yes, one.



UNEMPLOYMENT


Heber Harold Hatfield: What is the number of unemployed registered at each unemployment office in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick?


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: Local office	Total	Male	Female
Nova Scotia			
Amherst	. 430	343	87Bridgewater . . .	. 487	451	36Halifax	. 4,089	3,244	845Kentville 	. 679	549	130Liverpool 	. 316	293	23New Glasgow ..	. 1,248	1,076	172Springhill	. 203	179	24*Sydney 	. 2,527	1,964	563Truro 	. 567	442	125Yarmouth 	. 1,079	900	179New Brunswick	Bathurst 	. 787	713	74Campbellton ...	. 691	590	101Edmundston . . .	. 752	661	91Fredericton . .. .	. 751	542	209Minto 	. 318	269	49Moncton 	. 2,246	1,577	669Newcastle 	. 916	790	126Saint John	. 3,118	2,570	548Woodstock	. 341	290	51St. Stephen .. . .	. 813	497	316Sussex 	. 203	185	18^Including branch offices. MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS ASSISTANCE ACT


Mr. Beyerstein:: 1.	Is the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act still in operation?
2.	If not. when was it suspended and by what authority?
3.	If the act has been suspended, has the government given any consideration to the reopening of the act? If so, when can an announcement be expected?
Questions
4.	How many municipalities in Alberta have been assisted under this act during each of the years since its operation?
5.	What was the amount of assistance to each municipality?


Mr. Belzile:: 1	and 2. The Municipal Improvements Assistance Act was passed as an unemployment relief measure during the depression of the thirties when the fact that unemployment was so widespread and severe as to partake of the nature of a national emergency was felt to justify the government of Canada making loans on a subsidized basis to finance strictly municipal projects. As the primary aim was to relieve unemployment, one section of the legislation provided that the governor in council "may at any time fix and determine a date after which no loans shall be made to any municipality under this act". As unemployment lessened and tended to disappear following the outbreak of war, operations under the act ceased and no loans under it have since been made.
3.	It is not the practice to announce government policy in answers to questions.
4 and 5. Edmonton, $228,878.85; Lethbridge, $100,000; Calgary, $225,000; Claresholm municipal hospital district, $28,000; Drumheller, $8,376; Grande Prairie, $100,000; Hanna, $100,000; Red Deer hospital district $55,000; Stettler, $7,000; Vegreville, $10,000; Wetas-kiwin, $26,000.



INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK


Mr. Brooks:: 1.	What amounts were loaned by the Industrial Development Bank to industry in the various provinces of Canada?
2.	What were the number of applications for loans, with the amounts involved, according to provinces?
3.	How many were granted and how many were refused?


Mr. Belzile:: 1. From November 1, 1944, to September 30, 1948, gross amount of loans, investments and guarantees authorized (less cancellations and reductions in amounts authorized):
Prince Edward Island, $39,000; Nova Scotia, $681,900; New Brunswick, $823,500; Quebec, $11,733,250; Ontario, $11,676,664; Manitoba, $1,508,684; Saskatchewan, $268,800; Alberta, $2,251,864; British Columbia and Territories, $4,357,612.
2	and 3. Details of applications by provinces are not of government record. For Canada as a whole, the information is as follows:
From November 1, 1944, to September 30, 1948, applications received, 1,640; applications granted, 586; applications refused, 519;

Orders for Returns
applications withdrawn, 535. Amounts relating to the above applications not of government record, except as to applications granted which totalled (before cancellations and reductions) $39,027,624.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


IMMIGRATION


Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many civil service employees of the Department of Mines and Resources, immigration branch, have been, or are being moved to Toronto and Montreal, during the next several months?
2.	Of these, how many (a) are veterans; (b) are married; (c) are permanent civil servants; (d) since being posted have applied for transfer; (e) transfers have been granted; (f) who applied for transfer, have been discharged; (g) are home owners?
3.	Have any of these persons homes under the Veterans Land Act?
4.	If so, are their interests being protected, and in what way?


Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West):: Return tabled.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Have requests been made for marine services, such as wharves, slipways and breakwaters, in the province of Newfoundland?
2.	If so, by whom and on what dates?
3.	For what locations?



ASSISTANT CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER

Mr. Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough):: 1.	Was a vacancy created by the recent promotion of Mr. Nelson Castonguay to the position of chief electoral officer?
2.	Was the position of assistant chief electoral officer advertised?
3.	If so, when and how?
4.	How many applications were received?
5.	What were the names and addresses of the applicants?
6.	What were the marks or ratings received in each case?
7.	Who makes the appointment?
8.	For how long is the appointment?
9.	What is the salary or remuneration and expense allowance?
10.	If appointment has already been made, who received same?


Colin William George Gibson: Return tabled.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION, SASKATCHEWAN   EMPLOYEES

Mr. Argue:: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all persons employed under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act in Saskatchewan during the year 1948?
2.	What sum of money was paid to each person as (a) salary or wages; (b) sustenance; (c) mileage; (d) other allowances?
3.	At what rate are (a) salaries or wages; (b) sustenance; (c) mileage; (d) other allowances paid to common labour, foremen, all other employees, under this act?



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION, SASKATCHEWAN   EMPLOYEES  FOREMEN

Mr. Argue:: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all persons employed at any time during 1949, as foremen, on Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act projects in Saskatchewan?
2.	What amount of wages or salary has been paid to each of these persons during 1949?
3.	Have any of the persons named in reply to question No. 1 received any other payments out of government funds, in addition to their salary or wages on the above-noted projects during 1949? If so, what is the nature of such other payments?



ELECTRIC POWER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs care to make a statement on the power development on the Niagara river and the St. Lawrence river?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: I am in a position, Mr. Speaker, to make a short statement at this time concerning the use of water from the Niagara river for the generation of hydroelectric power. At the suggestion of the United States government a group of Canadian experts are going to Washington to explore in an informal way with their opposite numbers there the possibility of amending article V of the Boundary Waters treaty of 1909 with respect to the use of water from the Niagara river for power generation. At the same time, they will consider how the scenic beauty of Niagara falls and river can best be protected and enhanced. These informal talks will begin tomorrow, December 8.
I am happy to be able to state that the Canadian party will include, in addition to federal officials, representatives of the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario, headed by Mr. Robert H. Saunders, chairman of the commission, and the Hon. Charles Daley, chairman of the Niagara parks commission.
Article V of the Boundary Waters treaty of 1909 authorized a diversion above Niagara falls of 56,000 cubic feet of water per second to be divided between the United States and Canada. Additional diversions for both countries were authorized on a temporary basis during the recent war. These temporary authorizations need to be replaced by some permanent arrangement so that new power plants may be built in Ontario and New York state. These would replace a number of inefficient plants which are now in use.
In 1926 a special international Niagara

board was set up by Canada and the United States to study the question of the preservation of the Niagara falls and river and to consider what remedial works might be needed to enhance their natural beauty. The board, in its final report, issued in 1929, made a number of recommendations, some of which have not yet been acted upon. The informal talks in Washington will provide an opportunity for consideration of any recommendations of the board which are still outstanding.
I have also been asked to say something about the joint use by Canada and the United States of the potential hydroelectric power resources of the international section of the St. Lawrence river. The most satisfactory and economical solution would be attained through ratification by the United States and Canada of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin agreement of 1941, which provided for the development of that section of the St. Lawrence for navigation as well as power. In the review of external affairs which I gave the house on November 16, I mentioned some of the many mutual interests which Canada and the United States have in this great project. Because of these mutual interests, I ventured to express the hope that the United States congress would be able to take action with regard to ratification of this agreement without much further delay. That is still our hope. However, if we cannot get .implementation of this agreement for the double-barrelled purpose of navigation and power, the value of the power is so great that we shall have to give very serious consideration to abandoning the navigation and starting on the power side alone.


Thomas Langton Church: May I ask the minister a [DOT]question? In view of his statement on power in the St. Lawrence and Niagara rivers, which means automatically that blackouts are coming in Ontario and in other places, how are we going to settle these matters on the seven seas if we cannot settle a domestic matter such as this with a friendly nation?



COLONIAL AIR LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The press of this morning carries a dispatch from Washington indicating that some representations had been made to the government with respect to Colonial Air Lines. Can the minister enlighten the house on this matter?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am in a position to say something about this matter. It is true, as press dispatches indicate, that yesterday afternoon the United States ambassador left with me a note in which reference was made first to the show-cause order dated December 1, 1949, and served on the Colonial Air Lines by the Canadian air transport board; and second, to the delay surrounding Trans-Canada Air Lines application to the United States civil aeronautics board to operate the route between Montreal and New York.
In this note the government of the United States proposes discussions between representatives of our two governments, aimed at resolving the present difficulties. The Canadian government, which has not yet had an opportunity to reply formally to the note, will of course be quite willing to participate in any such discussions. The United States state department is aware that we have at all times been prepared to have intergovernmental discussions on these matters, and, in fact, discussions between officials of the two governments have been taking place recently. I personally am satisfied that in this matter the Canadian government has done everything possible to resolve the situation reasonably and fairly.
I wish to make it quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that these proposed discussions, which we shall be happy to enter into, will not in any way prejudice proceedings before the air transport board, nor prevent the board from proceeding with the hearing scheduled for December 12 next, when Colonial Air Lines will be required to show cause why the air transport board should not suspend the licence which was issued to that air line to operate the Montreal-New York route. This hearing, which will begin next Monday, is an administrative procedure within the regulations under which the air transport board operates, and will be proceeded with.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alistair McLeod Stewart: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the government give consideration to proclaiming a day to be known in Canada as United Nations human rights day?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The government will of course give
2836	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of . the Ministry consideration to the matter suggested, but I should not like to forecast the result of that consideration.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: May I ask
a supplementary question? If the answer is in the affirmative, will the town of Dresden, Ontario, be informed of the decision?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I assume that if and when the decision is reached it will be publicized in such a way that all those interested may be informed of it.



TRADE WITH BRITAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Prime Minister? It refers to the speeches made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) at New York last night and the one made at Brantford last Monday night by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). Do these two speeches taken together represent government policy, and does it mean the end of preferential trade?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member will have to read the speeches and draw his own conclusions as to what they mean.


Thomas Langton Church: That is not necessary. It means the end of both. May I say to the Prime Minister that I have no conclusions to draw except that you are hanging preferential trade on the sour apple tree alongside John Brown's body.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have never attempted to nang anything on sour apple trees.



CROWN PROPERTIES

[Stage Direction]
?EDERAL GRANTS IN LIEU OF MUNICIPAL TAXES
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the supplementary estimates tabled yesterday, will a revision of dominion-owned properties in various municipalities be allowed, in the light of the statement as to the possibility of collecting taxes from these properties?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: I am afraid I am not too clear as to just what my hon. friend's question means, or the information that it is intended to elicit. On November 14 I made a comprehensive statement as to the government's policy with respect to grants in aid to municipalities. When the item in question is called I shall


be glad to answer any supplementary questions that may be put to me. Perhaps I am a little dense, but I do not quite understand my hon. friend's question.


Harry Oliver White: Because of the fact that taxes were not collectable, assessors in various municipalities have neglected to determine assessment value.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The grants will not be based upon assessments made by local assessors. As I indicated in my statement, the grants will be made on the basis of assessments which the government itself determines, as is done in all other countries that follow practices of this kind.



FISH INSPECTION ACT


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries) moved: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 63, respecting the inspection of fish and marine plants.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Donald Methuen Fleming: On a question of privilege, sir, Votes and Proceedings of yesterday, No. 60, as published, contain at page 345 what I say is an error. Among the items said to have been passed at last night's session of this committee this one appears under the heading "Loans and investments":
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
934. Loans to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ... to cover capital costs of television installation and to support the development of the service . . . , $4,500,000.
Sir, my submission is that this is a mistake, because the item was not called. I have asked my colleagues around if they heard it called, and those to whom I have spoken agree with me that certainly the item was not called in their hearing.
Hansard has come to hand, and Hansard for yesterday, at pages 2826 and 2827, contains the report of a discussion on the last item, No. 306. At the conclusion of the discussion Hansard reads, "Item agreed to. Progress reported." There is no reference to the calling of this very large and important item, No. 934.
At page 2828 of Hansard, among the resolutions said to have been passed in committee, and reported, is this item, No. 934. But there is no statement in the text of Hansard as to that item being called.

There are a few other reasons that warrant my saying the item was not called. In the first place, we were told on the previous night that the estimates of the Department of National Revenue would be called. Item 934 is not among the estimates of the Department of National Revenue. If hon. members will look at the further supplementary estimates, No. 1, page 10, they will see three supplementary estimates in connection with the Department of National Revenue. On page 27 of that volume of further supplementary estimates they will see item 934- not under the estimates of the Department of National Revenue, but under the heading, "Loans and investments". This follows the previous heading, "Government-owned enterprises-transport".
Last, sir, and I think a complete reason for saying that item 934 was not called, is that the government had agreed not to call it. If hon. members will look at page 2052 of Hansard for March 28 of this year they will see that, following a statement made by the Minister of National Revenue on government policy with respect to television, relating to this particular matter, in which he said that it was government policy to ask for $4 million for the purpose of permitting the development of television by the C.B.C., Hansard records that at the conclusion of that statement I asked the minister this question:
May I ask the minister a question arising out of the statement he has Just read? Will the radio committee-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Deputy Chairman:: I think the hon. member has stated his question fully.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am just finishing it.


Louis-René Beaudoin: He is now proceeding to make a speech.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. I just wished to finish this quotation, then I shall be through. It continues:
Will the radio committee have an opportunity of reviewing this policy and reporting to the house before the house is called upon to approve the loan of $4 million?


Mr. McCann:: The answer is definitely yes.
No radio committee has been set up. So I say the government certainly cannot have had any thought of calling that item, because this undertaking has not been fulfilled. Therefore I say that Votes and Proceedings for yesterday are in error, and item 934 should be struck out from page 345.


Louis-René Beaudoin: After looking over the discussion that took place on the items referring to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-either the item respecting the international service, or item 934, which refers
Supply-C.B.C.
to loans to be made to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with respect to television -and after reading Hansard, it is quite clear that the discussion on the first item, concerning the international service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, was a general discussion covering all the operations of that corporation.
I knew, and I am sure some hon. members knew as well, that they were out of order in discussing on the first item, which referred to the international service, some of the things they did discuss, such as, for instance, wave lengths. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River criticized the C.B.C. because the northern section of Ontario was not served well enough. Then the hon. member for Eglinton spoke at some length about television. If hon. members will refer to page 2823 of Hansard they will see that he devoted perhaps a page to this particular aspect of radio, namely, television.
The hon. member goes on to say, at the close of his remarks:
I am not going further tonight into this whole question of whether the C.B.C. ought to be permitted to continue as both competitor and regulator or. as it has been put in this house before, as judge and policeman as well as a party to the cause before it.
And he concludes by saying:
These questions I have referred to, particularly the matter of television, are much too important to be left in abeyance any longer.
It seems clear to me that the sense of that was that all items pertaining to the C.B.C. were then under discussion; and that the hon. member was taking advantage of the general discussion then taking place to discuss item 934 as well. He is reported to the extent of about half a page on television as it appears in Hansard of yesterday.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Quite true.


Louis-René Beaudoin: And he concludes
by saying:
These questions I have referred to, particularly the matter of television, are much too important to be left in abeyance any longer.
If one reads the speeches which then followed, especially the reply that was made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to some of the points raised by the hon. member for Eglinton, it will be seen that they have a direct bearing upon the setting up of a committee at the next session to deal with television, the allocation of wave lengths, and the establishment of a station of 50,000 watts in Ontario.
The leader of the opposition himself, at the close of his remarks last night, indicated that the item then under discussion dealt with international short wave, but he indicated

Supply-C.B.C.
that he wanted, as well, to press the matter of setting up a committee at the next session, and concluded his remarks by saying:
We see why it is so necessary that we start a complete examination of the whole activity of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as soon as we meet in the next session.
We were then on the item dealing with the international service. When these items on the international service were permitted to carry I said: "There are three items referring to the C.B.C.", and I called each of them in order, including item 934. I said, "Shall these items carry?" I know some hon. members on the opposition side, as well as some hon. members on the government side said, "carried". I then said: "Shall I report the resolutions?" And it was agreed. It was then three minutes to eleven.
Therefore I believe the point of privilege raised by the hon. member cannot be entertained.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman, I should hope that before you make that as a final ruling you would be prepared to hear certain observations.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


George Alexander Drew: I will not sit down except on order of the Chair at any time in this house.
I suggest it may be wise to give consideration to this item. The discussion had not been confined to the first item. The discussion, it is true, had been general on the first item, and the first item was agreed to as recorded at page 2826 of Hansard. When I rose to discuss the matter further it was pointed out that item 305 had been called, and I then explained that item 306 dealt with the same subject matter, and that I would continue the discussion. We continued the consideration of the second item at that time.
The statement is made that the item was called. Well, it must have been called quickly, and I will state further most emphatically that I did not hear it. If an item under a different heading in the supplementary estimates is called in the committee of supply, it should be pointed out at the time that we are turning from page 10 to page 27, and that the item in the supplementaries appears under another heading. Unless this is done, no member of the committee can keep in his mind what the item is. Suddenly to group items in this way and to call them off quickly while there is a certain amount of crossdiscussion going on in the chamber, without any indication that one of the items is for $4,500,000, and having to do with a most
[The Deputy Chairman.]
important subject-is a procedure under which, I submit, we cannot properly deal with the estimates.
I ask that the government consider the wisdom of consenting to reopen this discussion. Otherwise any suggestion to facilitate procedure becomes an impossibility. There is another time when we can discuss this, namely, on the appropriation bill, and I assure the government that we will discuss it then if this item is not reopened. Undoubtedly there would be a wider discussion on the appropriation bill, and the discussion would thereby be extended.
Without attempting to make a ruling as to what was done, and having regard particularly to the fact that the course indicated now by the chairman is one which could not possibly have given hon. members an opportunity to realize that the item 934 was called, I submit that by consent this item should be reopened, so that it will not be necessary to renew the whole discussion on the appropriation bill.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I had not intended to speak on this subject, either now or when it might come up again on the appropriation bill; therefore I can perhaps be considered as an unbiased advocate. I think the difficulty has arisen through having two or three items called at once. They were called so quickly in order to get through with the estimates of the department that those who were interested were not able to catch the number of the item. As the leader of the opposition has pointed out, the items in question were several pages away from the items that we had been discussing, as well as being under a different heading.
As the leader of the opposition has suggested, I think the matter should be reopened and an opportunity given to those who are interested in the item to discuss it. I suggest that to the chairman and to the government. This is a case where we should use good judgment and not get into an interminable discussion over the point.


James Joseph McCann: On a question of privilege, I should like to say a word or two. I concur in everything that you, Mr. Chairman, have said in explanation. When the estimates which I have to pilot through the committee came up yesterday, I submitted to the chairman the numbers of the items, in the bluebook, in the supplementary estimates, and in the further supplementary estimates, and I distinctly heard you call all the numbers. Following the calling of the numbers, the word "carried" came from the committee. It was unfortunate that just at eleven o'clock

last night this very important item was called and passed and is so recorded in Votes and Proceedings.
I think perhaps the way in which the items are listed is not the best. Items having to do with international short wave, the C.B.C. and others things having to do with broadcasting, are listed under the Department of National Revenue, but they are entirely distinct from the activities of that department. The order in council which gave me the duty of indicating to parliament what has been done with reference to policy and transactions of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the international short wave system delegates that duty to me personally.
The hon. member for Eglinton is quite right when he says that on March 27 last I indicated to the house the policy with reference to television, and said that there would be an opportunity to discuss the matter before the radio committee. There was a motion on the order paper at that time to set up the radio committee, but as parliament was dissolved on April 30, that item was not reached. I gave that promise in perfectly good faith. During this session there has been no request by the opposition that the committee on radio broadcasting be set up.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: On a question of privilege, I asked the Prime Minister whether he would set it up, and he simply passed it off.


James Joseph McCann: Perhaps I should retract and say that there was no motion on the order paper to set up the committee. I have no personal objection to this matter being discussed. I was surprised last night that there was not more discussion, but there certainly was discussion on the matter. The hon. member for Eglinton is reported, both in Hansard and the Montreal Gazette, as having spent a considerable amount of his time in the discussion of television.


George Alexander Drew: Not on this item.


James Joseph McCann: He did not enumerate the item, but he is reported both in the press and in Hansard as having discussed at some length the general question of television. If the hon. member was in error in not knowing the significance of the item as it was called, that is not my business. I brought up the item; it came before the committee and there was a general discussion on the whole matter. The item was called, the item was passed, and the resolution was reported.
As I say, I have no personal objection if the committee wishes to consider this matter further. We will have a clear statement as to what the policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is in the matter of
Supply-C.B.C.
meeting commitments for setting up television, in accordance with government policy. The hon. member for Eglinton was a bit critical last night of the fact that we had not gone ahead with this matter. On what did he base his comment that we were not dealing fairly with private stations which had made application to be licensed to go into television?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, this is a speech in regard to what the member did or did not do, but it does not explain whether or not this item was carried. I understood the chairman to say that further supplementary items were called, and there are further supplementary items shown in addition to item 934. Based on the statement just made by the chairman, I think item 934 was not called.


James Joseph McCann: I categorically deny that item 934 was not called. It was called. The chairman says so, and the Clerk says so. As I said, I have no objection to further discussion, but I am not going to be bluffed into the position that the item was not called, because that is not true. If there are other grounds for further discussion it will be on straight business grounds, and not because I am being bluffed by the leader of the opposition. What I say this morning is no more a speech than what you have said. Mr. Leader of the Opposition, and I have just as much right-


An hon. Member:: Address the Chair.


James Joseph McCann: -to indicate what my position here is as he has. To continue-


George Alexander Drew: I do not propose to be tricked, either.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I ask that the hon. member withdraw that expression. I do not think it is proper for the leader of the opposition to suggest that he is being tricked by the majority in the house.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, before you deal with that you will deal with the question whether it is proper to suggest that a serious argument I have made is an attempt to bluff the house?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: I have raised a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, and I ask for your ruling. I request that the expression that the leader of the opposition is being "tricked" by the majority, and by the chairman of the committee, be withdrawn.


George Alexander Drew: I said I did not come here to be tricked, and I repeat that statement. I certainly have no thought of changing my words into those now used by the Prime

Supply-C.B.C.
Minister. The Minister of National Revenue said he did not come here to be bluffed, and I replied that I did not come here for another purpose. Both of us came here to discuss other matters, and I suggest we get on with the discussion.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If there is any dispute about what the leader of the opposition said, the chairman should consult Hansard, and if the hon. member's words are what I understood them to be, then there should be an order that he withdraw them.


Mr. Rowe:: The same goes for bluffing.


John George Diefenbaker: A person would have to be a philological expert to appreciate the difference between "trick" and "bluff". I suggest that the Prime Minister might very well read his lecture to his own minister before talking to the opposition.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. We are getting too far afield from the discussion on which this matter arose. It seems to me there might be some provocation in the words used by the Minister of National Revenue, although perhaps not to an extent that would justify the leader of the opposition in using the expression he did. When he said he was not here to be tricked, I took it that this might be a reflection on the chairman. I know he does not want to convey that meaning. I think the word "trick" is not parliamentary. On the other hand, it might be a good solution if the Minister of National Revenue and the leader of the opposition would get together on this question.


James Joseph McCann: I would be the first to make amends. There is nothing further from my mind than to say anything offensive. If there was anything offensive in saying somebody was trying to bluff you, which is a common expression, I certainly withdraw unreservedly.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, since that is withdrawn, I withdraw the subsequent remark.


James Joseph McCann: I should like to say one more word in order to expedite the business of the house. Last night I had my officers here, and was perfectly ready to go on with as lengthy a discussion as the house wanted on the question of television. I am still prepared to do so. I leave it entirely to the chairman to decide what course of action should be taken.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: It seems to me there has been a first-class misunderstanding. Surely we want to be forbearing

with each other and get on with the business at hand. It would be better if the government would accept the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition. By common consent let us agree there was at least a misunderstanding, and get together and work on that basis.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: I suggest that if the minister is not ready to proceed this morning we may be able to find some time tomorrow- I hope not too much time-when we can have the officials here. In any event, we will try to find some time to have a discussion on the matter.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Some remarks have been made about the fact that two or three items are called at the same time, especially in the case of supplementary estimates which relate to subjects that have been under discussion. I was told by experienced members of the house that it was somewhat of an innovation on my part to refer hon. members to the pages in the bluebook, the supplement-aries and further supplementaries. I have not done so all the time, but as much as possible I have referred hon. members of the committee to those pages. I still maintain I called that item last night, and that the discussion on it was such as Hansard has recorded. If there is unanimous consent to deal with it at a later stage, of course discussion will be permitted.



DEPARTMENT OF RECONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
381. Departmental administration-formerly under demobilization and reconversion, $98,180.
['Agreed.\nProgress reported.']
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Robert Henry Winters: I have no statement to make at this stage.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to say a word and ask a few questions. One matter which I have mentioned before is the closing of the offices of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation all day on Saturday, with the result that workers have no opportunity to go to the offices to discuss matters with the heads of the corporation. Could it not be arranged that the offices of the corporation be closed on Wednesday afternoon, or some other afternoon in the week, in order that they might remain open on Saturday morning? It would not be necessary then for workers' wives to transact the business with the corporation. I have had letters and telephone calls about the matter, and a number of workers have spoken to me about it. Can the minister make some suggestion that will help?


Robert Henry Winters: There are several items in. the estimates dealing with housing on which I think it would be more appropriate to discuss the affairs of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I shall be pleased to answer any questions at that time. I can say now, however, that the hours worked by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are designed to some extent to tie in with the practice as to hours followed by the lending institutions with whom Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation conducts much of its business. Therefore in the summer months the corporation follows the practice prevalent in that field of closing on Saturday morning, but the working hours for the week are adjusted to compensate therefor.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was not set up to help any financial institution-at least, I hope not. I understand it was created to help workers. The corporation should do everything possible to make it convenient for workers to deal with them. Banks close at eleven o'clock on Saturday morning; why not have the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation offices remain open until that hour on Saturday morning and close on Wednesday afternoon?


Ernest George Hansell: I should like to ask one question as to the administration of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It seems to be difficult for smaller communities to come under the act, the operations of which seem to be pretty well confined to the larger cities. Why is it that people in the smaller places who wish to get loans under the act are unable to do so? One person wrote to me for information from a small community of about 1,500 people. I sent the information to the officials at the head office, and they were kind enough to explain the situation to me. I wrote to the person suggesting that he go to Calgary or Lethbridge and get the necessary information ,and that, generally speaking, loans should be available for the smaller communities. I have received a reply to the effect that this person visited both the offices in Calgary and Lethbridge, and the expression he used was that he was given the run-around. I do not use that expression in any unkind fashion, but people do get annoyed when they cannot get a thing through. Perhaps there are reasons for it. Will the minister throw some light on the matter?-because there are people in the smaller communities who wish to take ad van* age of this act.
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply


Robert Henry Winters: May I say once more, Mr. Chairman, that I would prefer to speak about housing, and discuss Central Mortgage and Housing matters, under the specific items. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is a crown company reporting through a minister, who in this case happens to be the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. It is not, therefore, properly a matter of departmental administration.
I would inform the member for Macleod that there is a section in the National Housing Act, section 31A, which enables the government to make loans direct in areas in which, in accordance with normal mortgage practice, the lending institutions do not choose to operate. To the best of my knowledge, wherever there has been a request for loans that have not qualified in the eyes of the lending institutions, but which nevertheless have been eligible for direct government loan under section 31A of the act, those loans have been forthcoming.


Ernest George Hansell: What is the procedure in that case? Does the applicant get in touch with the minister, or with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Robert Henry Winters: First of all the applicant communicates with a lending institution, because the government is not in the mortgage business to compete with the lending institutions. If the lending institution decides it does not wish to undertake that particular loan, then the applicant is free to communicate with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, who will consider it under section 31A.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
382. Public projects branch-formerly under departmental administration, demobilization and reconversion, $123,380.
['First of all the applicant communicates with a lending institution, because the government is not in the mortgage business to compete with the lending institutions. If the lending institution decides it does not wish to undertake that particular loan, then the applicant is free to communicate with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, who will consider it under section 31A.']
John George Diefenbaker: Before I bring to the minister's attention what I have particularly in mind, I would ask him what is the purpose of the public projects branch. Is it designed to provide a shelf of public works against possible unemployment in parts of the country? I have the report of the minister's department for 1948-49, and from a perusal of that report it would seem that is the purpose of this vote; is that correct?


Robert Henry Winters: The function of the public projects branch, as my hon. friend suggests, has been to assemble a backlog of projects that could be used when the economic situation justifies it. It has a broader function, that of trying to provide engineering assistance to other departments who wish to bring their programs to a state of readiness for implementation. It also provides assistance to the
2842	HOUSE OF
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply Department of Finance in screening the various projects advanced for consideration by the different government departments, to break them down as to their labour content and material content, and to aid in arriving at a conclusion as to when the project should be implemented.


John George Diefenbaker: I believe that these projects are not receiving the attention they should. A question was asked by the member for Vancouver-Quadra on October 12, and the answer revealed the inadequacy of what is being done in connection with these matters. The answer was based on vote 384, which is for reconstruction projects, but I presume it amounts to the same thing. The number of reconstruction projects involved totalled four. One consisted of an amount of $40,000 to design an icebreaker; another was $150,000 for some water control improvements on the French river; $4,200 was for the construction of a virus laboratory, and $70,000 for the Department of Mines and Resources to construct a road in British Columbia.
The particular project I have in mind is one that has been referred to before during this session; I refer to the work on the South Saskatchewan river. According to the departmental report, $250,000 was spent on surveys, investigation and planning in connection with the two projects, the Red river diversion and the South Saskatchewan river, up until March 31, 1948. How much is being spent on this project this year? How much has been spent since March 31 last, and what expenditure is contemplated for next year according to the estimates of the department?
There is increasing unemployment in Saskatchewan by reason of the widespread drought of this year. As a result, almost a quarter of a million people have to receive some measure of assistance. Reference has already been made to other branches of possible assistance, such as the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The South Saskatchewan river project is necessary to the future economic development of our province. It has been declared feasible, and, having regard to the necessity of something being done this year to assist the people in parts of southern Saskatchewan, and the fact that the South Saskatchewan river project is directly in the centre of the drought-afflicted portions of the province, I feel that extensive expenditures should be made on surveys so that an early commencement of the work may be undertaken.
This is a matter, sir, which affects a quarter of a million people. I know they all could not secure employment on it, but many of them could. In proceeding with this work, not only would a strong foundation be laid for the


diversification of industry in our province, but help would be given to these people, to the municipalities, and to the provincial government-which has already begun to make plans for assistance to relieve the present condition and ensure future benefits. It is the kind of expansion that does not mean the expenditure of money with no commensurate return. In this chamber I have never asked the government on the one hand to reduce taxation and on the other to increase expenditures.
This is the kind of expenditure that is self-liquidating, that pays off dividends in development. It will make productive an area of some 700,000 acres in the central part of Saskatchewan that was formerly unproductive, except for a few fertile areas. It will make available a development that will reduce the expenditures on prairie farm assistance. It will lay the foundation for the development of Saskatchewan industrially and productively.
As this is not a narrow parochial project but one which affects the livelihood and the welfare of a quarter of a million Canadians, and is one of the national development schemes, it is worthy of being on a shelf designed to alleviate the possibilities of unemployment. Will the minister say a word in regard to the matter?


Robert Henry Winters: I shall be glad to do so. I am aware of the importance of this project. I have talked it over on many occasions with people from Saskatchewan who are interested, as well as with the Minister of Agriculture, who is directly concerned with it for the government. The purpose of the vote which is under consideration now, $123,380, is the operation of the public projects branch of the department. There is a subsequent item, 384, which provides an amount of $1 million. The hon. member had reference to that as well. The purpose of that vote is to have a fund available for the use of any government department that wishes to undertake any project on an emergency basis but for which the moneys have not been voted by parliament. The funds are therefore forthcoming from this pool of $1 million, which has been increased by another vote of $1 million; and allocations are made from this fund until such time as the moneys can be voted by parliament within the department which is concerned with the project, and then they are recoverable to this fund.
Having regard to the importance of the project to which my hon. friend refers, if the Minister of Agriculture asks for certain allotments from this fund to undertake work over and above that provided for by votes of parliament, I can assure him that I shall be pleased to co-operate with him.


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate the minister's attitude. It is consonant with the attitude he displayed this summer when visiting the various provincial governments and learning about the problem at first hand. In fact, he was in Saskatchewan, and his visit there was greatly appreciated. It was of value not only to himself but also to those with whom he came in contact.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister broaden out the answer he has given to the hon. member for Lake Centre? In other words, will he tell us in a general way just what projects there are? I think it would be a matter of interest and perhaps of reassurance to the people, particularly in those parts of the country in which they are beginning to feel the pinch of unemployment.


Robert Henry Winters: I am not quite sure, Mr. Chairman, what my hon. friend wishes me to answer. Will he reframe the question?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What I am asking for is a statement, as complete as the minister feels he can give, as to the projects which are in existence or contemplated.


Robert Henry Winters: I cannot, of course, list the projects which are on the so-called shelf, but I can tell the committee that this fund is available, as I have said to the hon. member for Lake Centre, to any department that wishes to implement any of these projects for the purpose of developing Canada as well as for the purpose of alleviating unemployment, but for which there has been no vote of parliament. This fund can be drawn on for that purpose until such time as parliament has had the opportunity of dealing with the specific vote. This is an emergency fund.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Did I understand the minister to say that he could not give us a list of the projects on the so-called
shelf?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, that is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is that
because the minister feels that to do so might, let us say, give information which might be injurious to the actual carrying out of the projects? For instance, if the minister was thinking of buying my house, let us say, to use as an office for his operations in Toronto, I can quite understand that he would not want to give notice of his intention for fear I might get too enthusiastic about the price. But, speaking seriously, may I ask him to what extent he feels he can inform us, and to what extent not, and to give us the reason for whatever withholding he believes to be necessary.
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply


Robert Henry Winters: The so-called shelf, as it was conceived, was to be a repository for projects that were completely planned and ready to be implemented. I think it must be evident to the house that there is a relatively small group of projects that are brought to that stage and are not implemented. We believe therefore that a broader concept of the investment program of the government should be visualized, and we are trying to use this public projects branch in an effort to bring any project of any department forward to the point where it is in such a state of readiness that it can be implemented as required.
The report of the department for 1949 referred to the various categories of readiness. We therefore feel that the major function of this department is not to have a backlog of works which have been developed by other departments but which they have not seen fit to implement. We would rather take the broader view of it. For that reason I say it is not in the concept of the shelf to visualize it as just a repository of projects that have been completely planned and are ready to be put into effect. There have been some in that category, which have been completely planned but which, for various reasons such as shortages of material or shortage of labour in a certain district, it has not been considered expedient to implement. I doubt whether the committee would consider it wise if I were to list the projects that have been prepared for implementation.


Mr. Prudham:: I should like to ask the
minister a question with regard to the location of the route for the trans-Canada highway. In his statement of policy I believe he said that the route would be entirely up to the provinces concerned, with the reservation that it should follow the shortest possible route. If there should be a difference of opinion between provinces as to the most feasible or most desirable route, would the government be in favour of setting up a factfinding commission, or assisting the provinces in setting up a fact-finding commission?


Robert Henry Winters: I know of no disagreement such as that suggested by the hon. member. The only thing I can say is that if the condition should arise, the government, in co-operation with the provinces concerned, would be prepared to take the necessary steps to overcome the obstacle.


George Prudham: Has the route been finally determined by the provinces concerned, or is it still open to negotiation?


Robert Henry Winters: The routes are still open to negotiation. So far there have been no agreements.
2844	HOUSE OF
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply


Donald MacInnis: I am a bit confused about item 382. Perhaps I was out of the chamber when the item was called and the minister made a statement that I did not hear. If he did, he need not make it again; I shall look at it in the record. What is the purpose of this item? What is to be done under it? Is it the sum total of the public projects branch? If the minister has answered the question,
I shall look it up.


Robert Henry Winters: There has been some discussion on the item, yes. The total of $123,380 is simply the amount required for the operation of that part of the department. It does not provide moneys for public projects as such; it is for the operation of the department.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is a hope chest.


Percy Chapman Black: I know we are all
interested in this item, and in what the department has in hand, or what it should have in hand. The public has been led to expect that a large number of government projects would be prepared and made ready to be carried out when the occasion warranted. Those of us from Nova Scotia, including the minister, who are familiar with conditions in that province, will recognize that the situation is becoming more serious in that part of Canada. This was recognized by the Minister of Labour on Saturday when we were dealing with his estimates. He said that there were pockets of unemployment in the maritime provinces. I asked him whether the policy of transferring workmen from Nova Scotia to central Canada was to be proceeded with as it had been in previous years, and he indicated that it would not be done because it had not been successful. He said that the workmen of Nova Scotia preferred to work in Nova Scotia, which is quite correct. This makes it all the more necessary to have works projects undertaken there, and they should be made more definite than the minister has so far indicated.
We have the statement submitted by the Minister of Labour showing the total unemployed in Nova Scotia as of December 3. The number was 11,625 in Nova Scotia, and 10,936 in New Brunswick, which is a very large number indeed, and does not include men employed in country districts and lumberwoods. I think the minister should indicate to the house what projects are on this shelf to which he refers that can now be undertaken in Nova Scotia. Quite a number of projects have been discussed in parliament, and there is no reason why they should be longer delayed. There is the question of the Canso bridge, which we have been waiting to take up with the Minister of Transport when his estimates come before


the house. That has been put off, and except for surveying, no work has been done. Then there is the question of rebuilding the railway from Sydney through to Moncton. That should be undertaken. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough from time to time has brought up the question of the Guysborough railway. He brought it up again this session, and tried to impress upon the government the necessity of building that railway. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough has been a member of this house since 1936. His representations do not appear to be taken very seriously by the minister or by the government; otherwise some answer would have been given by the government as to the policy with respect to that railway.
It has been proposed that the main trunk railroad that is to be rebuilt to serve Cape Breton and transport the products of Cape Breton to central Canada should go over the Guysborough railway rather than that the old line from Antigonish to Canso should be rebuilt. The minister might make some statement with respect to that.
There is also the question of the Chignecto canal, which has been before parliament since confederation. The hon. member for Saint John-Albert emphasized that subject in his speech on the budget debate this year, as I and other members have done in the past. This is a project that should now be undertaken, in justice to the maritime provinces. More than $350 million has been spent on canals in central Canada, but nothing has been done in our part of Canada.
There is also the building of the trans-Canada highway. That should be more definite in Nova Scotia. The hon. member for Edmonton West has just received a statement from the minister as to the route to be approved in his part of Canada. On different occasions I have asked questions as to the route in Nova Scotia. I have asked for the correspondence, and up to this time it has not been forthcoming. Perhaps the minister can give the committee the information today. Construction of the trans-Canada highway should be undertaken early this coming season in Nova Scotia, to relieve present and impending unemployment.
If the minister is not able to get the proper advice as to the route, I would be prepared to give it to him myself. I would say the route should go to Halifax, the capital of the province. The minister says that the route should be the shortest practicable east-west route consistent with the needs of the provinces and of Canada as a whole. I suppose the shortest possible route should go to

Amherst. The branch trans-Canada route serving Newfoundland should go from Amherst along the Northumberland strait to Canso and to North Sydney and thence to Louisburg.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is the hon. member speaking about the route of the trans-Canada highway?


Percy Chapman Black: I am speaking about unemployment in Nova Scotia, and I am following the suggestion given to the committee by the hon. member for Edmonton West and replies by the minister. These are suggestions as to the locating of the route in Nova Scotia so that the work can get under way.
There are other projects that should be undertaken in Nova Scotia. They are due to the province for what we did during the war and what we have done since confederation. They are due to us because we did not obtain our share of industrial development during the war, and have not obtained it since the war. They are due to us, because I suppose the greatest amount of unemployment in all Canada is now to be found in that part of Canada. There should be some indication from the minister at this time as to what his department has in mind, and what the government is going to do to relieve the situation in Nova Scotia. I should hope the minister would give a more definite indication of what projects will be undertaken in Nova Scotia in the coming season.


Robert Henry Winters: I can inform the committee that every consideration is being given to Nova Scotia's particular problem, as the hon. member for Cumberland can well imagine. The shelf, to use that word, is not a static thing. Projects have been registered on it, and projects come off it. Quite a large program of works has been undertaken in Nova Scotia, involving the bridge across the strait of Canso and quite a comprehensive program of work on the highways in the public park in Cape Breton. Then there is the matter of marshlands reclamation, of which the hon. member is so well aware. Further, there is the trans-Canada highway project, with which we wish to go forward as soon as possible. Last week I suggested to each provincial government that perhaps they would wish to meet in Ottawa on December 15 and 16- those are the dates I have suggested-to discuss all matters of technical detail, as a preliminary step toward the signing of agreements, so that the project can be implemented without delay.
Then there is the matter of housing which, if used as we think it should be used, could provide employment for a great many people, and at the same time go a long way toward
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply helping with the development of Canada. We know there is much to be done in the way of housing in Nova Scotia. We stand ready, through the legislation that the house was good enough to enact recently, to do our share in that respect. As my hon. friend knows, the provincial government has a large and well-conceived program of public works, the building of highways and other works which will contribute greatly to the alleviation of unemployment.
The hon. member has suggested that I had not taken seriously the remarks of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough about the Guysborough railway. I need not remind him that I took those remarks most seriously, and have had several discussions with the hon. member with respect to that project.


Percy Chapman Black: Is the minister in a position to make an announcement about it?


Robert Henry Winters: That comes within the department of the Minister of Transport, and I am not in a position to make an announcement.
This morning the hon. member heard the Minister of Transport announce that another ship would be built for traffic between Nova Scotia and the New England states. It is within the bounds of possibility that that ship can be built in Halifax. That remains to be determined. The point is that the situation in Nova Scotia is well understood, and that steps within our means are being taken to meet the condition.


Percy Chapman Black: The minister
recognizes the fact that there is considerable unemployment in Nova Scotia, as shown by the figures I have given.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not wish to drag this out, but I would ask one or two questions. I would refer the minister to two answers he gave within the last couple of months to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra.
On October 12 the hon. member asked this question:
What allocations, if any, has the treasury board made for reconstruction projects under vote 384 of the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1950?
The minister listed four, which, after rough addition, I should think would total about $360,000. Then, in answer to a similar question on October 20 with respect to vote 890-
What allocation, if any, has the treasury board made for reconstruction projects under vote 890 of the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1950?-
-the minister answered, "Nil".

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply
I got the impression from what he said that, apart from the trans-Canada highway and housing-and I am not belittling either of them-the minister indicated that his department was taking the position of a stand-by department, to assist other departments if there were certain things they wanted to do. Is that a fair interpretation of what he said? Would we be correct in assuming that the shelf has to do with tentative matters or hopes which may or may not be realized? I can understand why projects go on the shelf and are then taken off. However, I think the people would like to know whether in fact the projects under the auspices of the minister's department are substantial. The figure of $360,000 is relatively small. If he feels that no details can be given-and I shall not press him, because I am sure he would give them if he could- would there be any objection to giving totals, stating that there are firm projects to such-and-such an amount? Otherwise, as it now stands, those who read this discussion might come to the conclusion that, apart from the trans-Canada highway and housing, there is nothing very definite.


Robert Henry Winters: I do not think the question is whether or not the program of projects is adequate, but rather whether the over-all government program of investment is substantial. Through its public projects branch the Department of Reconstruction and Supply has attempted to co-ordinate the government's program of investment, and I think that in that attempt it has been successful to some extent. This is reflected by the high level of employment that has prevailed in Canada, and the total amount of the government investment programs since the war.
I am sure my hon. friend has read the departmental report for the year ended March 31, 1949, which gives a pretty fair indication of the total volume of the government's investment program. It would be an entirely wrong concept on the part of my hon. friend to say that the public projects branch, as I have referred to it, is the government's investment program. The public projects branch, as it was conceived, was to be a repository for completely planned and engineered works which could be taken off the shelf and put into effect. That, as an over-all conceived plan, is not adequate, because projects are fluid things. They are all the time being conceived and brought to varying degrees of preparedness.
My hon. friend will see by referring to the report that the survey instigated by the public projects branch by way of co-ordinating or attempting to co-ordinate the functions of
[Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) .1
all government departments reveals a backlog of public projects in various stages of preparedness amounting to something of the order of $3 billion.


Mr. Gillis:: I should like to be clear as to the functions of this branch. Am I right in assuming that this vote is just to provide funds for administration of the branch?


Robert Henry Winters: This particular vote, yes; there is a later vote which does the other things.


Clarence Gillis: I cannot see what it has to do with the trans-Canada highway and the Canso bridge. This is a special branch of the minister's department. They survey the field, decide what public projects are feasible and, if they so desire, recommend them.
In connection with the trans-Canada highway, is not the work of this branch done when the work is planned? Will not the administration of that project be largely in the hands of the provincial governments? The provincial governments will actually do the work. Is it not true also that in respect of the Canso bridge, while this branch may have something to do with the planning, the implementation of the plans is in the hands of the Department of Transport? The minister's department does not follow through with everything that is planned; that is handed over to the department particularly concerned. In effect all that is being done is to maintain a planning branch.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
383. Canadian government travel bureau-to assist in promoting the tourist business in Canada, $1,298,277.
["I cannot see what it has to do with the trans-Canada highway and the Canso bridge. This is a special branch of the minister's department. They survey the field, decide what public projects are feasible and, if they so desire, recommend them.\nIn connection with the trans-Canada highway, is not the work of this branch done when the work is planned? Will not the administration of that project be largely in the hands of the provincial governments? The provincial governments will actually do the work. Is it not true also that in respect of the Canso bridge, while this branch may have something to do with the planning, the implementation of the plans is in the hands of the Department of Transport? The minister's department does not follow through with everything that is planned; that is handed over to the department particularly concerned. In effect all that is being done is to maintain a planning branch."]
Gordon Knapman Fraser: At what fairs and exhibitions in foreign countries, including the United States, will the travel bureau have exhibits? How many inquiries have been received from other countries, and how many envelopes containing booklets and other literature have been sent out, and at what cost?


Robert Henry Winters: The travel bureau will have no exhibits at fairs or exhibitions in foreign countries except in the United States. Last year the bureau had exhibits at Boston, New York, Chicago, Dallas, Seattle, and Los Angeles. Up to date this year we have received 301,000 inquiries.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Has the department ever considered using a trailer outfit in order to advertise Canada in different sections of the United States, places which cannot very well be reached by mail? I am thinking of such places as Hot Springs, Arkansas, and resorts in South Carolina and North Carolina. This would not cost much more than to advertise in one magazine. It would be of great help in increasing travel to this country.


John George Diefenbaker: The Canadian travel
bureau is one of the most important agencies so far as the obtaining of United States dollars is concerned, and I should like to know if it is still located in the barn.


Robert Henry Winters: It is located in the old supreme court building.


John George Diefenbaker: That building started as a barn, and then for seventy years it was the temporary supreme court building. I submit in all seriousness that for Canada to have such an outstanding public agency located in such a piace is completely out of keeping with its importance. I know something of the work that has been done by Leo Dolan on behalf of Canada. Recently I was in the far west and one of the Canadians who seemed to be known to the people of the United States was the director of the travel bureau.
It is undignified to have in such a building an agency of government as important as this. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra points out that public relations are of immense importance, and for outstanding United States citizens who come from the lourist bureau, say, in Washington, to visit the headquarters we have here does not give them the impression that should be given. The immediate transfer of this agency to quarters more in keeping with its importance should be considered.


Robert Henry Winters: Recently there has been
a complete renovation of these quarters, which has made them a much more attractive place in which to work. I shall have full regard to what has been said here this morning for the purpose of further consideration.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I have in my hand a copy of the report of the fourth dominion-provincial tourist conference which was held in Ottawa on November 7, 8 and 9 of this year. This was a conference of dominion and provincial ministers and officials and of representatives of companies interested in the tourist business. Seventeen resolutions were passed, seven of which expressed congratulations or thanks to individuals or organizations. I am interested to note that the minister of trade and industry of British Columbia made a heavyweight contribution by suggesting that girls with long hair who work in restaurants should wear nets.
I should like to refer to resolution No. 2, which reads:
Recommended:	That the fourth dominion-provincial tourist conference go on record as being strongly opposed to the use of the words "Restricted or selected clientele" in tourist resort folders, on letterheads and advertising.
I should like to know what action is taken by the minister's department on resolutions
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply passed at this conference. I am greatly interested in this question, as are many of my constituents. I appreciate the good work that is being done by the Canadian travel bureau, but having followed their advertising for a number of years I am of the opinion that the major effort is to attract tourists to the larger centres or to the resorts operated by the railroad companies. I think the Canadian travel bureau has overlooked the opportunity to develop the tourist business in some of the isolated, or what might be described as the backwoods, districts.
By way of illustration, may I say that I represent one of the most beautiful constituencies in Canada. Nobody will question that. I have never seen a line of tourist publicity or advertising concerning the beauties of the Kootenays or the tourist facilities offered by the many tourist resorts. I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra will support me in that. There are marvellous opportunities for tourists in the Kootenay, Arrow and Trout lake areas, but, so far as I can find out, the Canadian travel bureau has not published any literature directing the attention of tourists to those regions. Again I say I am of the opinion they are inclined to advertise first the resorts of the large railroads and other hotel-owning companies.


Mr. Green:: I concur in the statement made by the hon. member for Kootenay West. It does seem that a good deal of the publicity has to do with such places as Banff and Jasper, which do not need it so much. The Kootenay country is one of the lovely parts of Canada, and is a great attraction to tourists. I should like to know what steps are taken to publicize districts of that kind.
When the minister is answering, perhaps he will say something in reply to the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre concerning the location of the headquarters of the Canadian travel bureau. I think it is disgraceful. After all, the travel bureau is the show window of Canada. Their business is to sell Canada, and they have to deal with men from the United States who are engaged in the same line of business, and to whom appearances mean a great deal. The United States has desirable and attractive headquarters for such work, and Canada, which needs tourists far more than the United States, has headquarters which a person hesitates to enter. I think it is a most serious situation and shows poor judgment on the part of somebody high up in the government. I should like an assurance from the minister that suitable accommodation will be found for the travel bureau.

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply


Robert Henry Winters: The travel bureau operates on the principle that its function is to entice tourists to come to Canada. Once they come to Canada it is the responsibility of the provinces to induce them to visit their particular areas. For that reason the Canadian government travel bureau does not try to emphasize or portray any one area at the expense of another. We have to try to give the national picture, and to create in the minds of prospective tourists a concept that is Canadian.


Percy Chapman Black: I am quite sure all hon. members are in thorough sympathy with the appropriation. Their only criticism, and it is a real one, is that it is not larger. The person in Canada to whom the greatest credit should be given for initiating federal responsibility as to tourist traffic is Senator W. H. Dennis of Nova Scotia. There has been a great development in tourist traffic, although there were setbacks because of the war, the depression and other circumstances. It is a most important department for the maritime provinces, and particularly Nova Scotia.
I realize that our part of Canada has not profited as much as central Canada from the appropriation. There is a great deal more to be done. It is probably the most undeveloped tourist area in the country, and yet it has greater possibilities and potentialities than any other section of Canada. There is great scope for development with respect to United States tourists and others coming to Canada.
There is another point which should not be neglected. The travel bureau should assume greater responsibility for attracting summer vacationists to the maritime provinces from central Canada. A great many tourists go from central Canada to the United States and other places outside of Canada. They should be attracted to the maritime provinces in far greater numbers than they have been in the past. I should like to ask the minister what the department is doing to publicize the mari-times and attract people from central Canada to the Atlantic seaboard, our warm sea water and cool air.


Robert Henry Winters: The attractions of Nova Scotia are so obvious that it is hard to understand why people do not flock there in greater numbers. It is just a matter of time until they hear about it, and then we shall have no further trouble in that respect. The eastern provinces are doing a good job in inducing tourists to go to the maritimes. In Nova Scotia the tourist department is very active. New Brunswick has been doing a good job, as has Prince Edward Island. Newfoundland has now come into the picture. Newfoundlanders feel that their province has very great tourist potentialities, and they have every intention of developing them.


The hon. member for Kootenay West referred to the dominion-provincial conference which is called each year for the purpose of discussing all matters which can mutually help us to bring more tourists to Canada generally, and help the provinces to attract more tourists to their own particular areas. These conferences have been most fruitful. There has been a measure of co-operation which has enabled us to go forward from year to year to improve tourist traffic in Canada.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You now
have eleven departments working together, the federal department and ten provincial departments. Can the minister give us his assurance that there is really co-ordination, that there is not overlapping or even a contradiction of advertising? Does he feel it is in good shape?


Robert Henry Winters: Of course that is one of the major items for discussion at the conferences, and I think the provinces feel there is the type of co-ordination which reduces overlapping to a minimum, and which gets the most for their dollars spent on the tourist industry.


Mr. Harliness:: I notice the major portion of this expenditure, some $875,000, is for advertising and publicity. Is that entirely or almost entirely spent in the United States, in the same way that most of the booklets you send out go to that country?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes; that is correct.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is there any advertising in Canada, along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Cumberland, to induce people to go from central Canada to the maritimes, or to western Canada, and particularly the Rockies?


Robert Henry Winters: What advertising there is for that purpose is done by the provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.
Demobilization and reconversion'-
890. Reconstruction projects, subject to allocation by the treasury board-further amount required, $1,000,000.
['What advertising there is for that purpose is done by the provinces.']
John George Diefenbaker: I want to ask the minister one question arising out of the statement he made this morning. Has there been a request by the Minister of Agriculture for any allocation from this fund for the year 1949-50 in connection with surveying and other like works on the South Saskatchewan project?


Robert Henry Winters: No, there has not. But there is, I understand, a sum provided in the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, I understand that; but not from this?


Robert Henry Winters: No.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister give us any idea as to what projects this money is to be used for?


Robert Henry Winters: Just as required.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The Ganaraska river runs through Port Hope. It floods every year. Has anything been set aside for the Ganaraska watershed conversion?


Robert Henry Winters: Not under this department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-
385.	To provide for contribution towards cost of subway at Sudbury, Ontario, to implement agreement entered into in 1939, $100,000.
['Not under this department.']
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain this item?


Robert Henry Winters: This is a revote of an amount that was first put in the estimates in 1939 for a project which, for reasons of war, was not proceeded with. It has recently appeared in the estimates again. I understand that Sudbury is now ready to go ahead with its share of the work. This is likely to be the last year this item will appear in the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-housing development, including commitments of previous years-
386,	To provide for payments of amounts owing under guarantees pursuant to item 571 of schedule A to the Appropriation Act No. 5, 1947 (and pursuant to corresponding items in previous appropriation acts) to approved lending institutions in respect of loans made for the purpose of financing the conversion of existing houses into multiple family houses, such payments to be made out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund, $1.
['This is a revote of an amount that was first put in the estimates in 1939 for a project which, for reasons of war, was not proceeded with. It has recently appeared in the estimates again. I understand that Sudbury is now ready to go ahead with its share of the work. This is likely to be the last year this item will appear in the estimates.']
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain this item also?


Robert Henry Winters: Under the old Home Improvement Loans Guarantee Act, 1938, there was an amount of $50 million for home improvements, and it was all expended by the year 1940. Subsequently during the war, when housing was administered by the Department of Finance, it was felt that one means of obtaining more housing units would be to make arrangements with people who owned Large houses to break them down into smaller units. That was an arrangement with the 45781-181
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply banks backed by the government. I understand there were approximately nineteen loans,-and I am speaking from memory- the total amount being something of the order of $15,000.


Howard Charles Green: That is for the whole of Canada?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes. That has been wound up now. This item of $1 has been carried in the estimates just to keep the item alive, in the event that it would be needed; but it too will disappear this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-
387.	Emergency shelter-administration, $350,000.
['Yes. That has been wound up now. This item of $1 has been carried in the estimates just to keep the item alive, in the event that it would be needed; but it too will disappear this year.']
Howard Charles Green: Is there any way in which the department or the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation can help to get a family established in suitable living quarters where, for example, the mother has been deserted by her husband, has two or three children, is unable to rent proper accommodation and is -really living under slum conditions? During the summer the members from Vancouver city were shown quite a few dwelling places of that type. Is there any way in which steps can be taken to get a family like that out of slum accommodation and into either a wartime house or some other adequate accommodation? I presume there would have to be help from some local welfare organization, but is the dominion government in a position to give any assistance at all in such cases? I am afraid that under the new dominion-provincial housing plan, people such as those to whom I refer will not be covered at all. Could the situation not be met either from the emergency shelter fund or perhaps through the use of certain wartime houses? The number of families concerned is not large, but the cases are serious because the mother simply cannot make a move, and the children are the ones who are suffering the most.


Robert Henry Winters: The federal government's participation in the field of rental housing was, except for war workers' houses, only for veterans of world war II, and the houses are allocated on a priority system which takes into consideration length of service, number of children, ability to rent, and so on. Unless the case mentioned by my hon. friend is cloaked with that sort of veterans' preference, it would have to be a matter for some local social welfare organization.


Howard Charles Green: Could they not be helped under this emergency shelter administration vote?


Robert Henry Winters: In the emergency shelter administration, of course, there was also an element of veterans' preference; but in most
2850	HOUSE OF
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply cases the administration was by the municipality, which gave consideration to the various aspects of the needs.
In reply to one part of the hon. member's previous question, I should say that there will be a much better opportunity for the type of family he had in mind to be housed under the new legislation than under the federal government's participation in rental housing.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I was pleased to see in the press of yesterday morning the following item giving an account of the response of the Ottawa fire department to a call to a house on Chapel crescent. It reads as follows:
The fire fighters were brought to 353 Chapel crescent when two workmen deliberately turned an acetylene torch flame against the wooden ceiling joists in the basement of the apartment block. The wood did not burst into flames because the ceiling had been painted with fireproof paint which only charred and turned black.
Project supervisor Harold Graham then touched a lighted match to a metal drum filled with rubbish. Flames licked the walls and ceiling of the basement and smoke filled the combination laundry room and locker room. In less than a minute an alarm bell in the front hall rang loudly and a tenant telephoned the fire department, according to previous instructions. It was all part of a test demonstration of fireproof paint and a newly-installed fire alarm system being tested by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials.
I wondered whether this paint was to be used on all the projects

I hope it is- across the country. I am glad that this department is more favourably disposed toward fireproof paint than the Minister of Transport. Because of the tests that have been made I feel that it should be used, and that all frame houses should be painted with fireproof paint. The national research council has certain formulas, the borax type, but there are other formulas which are excellent and which will stand up outside and in. I hope they will be used in these projects.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National film board, including the motion picture bureau-
388.	General administration, including technical administration, $249,084.
['I was pleased to see in the press of yesterday morning the following item giving an account of the response of the Ottawa fire department to a call to a house on Chapel crescent. It reads as follows:\nThe fire fighters were brought to 353 Chapel crescent when two workmen deliberately turned an acetylene torch flame against the wooden ceiling joists in the basement of the apartment block. The wood did not burst into flames because the ceiling had been painted with fireproof paint which only charred and turned black.\nProject supervisor Harold Graham then touched a lighted match to a metal drum filled with rubbish. Flames licked the walls and ceiling of the basement and smoke filled the combination laundry room and locker room. In less than a minute an alarm bell in the front hall rang loudly and a tenant telephoned the fire department, according to previous instructions. It was all part of a test demonstration of fireproof paint and a newly-installed fire alarm system being tested by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials.\nI wondered whether this paint was to be used on all the projects\n\nI hope it is- across the country. I am glad that this department is more favourably disposed toward fireproof paint than the Minister of Transport. Because of the tests that have been made I feel that it should be used, and that all frame houses should be painted with fireproof paint. The national research council has certain formulas, the borax type, but there are other formulas which are excellent and which will stand up outside and in. I hope they will be used in these projects.']
Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps I should inform the committee at this stage that items 388, 389, 390, 391, and also supplementary items 891, 892 and 893, have to do with the national film board.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Robert Henry Winters: There is one other item, namely, 560, under loans and investments, which has to do with housing.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Does the minister wish me to call item 560 on housing now?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.
Item stands.
Loans and investments-Reconstruction and supply- 560. To provide for advances to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the construction and conversion of houses for rent to veterans and married members of the armed forces, including the acquisition and development of land, and the purchase of building materials, $75,000,000.


Howard Charles Green: This is a $75 million item. Perhaps the minister will explain it.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, this item is to cover houses built for the Department of National Defence, and also houses built for rental under the veterans rental program.


Howard Charles Green: It is entirely for the forces and for the Department of Veterans Affairs?


Robert Henry Winters: No; it is entirely for the forces and for rental to veterans.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words about this item and about the national film board. The size of the item itself would warrant-


Alphonse Fournier: This is not the national film board item.


Louis-René Beaudoin: We are now on item 560.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I beg your pardon.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National film board, including the motion picture bureau-
388. General administration, including technical administration, $249,084.
['I beg your pardon.']
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman; I am just as bad in arithmetic as the house was this morning.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I hope the minister is going to make a statement.


Robert Henry Winters: Before this item carries I think I should say a few words about the national film board.
The National Film Act was passed in 1939, and since this is the tenth year of its operation, it is perhaps fitting that I should make a brief statement before the committee deals with the board's estimates.
In its ten years of operation, the work of the board has become an integral part of the cultural and economic life of Canada. In a most creditable way the board has done its

job of interpreting Canada to Canadians as well as to people in many foreign countries; and, by so doing, it has stimulated tourist traffic, which has become a considerable item in Canada's economy. In this latter respect the board has been working increasingly closer with the Canadian government travel bureau. As the co-ordinator of film activities for government departments in accordance with the National Film Act, it has assisted many departments of government in carrying out informational functions assigned to them.
Many hon. members, I know, are personally aware of the wide public appreciation which exists of the work that the board has done, especially in the rural areas of Canada, and of the high quality of most of its productions.
The work of the board has, in fact, received unusual commendation on many occasions, and I think it only fair to refresh the memories of hon. members in this regard.
In 1942 the board was honoured by an award from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science in Hollywood for its production of the wartime film, "Churchill's Island", which was produced in the "Canada Carries On" series. This was the only occasion on which a film produced in Canada has ever received such an award. There have been other awards in the meantime, and perhaps the committee would be interested in a few of the recent ones. Last April the board was awarded four prizes for its productions entered in the Canadian film awards presentation, which was inaugurated by the Canadian Association for Adult Education. In addition, a group of national film board films entered in the Edinburgh festival, an event where awards are not given, received considerable commendation; and within the past few months the board has won awards at international festivals in Brussels, Venice, and Cleveland. Hon. members may have seen a press report this morning that a film of the board had won another award in Italy.
Within recent months letters and resolutions expressing appreciation of the work done by the board have been received from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Education Association, provincial federations of agriculture, home and school clubs, teachers' associations, medical and welfare associations, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, the I.O.D.E., the National Council on Physical Fitness, the Canadian Council of Churches, the British Empire Service League, and others.
45781-181*
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply
I mention this to indicate that the board has been turning out good films and receiving many expressions of appreciation, which do not always find their way into public print as often as criticisms.
It is a matter of regret to me that so many valuable employees of the film board should be obliged to work in an atmosphere of doubt, generated by the charges and criticism of one kind or another levelled at the board from time to time. In an attempt, therefore, to clarify the situation to the greatest possible extent, to answer unjustified criticisms, and to indicate what action is being taken to correct whatever deficiencies there may be in the board, I would like to make what should be construed as an interim or progress report.
The question of security in the film board was raised by the hon. member for Calgary East on Friday evening, November 18, as reported at page 1975 and following of Hansard. I promised to deal with it on these estimates, and I should like now to do so.
Hon. members are no doubt aware that the policy of the government respecting security within departments and agencies of government was authoritatively stated in the last parliament, on June 22, 1948, by Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley, who was then minister of justice, as reported at page 5630 of Hansard. I think it would be helpful if I repeated the concluding paragraphs of that statement. They are as follows:
The government is of the opinion that loyalty to the state of employees in positions of trust is an essential aspect of the efficient conduct of public administration. Moreover, there are certain duties of such a secret character that the state would not be justified in employing for their performance any person whose trustworthiness is in doubt.
Under the terms of the Civil Service Act and regulations, the civil service commission is required to satisfy itself as to the character and habits of persons appointed by it to government employment. These provisions do not apply to all employees or departments and agencies, nor do they relieve departments of their responsibility for satisfying themselves as to the suitability of individual employees from a security standpoint.
The particular attention of heads of departments and agencies of government has been drawn to their responsibilities with respect to the reliability of employees under their charge from the security point of view. A procedure has been approved which will enable them to discharge this responsibility as a part of their normal administrative function.
This is the position of the government with respect to security in relation to government employees generally. There is, however, the special case of those who are members of or associated with the communist party. The government is satisfied, from all the evidence available, that it would be a risk to the security of the state to employ such persons in positions of trust. For this reason, and in the discharge of its primary responsibility for security, the government has decided that no person who is a member of the communist party or associated with it shall be employed in work of a secret character. I may add that the same rule applies to those associated with fascist organizations.
2852	HOUSE OF
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply I want particularly to emphasize one point. It is the statement that "there are certain duties of such a secret character that the state would not be justified in employing for their performance any person whose trustworthiness is in doubt." Hon. members will observe that it is merely a question of "doubt." In other words, the responsible head of the department or agency must be satisfied of the complete "trustworthiness" of the staff of that department or agency which is engaged in the confidential work.
It is a distasteful, nevertheless a most necessary aspect of public administration, that senior government officials and responsible ministers must, in Mr. Ilsley's words, satisfy themselves as to the suitability of individual employees from a security standpoint.
Exceptional care must obviously be taken in the case of those engaged in certain types of work. Naturally, there is a special obligation to protect the secrecy of any matter entrusted to us confidentially by the government of another country. I am sure all hon. members will realize this so-called security screening is not at all like a public examination of members of the public service, and that it is the kind of activity which cannot be carried on publicly, and which is by its very nature adversely affected by publicity. The whole purpose of this kind of inquiry would be defeated if the government were obliged to announce publicly that it was being carried on.
I notice that it is stated in an editorial in the Financial Post of November 26 that: In public affairs there is nothing that isn't the property of the public. The press is the public's representative in finding out and reporting how our business is being conducted.
Trying to conduct public affairs in private is dangerous, and it never works for long.
There is no question that the administration of public affairs would be much easier if it were really true that in public affairs "there is nothing that isn't the property of the public". But the fact is that public affairs have to be carried on by men and women-and I refer here to public servants and not to elected representatives-who, having regard to the nature of their employment, are entitled to some privacy, as are other citizens. I wish there were no Canadians-happily there are very few- about whose loyalty to Canada there was any doubt; but nearly all hon. members know that is not the case.
The worst feature of all in this business is that we cannot wait for actual cases of espionage or sabotage or other offences; we simply cannot afford to employ or continue 

to employ persons about whose trustworthiness we have no definite assurance. But it would be a grave injustice to such persons-against whom there is no charge of wrongdoing, but merely the absence of satisfactory evidence of trustworthiness-to proclaim their names publicly and thereby injure their reputations and their chances of alternative employment. What I wish to emphasize is that it is not the government which would be hurt by publicity but the men and women whose reliability and trustworthiness are under examination; and nobody wants to be unfair and unjust to individuals.
This so-called screening of the national film board, which we hope to complete as rapidly as possible, is being carried on because another department of government wishes to entrust certain secret work to the board; and it is the routine duty of the board to satisfy itself and the government, by the most thorough inquiries, as to the trustworthiness of the staff.
I can assure hon. members that we are carrying out that duty with the fullest consciousness of our responsibility for the security of the state, and also our responsibility to respect, to the utmost limits of safety, the rights and freedom of the individual members of the staff of the board. And that, I am sure, is an attitude the house will approve.
Many aspects of the board's activities are being studied by the Massey commission, and as I have already stated in the house, a brief was presented to this commission by the film commissioner. In fairness to the Massey commission, as well as to the commissioner of the film board, I did not try to shape the brief to meet my views or the government's views, despite the fact that I was not in agreement with many of its recommendations. It seemed to me that it would not be in keeping with the spirit under which the Massey commission was established if the brief of the film board was merely a statement of existing government policy. In my opinion, what was wanted was an independent expression of views with which the Massey commission might deal as they saw fit.
Some question has been raised, especially in an article which appeared in the Financial Post on November 19, and which has been widely quoted, as to the effectiveness of what might be described as the business administration of the board; and I might add that before the article appeared I had myself, as chairman of the board, decided that an independent study of this aspect of its operations might be helpful.
28S3

It should be borne in mind that the film board's activities are carried on in nine separate buildings in Ottawa, because, despite the best efforts of the commissioner and the board, it has not been possible to obtain accommodation for all activities under one roof. Anybody who has run an organization will know how difficult it is to obtain unified control under such circumstances, and the worst feature is that operations carried on under such conditions are bound to appear to be inefficient, no matter how sound they may be in reality. The Minister of Public Works has promised to take steps with respect to accommodation, and, as a first step, has arranged to have new film vaults provided.
With respect to business administration generally, as I have intimated before, I felt it would be advisable to obtain a report of independent management consultants, and, to this end, after due consideration and discussion of the problem, the firm of J. D. Woods & Gordon, Limited, was retained on November 15, to investigate into and report upon all those matters which can be classified as business administration. I have, of course, not yet received a report; but I may say that my action was welcomed by the commissioner and the board, who are agreed that nothing but good can come from an objective and outside consideration of the business and administrative practices.
It has been alleged that the board is seeking a film monopoly and the destruction of the private film industry. I can state positively that the board has no such policy. On the contrary, it is the policy to encourage private film production in Canada. I believe most hon. members realize that the board carries out many film functions which might not otherwise be performed in Canada, and I believe, too, that there are many cases in which, by its work, it has stimulated private enterprise to undertake operations which it might not otherwise have undertaken. I believe the position in this respect can best be illustrated by one or two examples.
Early in January 1949 a representative of the Quebec Productions Corporation saw me in Ottawa, after requesting the film board to undertake the processing of certain films for his company. He subsequently wrote to me on January 12 as follows:
Dear Mr. Winters:
In view of the great efforts that have been made to produce "Un Homme et Son Peche" to the highest technical standards of quality possible and available in Canada, would you please reconsider the possibility of the national film board laboratory processing our first release prints.
It is with much satisfaction and deep appreciation that we have noted the high standard of production negative quality that your laboratory has produced
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply for us. Its technical excellence is on a par with production laboratories in Hollywood, New York and London ... a standard that could not have been attained at any other laboratory in Canada. If Canadian feature production is to move forward, this production laboratory quality must be maintained or we cannot hope to compete in world markets.
Although commercial laboratories in Canada do undertake release printing it is a generally recognized fact that even this process does not attain standards comparable to laboratories in other countries. It is therefore considered undesirable to entrust our first "show" prints to the vagaries and vicissitudes of a laboratory unaccustomed and undesirous of meeting present day motion picture standards of production.
Since the quality of our first release prints will be instrumental in interesting further Canadian capital to the motion picture production industry in Canada, we feel that the only alternative to protecting our future (if the facilities of the national film board laboratory cannot be made available to us) is to apply for permission to have our release printing done at a reputable laboratory in New York city.
As this latter alternative will require some necessary arrangements and preparation, if we are to abide by our releasing contract of January 29, could I take the liberty of telephoning you tomorrow morning for an answer.
Very sincerely yours,
(Sgd.) R. J. Jarvis,
Director of Production, Quebec Productions Corporation
On January 15, after expressing my views orally, I replied as follows:
Dear Mr. Jarvis:
This will confirm our conversation (Jarvis, Newman, Winters). With due regard to the time factor involved and other special considerations, I am prepared to acknowledge the particular circumstances prevailing and to agree that the national film board shall process the first release prints at no cost to the government of your production "Un Homme et Son Peche."
It is desired to emphasize that the national film board does not propose to compete with privately owned facilities in this field. It is understood that you will bear this in mind and take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the prints for succeeding productions will be processed by privately owned facilities. At any rate, it is to be clearly understood that I do not intend that the national film board shall procesg prints from ensuing productions.
I am forwarding a copy of this letter to the commissioner, national film board, so that he may be guided accordingly. It is understood that you will contact him to work out the necessary arrangements, financial and otherwise.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) Robert H. Winters I think that letter can leave no doubt as to the attitude of the national film board with respect to competing with private enterprise. Subsequently in February, 1949, Renaissance Films made a similar request for the film board to process their negative. The commissioner discussed the request with me and it was decided to advise Renaissance Films to contact Associated Screen News and reach an agreement. As a result of this

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply contact, a telegram was forwarded to the film board by the Associated Screen News as follows:
Mr. John Bigras of Renaissance Films Distribution Incorporated has requested that negative developing and daily rushes of their feature picture "Le Grand Bill" be processed by national film board. To this we have no objection.
In order to be perfectly clear on this point and to encourage privately owned laboratories to get in position to do their own work, the commissioner, after consulting me, wrote to Mr. W. J. Singleton, Associated Screen News, on March 21, as follows:
Dear Mr. Singleton:
I am obliged to you for your telegram of March 17, which reads as follows:
"Mr. John Bigras of Renaissance Films Distribution Incorporated has requested that negative developing and daily rushes of their feature picture "Le Grand Bill" be processed by national film board. To this we have no objections."
As you know it is not the wish of the national film board to undertake work of this kind for commercial producers in Canada but in the circumstances since it is desirable that the work should be done in this country rather than in the United States we will agree to do it. As I have informed Mr. Bigras, we certainly will not agree to undertake -to do any release printing on the subject "Le Grand Bill" and we have also indicated our hope that it will be possible soon to make arrangements whereby work of this kind which the national film board is now called upon to do shall be done in commercial laboratories.
Yours sincerely,
Ross McLean
I hope that these letters will dissipate whatever doubt there is that the film board is trying to destroy the private film industry. As is so often the case, the film board is perhaps regarded more highly in every other country of the world where its films are shown than it is in Canada, and I hope that as time goes on more and more Canadians will develop a better understanding of the work of the board and a broader appreciation of its contribution to Canadian life. I think I can speak for all members of the board and for the commissioner and his staff when I say that none of us believes the board is perfect and that we are all anxious to increase its efficiency and to improve its service to Canada. It is my hope that the film board can come to be regarded without prejudice everywhere as an important instrument in the expanding life of Canada; and, to this end, we will welcome the constructive criticism and suggestions of hon. members on both sides of the house.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great interest to what the minister has said. I am pleased that he has brought down his estimates this year in time to permit a discussion of the different items. Last year and the year before we got these estimates in 

the dying hours or perhaps I should say in the dying minutes of the session and we could not properly discuss the different items.
For some years I have criticized the film board. I have not been hostile to the board but I have criticized it in the hope that it would produce better pictures. I believe that since I started to criticize the board it has been producing better pictures. I have had letters from men and women in Canada and the United States who know motion pictures and they have been definitely critical of the film board because of certain things that had been done. From 1945 or 1946 on I have tried to get the film board on a really solid basis and from what the minister has said it would appear that they are trying to get that way.
I do not think my criticism during those years has been unjustified as there has been much room for criticism. The minister has said that he has called in a firm of accountants and business managers to check the film board to see what changes can be made and what improved business methods can be put into force. I am glad this is being done. It is now almost four years since I first advocated that this be done and I am mighty pleased that this action is taking place.
The minister referred to the full-page article on the . film board that appeared in the Financial Post. That article stated that a strip of film, I believe 94 feet long, could be prepared by a commercial firm for from $300 to $500 whereas the film board would quote $1,500 to $2,000. There must be something definitely wrong because in making its quotation the film board charges practically no overhead. I shall deal with that later on. I understand that the board charges only five per cent for overhead whereas a commercial firm would charge at least 20 per cent to 25 per cent.
In his statement the minister mentioned the fact that different organizations throughout the country have praised the film board. That is perfectly correct. There is no reason why they should not. In most cases these organizations are getting films absolutely free, although, in some places different societies are asked to donate whatever they wish to the film council of the particular town or city where they have what is known as a film library. From such libraries these films go out, and sometimes there is a charge and sometimes there is not. These people get the films free and, as the minister knows, when something is given free of charge people will not criticize it. They think it is good and let it go at that, but the people who get the films free do not know that they are paying for them through taxation.

I have here Mr. Grierson's original report for the year 1939, and I want to bring home the fact that according to the report and what Senator Euler said on March 9, 1939, there was to be only one paid employee of the board. The people of Canada are beginning to realize that the film board is trying to create a monopoly in photography. They are definitely in that field. I will not say much about their motion picture operation, but as to stills it appears to me that the national film board is trying to create a monopoly. According to my information the film board will send one, two, three or four people to take still pictures almost anywhere in Canada. The taxpayers pay for them. The film board is not only stepping into the business of commercial photographers in Canada; it is also invading the field of press photographers and gradually squeezing them out of business.


An hon. Member:: That is wrong.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I heard an hon. member say, "that is wrong." It is not wrong; it is right.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I say it is
wrong.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The hon. gentleman to my left is quite in favour of the film board because there are a number of members of the C.C.F. party employed there. That is one reason the leader of the socialist party got up in the house a year ago and raised high heaven because of the fact that the film board was withdrawing its office in Australia. Why did he do that? Because it was catering to a socialist government, and he hated to see that done. I have looked on the film board for some years just as I would look at a thumb tack, headed one way and pointed another. That is why they have not got proper employees. I have been informed that the staff of the national film board has been cut. Of course it has been cut since the drastic rise which took place in the first years after the war.
When the minister answers some of the questions I am going to put to him, I should like him to say how many were employed by the film board in 1948, and how many are employed at the present time. I should also like to know whether employees of the film board have been discharged since the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have been screening them, and how many have been discharged because of communistic leanings. As a result of the investigation by the management consultants, it may be felt that there are some people there who are not suited for the work they are now doing.
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply In 1946 I said there were communists in the film board, and on May 1, 1946, I put a question on the order paper reading:
1.	Is Bert Hughes an employee of the national film board?
2.	If so (a) what position does he hold . . .
The third question was:
3.	Are there any known communists employed by the national film board?
I understand that man was discharged shortly afterwards. Probably one reason why it is felt there should be a screening of the employees of the film board is that there was a man employed-I do not know whether he is at the present time-by the name of Kinnaird. He was a personal friend of the secretary of Sam Carr. The film board paid his passage and all expenses to The Hague when he went along with the secretary on the tramp steamer Manchester Prince, I believe it was. In 1946 and 1947 film board employees were busy clipping from different newspapers in Canada-I do not know whether they are still doing it-every article they could find in favour of the Russians. The director of the film board may not know it, but these clippings came from his office at one time, and that is what they were doing. They were clipping from the newspapers anything that was favourable to the Russians.
I understand that there is in the employ of the film board at the present time a man named Borneman-


Alphonse Fournier: What is the name?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Borneman. This man and his wife were prisoners of war on the Isle of Man during the last war. They were employed by the film board.


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


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In his statement the minister mentioned that the national film board had done a great deal to induce tourists to come to Canada. They have done quite a lot, but commercial films made by Warner Brothers and Crawley films have done as much if not more than the national film board. They have produced some excellent films. When the minister is answering I should like him to tell us how many men or women are employed throughout Canada at the present time as district supervisors, distributors of films, or showing films. As the minister knows, the commercial photographers have presented a brief. I have read it and I think it is a good one. The motion picture industry has also presented a brief. I hope that something will be done to eliminate the stills department of the national film board.


Mr. Slick:: Did you get any?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It would be a shame if you did.


Leonard T. Stick: I did not, but I am asking if you did.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No fear of that. There are a number of other questions which I should like to ask the minister, but I think I have asked sufficient questions for the moment.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg Norlh):: Does the minister wish to answer those questions now, Mr. Chairman, or does he wish to answer all the questions at once?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I would rather have the answer now.


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member asked a great many questions, and I do not know whether I have all of them. First of all, he asked how many employees there were in 1948, and how many at the present time. There were 610 in 1948, and there are 573 today. He asked how many of them left the board this year. As I recall it, the number is 61.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Were any of those screened out?


Robert Henry Winters: They left the board for a wide variety of reasons, most of them for personal reasons. The hon. member asked with particular reference to several people:	Mr. Kinnaird, who resigned some time ago to go to the IRO: Mr. Hughes, who resigned in 1945; and Mr. Borneman, who left the board in 1947 to go to UNESCO.
The hon. member asked how many people there were in the field staff, and the answer is 68. He indicated that there was a brief submitted by the motion picture industry, but I believe the hon. member is mistaken in that. No brief was submitted by the motion picture industry.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should have said the commercial photographers.


Robert Henry Winters: That is correct, but no brief was submitted by the motion picture industry. The hon. member asked if the "Canada Carries On" series was still being turned out by the board, and the answer is yes. The cost last year was about $120,000. There were roughly twelve pictures turned out, at an average cost of $10,000 per picture. He

asked if there were any requests to abandon the series, and the answer is that no such request has come to the attention of the board.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What was the revenue from that series?


Robert Henry Winters: I have no information about the revenue from it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The board ought to have that.


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member quoted certain comments made by the Auditor General about the unused film prints in the hands of the board for the board's use or for sale to others. The explanation is that the manufacture and purchase of film is financed from a revolving fund which, unlike other appropriations, is carried on from fiscal year to fiscal year. While the sum of $315,000 was realized on the manufacture and sale of those prints during 1948-49, this amount was carried over the fiscal year, in order to provide a reserve for the acquisition of printing materials in connection with manufacturing prints.
The second comment of the Auditor General concerned the reduction of the overhead from ten per cent to five per cent. By way of explanation, I would say that the sum of $11,637.34 was credited to the vote for the production of films, because a similar amount had been charged to this vote during the year in connection with a number of films produced for other government departments, which had exceeded the estimated cost. This excess was absorbed by the national film board, and charged to its own appropriation.
The hon. member said something about the costs of the film board being lower than the costs of commercial companies, thereby making it attractive to the commercial film companies to have their work done by the board. I can assure the hon. member that the reverse is true. The charges are certainly in line with those charged by commercial processors. If anything, the film board charges a little more in order to discourage that type of work coming to the board. The hon. member will recall that I made it perfectly clear to private film producers that the film board does not want to do that work in competition with private industry.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: With regard to the sixty-one who have left, the minister gave me a partial answer. I asked if any of those had been screened out, and he did not answer that question.


Robert Henry Winters: Sixty-one people have left. If the hon. member wants to know if any
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply of them were asked to leave the board because they were communists, the answer is no.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I like the hon. member for Peterborough West, but there are times when he tries me sorely. He does it once a year when he gets on the subject of the national film board. He has made a study of this matter, but he has not done too much homework on it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is all you know about it.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: When he said today that he felt he could claim responsibility for the film board having made better pictures, I felt that I should congratulate him, not on the result of his endeavours but upon his unmitigated egotism. That was a most surprising statement, coming from the hon. gentleman. It is only matched in other ways by his ignorance of the situation, when he said that the film board is trying to create a monopoly in still pictures, stepping into the business of the professional photographers. When I disagreed with him, his shattering reply to me was that there are members of the C.C.F. on the film board.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There are.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: The hon. member says there are members of the C.C.F. on the film board. I do not know. There may be. I should like to think that there are. There are five or six hundred members of the film board, and according to the Gallup poll we have 13 per cent of the popular vote. One might presume that there are five or six members of the national film board who are intelligent enough to be supporters of the C.C.F. The hon. member said that the film board was trying to create a monopoly. The minister did not answer that allegation. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I am told there are some 1,700 members of the professional photographers' association and that the film board last year sold 1,733 prints, which does not appear to me to be terribly severe competition.
Then there was this inevitable question of screening. The minister said that screening is adversely affected by publicity. That is true. But I think we must also admit that an individual may be adversely affected by screening. I hope that everything possible is being done to protect the individual, because one can put an odd interpretation upon these words "associated with communists". We have here the Minister of Justice and by using in a certain way these words "associated with communists" we may condemn him. I know he did so in a perfectly innocent way, as did many members of this house
45781-1S2

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply when we had a communist member of parliament here. In the Manitoba legislature when the Minister of Justice was there, there was a communist M.L.A. Are we to use the word in that sense or how is it to be used? How does one define the phrase "associated with communists"? I am merely pointing out the difficulties. I do not like the whole business. What I want to do is to protect the individual as far as possible from an arbitrary use of power.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to correct the hon. member. I know he will not mind my doing so. If I heard him correctly, he said that last year there were only 1,700 still pictures sold. In 1948, 79,544 were sold; and this year, up to September 30, 57,755 were sold.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: What the hon. gentleman says may be correct, Mr. Chairman. If so, I am wrong.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Those figures are in a return tabled in my name.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: 
Gordon Knapman Fraser: But it is.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: 1 have asked several questions of the minister which will perhaps keep him engaged for a moment or two. Let me repeat what I said. I think the film board is a most useful adjunct of government in this country. It has done a first-class job through the prairie provinces, and I am inclined to think in other provinces as well, and it is one which, instead of being hamstrung by this cavilling criticism, should be helped in every way possible.
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to make a few remarks about this item. I listened with great interest to what the minister said, and with much of it I am in agreement. In any event, I think we would want to take a scrutinizing interest in this item, which is a large one; but there are three special reasons for our doing so. First of all the article which has appeared in the Financial Post-and I should like to say here now that I do not think the hon. member for Winnipeg North was at his best when he referred to a journalist of the standing of Mr. Wilson, whose standing incidentally he did admit, and spoke of his work as a "shocking piece of work" and as a bit of "gossip". I notice that the minister, while he perhaps qualified some of the statements that appeared in the article, has not undertaken to question its accuracy. I think Mr. Wilson's reputation would stand up against anything that has been said by way of criticism. I do not think that is the way to deal with this matter at all.
The second reason why we should be careful in our scrutiny of the board and of its activities is the brief which was presented to the Massey commission, as to which I shall say a word in a moment. The third reason is the incident which we all remember, and which happened in this house some two or three weeks ago.
When we are considering the film board we should remember that it is an agency and activity of government. I noted what the hon. member for Winnipeg North said about the minister dissociating himself from responsibility for the brief. That attitude of the minister was interesting. In one sense I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North in what he said on this but in another sense we must face the fact that the government cannot really dissociate itself from it because it is an agency and activity of government.
At the very outset I want to say that I believe in educational films. So far as artistic work is concerned I believe a great deal of good work is being done. I would not like to qualify a single word that the minister has said. People more competent than I hold these views. I am very sympathetic to the work that is being done. Nothing that I shall say this afternoon should be construed in the slightest sense as hostile. But the question is: Who is to be responsible for the production of this work? That seems to me to be the question and a very important question, and it is in that light that I wish to say a few words about the board.
First of all I wish to quote briefly from the article that has been referred to. I shall quote part of the act governing the activity of the

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply board; and while this may not be a full statement of the purposes of the board, nevertheless it is quoted and I quote it now. The role of the board as set forth in the original act provided that it:
1.	Shall advise upon and approve production, distribution and exhibition contracts and agreements in connection with film activities of the several departments of government and in respect of these act as intermediary between such departments and commercial firms.
2.	Shall advise upon all departmental expenditures in the production, distribution and exhibition of films.
We hardly recognize the board in its present activities as emanating from such a rather modest beginning. The board has certainly grown. If I am correct in saying that it was originally intended as an intermediary, it has now become a principal. We now have a new kingdom and the king will want as many subjects as possible. I feel that in certain quarters there is the belief that the board as it now exists has become in no sense an intermediary for the other departments.
The article says:
It is now contended that instead of acting as adviser, confidant and intermediary, the national film board too often appears to be working in the opposite direction and to be concerned with extending itself into a big movie producing outfit.
For the moment I am not saying whether that is good or bad. I am just saying that we want to be clear on what we are doing, and not slip into a situation into which we do not intend to slip.
One of the things on which the minister was quite silent, and I am sorry he was, because it was one of the points in this comprehensive article, was the attitude of other departments to the board which, as I understand it, seeks to become an independent organization, and not have any of the limitations or disabilities of an ordinary government department. I understand that is one of the things they desire. I should like to quote one or two things which were said by other government departments because I think it is desirable that we should know just what the attitude is. After all, surely it cannot be healthy to have this board working, so to speak, in a jealous relationship with other government departments and in a state of disharmony.
This is one of the quotations given by Mr. Wilson as coming from one of the critics:
Instead of being helpful and co-operative in finding a solution to the department's problem, the national film board by its methods left a bad taste in its wake: antagonized a lot of people in the very arena where it is supposed to be the intermediary. And, incidentally, it caused a long delay in an important promotional program for Canada.
In particular I want to refer to what has already been adverted to by the hon. member

for Peterborough West, namely, the relationship which developed in the Department of External Affairs. It appears that the national film board had established its own offices in Australia.
Another and important controversy affects relations between NFB and the Department of External Affairs. In the NFB brief to the Massey commission the point was made that NFB offices in Washington and Sydney, Australia, were closed last year because of "budgetary restrictions" and that "a part of the work they performed is now undertaken by the Department of External Affairs."
The point at issue here, in the view of External Affairs, is that while it has been looking after distribution of NFB films in these and other missions abroad, it has no control over what is distributed. And since Canada's relations abroad are its prime responsibility, it should have more control over the type of material it is required to distribute for NFB.
And that is just the situation we are running into, where a senior department of government finds itself in this relationship. Briefly I would summarize by saying that here are some of the points made by some government departments by way of criticism:
1.	High prices and special charges.
2.	Lack of co-operation. ("You get just what they want to give you," says one official.)
3.	Inability to get a firm bid or price.
4.	Long delays and unbusinesslike methods.
I should like to interject that I was glad to hear the minister say he has engaged the services of what I consider to be a very reputable firm, and I should think it would be very useful in the matter of improving business methods.
I said a moment ago that the board is going to expand. Certainly the brief before the Massey commission would indicate that it is seeking to expand in a big way. Let me read just one brief paragraph, because I think it is important and because I think it indicates that this board is getting very far from what I understood to be its original purpose. It indicates that it is now really seeking to be an over-all propaganda agency. And when I say "propaganda" I am not using the word in any invidious sense at all. All I am saying is that when people are put in the position of directing publicity to other people, inevitably their own feelings become involved. Here is the paragraph:
In defining its approach the NFB brief said: "The prime duty of a government agency in a democracy is to explain and illuminate, under parliament, the common objectives of the people. Its function is to stimulate and strengthen the processes of representative government, to reinforce a sense of community, and to emphasize not only the privileges but the responsibilities of a free society."
That sounds all right. From one point of view no one could object to a word in that. But I would point out to the committee that if one were to take out two or three words-

for instance, if one were to delete the words, "under parliament", and delete the word "representative" and the word "free"-it would be exactly the kind of policy the dictatorships used. A dictator could approve of all that, with the exception of those three expressions.
What I am saying is that before we slip into a situation of that kind it is time for us to stop, look and listen. It is time for us again to make up our minds what this board has to do and what it has not to do.
Let me say again I do not wish to be misunderstood. No one has a greater appreciation than I have of the excellence of the artistic work being done. My question is whether it all needs to be taken out of the control of the other departments, and whether they have become practically the servants or, at any rate, inferior in their relationships to the board, instead of having the board as an adviser, as was the original intention.
As a matter of fact, my feeling is that I would not want the board, even if it were staffed by angels from heaven, to be put in a position of a propaganda agency-that is what their claim involves-and going ahead and sending out its material to the people of Canada, so far as we can see now, under its own steam, and without any scrutiny of any kind. The minister, with his multitude of other duties, cannot give all his time to it.
I come now to screening, the question aired in the house some weeks ago. I agree with everything that has been said about the difficulty of the problem. Those of us who can look back a little longer than we would like can look back to a world when screening was a thing not dreamed of in our philosophy. We thought it might happen in a place like Russia, where they had to have such things as passports. I was one of the last to believe that it could happen here. I came to that conclusion very unwillingly. We have to deal with it as best we can, realizing it is necessary.
In the light of that, it seems to me that a very lamentable situation was disclosed here two or three weeks ago. We will remember the different explanations given. We will recall that the Minister of National Defence very frankly admitted the difficulty he had got into. I think he was frank, and I commend him for it. But from that point on it became more and more obscure. We could not find out just how the screening was being done. As I understood the Minister of National Defence, he thought first of all it was done by the R.C.M.P. But the Prime Minister told us no, that the heads of departments had to assume the responsibility. I propose to say a word about that, because it
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply seems to be a very difficult position in which to place the head of a department. I wonder whether it is a wise position to put him in. At any rate, the Prime Minister told us that, and the Prime Minister deprecated that this had, as he said, leaked out.
Well, reference has been made this afternoon, in a more critical fashion, to what the Prime Minister said. I suppose the truth is that there is something to be said on both sides. None of us want people to be damaged in their reputations. One is sympathetic with what the Prime Minister said. On the other hand I think the difficulty here was caused by delay-and I want to know more about that.
It seems to me we have had many months during which it is fair to assume or to draw the inference that nothing happened. Let me go back and put the case as I see it. This is not new. It is three or four years now since we knew that this problem faced us. If I remember correctly it is a year and a half since Mr. Ilsley spoke in the house dealing with this unpleasant duty which had to be faced, and indicating how it was to be faced.
Now, in December of 1949, we are told that this screening has not yet been completed. I am going to suggest that the best deduction I can make from various things that have been said-and I am going back to what the Prime Minister said; if I am wrong I am ready to be corrected- is that it seems to me clear that the R.C.M.P. have finished their job, probably finished it some time ago. Where has the information been since? The Prime Minister said that either the minister or the deputy in the case involved had to take the responsibility. That is a horrid responsibility to have to take.
I suggest it is a difficult thing to go to a man and exercise that responsibility over him, when you are working with him from day to day in close relationship. I do not think you would be competent to do it. How is it possible for you to believe that the man with whom you are associating every day, and who probably comes to your house, and with whom you have lunch or dinner-how can you possibly think that Bill or Tom can have anything wrong with him?
I am not competent to suggest exactly how it could be done; but I am convinced that if we knew all the facts, the reason we are in this difficulty, and the reason for this unfortunate disclosure two or three weeks ago, would prove to be that this information was available, but that it was not acted upon, or that it was too difficult for people to act upon, and that it just stood for months.
If that is so, then I say it is a most regrettable situation. We have been forced to the

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply position of realizing what can be done even in apparently the most settled and happy communities by a ruthless minority. I imagine most hon. members in the house have read the book "It Can't Happen Here". If they have read it perhaps their feeling was the same as mine, and the same as that of every other person I have discussed it with- that is, how easily it could happen anywhere.
I think in this case we are entitled to know.
I do not think we know yet and I think our minds would be relieved if we could be told just why this matter hung, as evidently it did hang, if not for years at any rate for a great many months. The Prime Minister regretted the publicity. My answer to that is that if this had been dealt with as it should have been dealt with it might have been that the situation disclosed, and in my opinion properly disclosed by the Financial Post, would never have had to be disclosed and the hon. member for Calgary East would never have had to raise the matter and the damage which has been done would not have been done.
I think we are entitled to know certain things from the minister. I think we are entitled to know what the government intends to do with regard to this film board. Let me say at once that I believe this board is doing a good artistic work, and here I should like to say something which I intended to say but forgot to say. I think there is a real danger lest artistic people, people who have gifts for this kind of work which most of us lack, be misunderstood. There is great danger that we more pedestrian people, who perhaps do not understand them as well as we should, may be unfair to them. I am the last person who wants to be unfair to them, but nevertheless a situation exists. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre deprecates the talk there has been. Why deprecate it? We are not going to get rid of it just by being sorry. We are going to get rid of it in only one way, by dealing with it in a forthright fashion.
As I understand it, the film board is miles and miles away from what it was originally intended to be. Maybe it is better as it is now, but I think we are entitled to know what it is going to be. I think we are entitled to know whether this board with the government resources behind it is going to build up a huge movie industry. We are also entitled to know more about the relationship of the board with private business. I think the minister rather glossed that over in a pleasant way and I think I detected him using one or two phrases from the brief presented to the Massey commission. If I do him an injustice in saying that, the wording was quite similar and perhaps there was just a little telepathy with some of the members


of the board. At any rate, that was glossed over and I do not think it can be glossed over as easily as that.
I should like to ask the minister a few questions with regard to costs of production, because I think that matter was also glossed over. First, I think we are entitled to know what is to be the scope of this board. Am I correct in believing that it is now carrying on functions far beyond those which it was originally intended to perform? I have not seen any legislation authorizing what is being done. Then 1 think we are entitled to be taken more into the minister's confidence with regard to this screening. I say that with particular regard for those concerned because until this question is settled, and satisfactorily settled, this murmuring which we all dislike so much will just go on.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word or two on this item dealing with the national film board because of a certain note which I have detected in the discussion this afternoon. I am sure that no one would object to an institution such as the national film board when its duties are to build up a strong Canada, when its policies are to portray a Canada that will bring honour and respect to this nation. I am sure that we all desire such an institution to be effective. But if it is to be used for anything else, if it is to be used to produce a mentality in Canada which is foreign to the free democracy we love, then it becomes a dangerous institution.
Much has been said this afternoon and in previous discussions and also in the press about the necessity for screening. The Minister of National Defence has been criticized for the statement he made the other day in respect to the securing of another film organization to do certain work which some people thought should have been done by the national film board. This committee is not ignorant of what I am talking about. Personally I did not criticize the minister. As a matter of fact, I would compliment him upon being courageous enough to make that statement and bring to light what his officials regarded as being a necessary step.
If there is any criticism at all it should not be levelled at the Minister of National Defence, it should be placed squarely on the shoulders of previous administrations which permitted a force which seeped into almost every department of our national life, and which produced an attitude that flirted with communism. I am not going to be too harsh with respect to that one point because during the war years it seemed to me that many people and institutions, and perhaps, speaking largely, the nation itself, were caught in

the net of public sentiment which was spawned by the clever, subtle, intellectual high command of the communist forces. This was brought to our attention quite forcefully just after the spy commission report was made.
That report by inference, if not by direct statement, cast some little reflection upon the national film board. Let us look at these things squarely. Let us remember that the same intellectual high command of the communist forces had a particular purpose in mind in those days, and still has that purpose in mind although perhaps there has been a change in public sentiment. Nevertheless, if the purpose of that intellectual high command was to infiltrate and attempt to mould the mentality of our people, does anyone suppose for one moment that it forgot all about the institution known as the national film board? It is all very well for someone to say: Oh, well, we are watching that carefully and we cannot put our finger on anything. We hope they cannot. Side by side with that hope, we trust that the intellectual high command was not so subtle and so clever as to be able to accomplish their purpose without anyone being able to put their finger upon any particular danger spot.
Much has been said about the matter of screening, and I am in full sympathy, as others are, with the idea that no individual should be harmed by any such process. Nevertheless, let me ask this question, and I think it is one that should be asked. Why should anyone who is loyal to Canada and our democratic way of life; whose loyalty is pronounced in any way, have any reason to fear a screening? That is the point we must remember. I will tell you the man who has reason to fear in these days. He is the individual who dares to make a real stand against the enemies of democracy; the man who refuses to pull his punches when he thinks he has an opportunity to expose the enemy. That is the man who has reason to fear. Some of us have given a little thought to this matter, and let us remember not to underestimate the possibility that "it can happen here". Let us not forget if it does happen here some people will have to pay the price, and it will not be those who fear screening but those who dare to take a stand against infiltration, no matter how costly it may be to take that stand. They are the people who will have reason to fear. They are the ones who will be sent to a concentration camp if it ever happens here. They are the ones who have to consider what may happen to their families and loved ones. In addition they run the chance of character assassination
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply that takes place even in these days. These are the valiant individuals who have reason to fear.
Much has been said, and I must say it has come pronouncedly from socialist forces, as to the reluctance to carry on what they are pleased to call a witch-hunt. Let me suggest that the only people who have any reason to fear a witch-hunt are the witches themselves. I do not think anyone wants to see the national film board cease operations.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: What about Hollywood?


Ernest George Hansell: What about Hollywood? It is permeated through and through with communist forces. I have not on my desk my file concerning Hollywood, but I assure you I have a file on that too which I would not part with for a good bit of money. My file on Hollywood is not for sale. The intellectual high command of communism knows the value of propaganda. There are two institutions in Canada that are the most powerful media of propaganda we have. I refer to the motion picture screen and the medium of radio. When I-say that, I suppose someone will jump up right away and say: Oh, casting reflections upon films and radio. I cannot help that. The thing is that they are media of propaganda, and they are the first fields that what I call the intellectual high command will seek to influence. I agree with the hon. member for Greenwood that the minister cannot absolve himself of all responsibility in this connection. If he thinks he can, or if there is any move made to relieve him of that responsibility, we had better see that it is put right on his shoulders because there must be responsibility on government shoulders to protect Canadians from having filched from them our own free democratic concept and way of life.


David Arnold Croll: Mr. Chairman, I have a few words to say on this matter. First of all I want to direct attention to a statement made by the hon. member for Peterborough West. He started out by suggesting that the film board was an inefficient organization. Then he said his criticism had improved its efficiency from 1945 onwards to the point where it was now doing quite good work. The hon. member for Greenwood spoke of extravagance. The expenditure of the film board is, as indicated, about $2 million. One million dollars is spent on the distribution of films, and another million dollars is spent on the cost of production. I think the house should know that it costs at least $1 million to produce an A film in Hollywood. Nevertheless we only allow $1 million to the film board to

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply carry on all its work in addition to the distribution of films. Many millions of people see these films every year.
What I thought was the most serious suggestion was made by the hon. member for Greenwood who referred to the film board as a propaganda agency. I think for a minute we should make an examination to see just what sort of agency it is. What is the film board doing? It is true that it has produced a great number of films dealing with better education in an effort to show people how to live better, how to increase health standards, and what better housing means to them. It sends out films dealing with citizenship and better medical care. If that is propaganda we should have more of it in Canada rather than less. Then, of course, there is the usual bogey that the film board is being screened. Well, what is wrong with that? If the film board or any other government department, because of the restricted material used, should be screened, then let us go about the business of screening them. We could vet them and process them, too, for that matter. They are not objecting.	,
Yesterday mention was made of screening the members of the C.B.C., but there was no uproar in the country at all. There are other departments that are being screened, but the minute it comes to the film board there are a lot of oh's and ah's and lifting of eyebrows, without any valid reason. I believe it is about time the film board got a bill of good health from this house, once and for all. We ought to stop that-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Wait until it is healthy.


David Arnold Croll: It is healthy enough for the hon. member. He said it had improved in health over the years.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, it has improved.


David Arnold Croll: Well, then, it is healthy. There is in my city a film council whcih is the largest in the world. There are people from educational groups, service groups, home and school, and church groups, who take an active interest in it. They are the people who believe it is good business for us to show Canada to Canadians. Last year in Ontario there were 31,947 bookings attended by 2,698,461 people. I ask this house, is that dangerous? Is that bad for this country? It is better for the people to be looking at these films than listening to that radio drivel, like "John's other wife", the singing commercials, and some of those patent medicine gospel singers.
The film board needs a little understanding. The member for Greenwood touched upon it.


These people are a little different from the average civil servant. They are artistic people, creative people, imaginative people; they are wrapped up in their work. They are zealous. They do not press their pants nor comb their hair as often as some people would like them to. Being different is no crime in this country. As a matter of fact, when we examine our own family, we find that there are those who need a little more understanding than the others. Perhaps in those people we can light a little spark of something that may be creative; we can awaken an interest in them. We ought to encourage that sort of thing in Canada.
This is the first time I have taken part in this discussion. From the debate I have gained the impression that there was not a direct attack against the film board, but there seemed to be a sly attack made by private interests on this great public agency that is serving the Dominion of Canada. If it had been a bad agency, no one would have paid the slightest attention to this film board, and it would have died. Because it is good, it is attacked and slandered at every opportunity by certain people in this country.
Last year the film board won some prizes to which the minister did not refer. I believe I should take a few moments to refer to them. They made a film called "Ski Skill", and one called "Hot Ice" which won an award for sports films in Italy. There was another film entitled "Vegetable Insects" which won the first prize. There were the films "Hen Hop" and "Fiddle-de-dee" which were awarded prizes at Brussels. Another film entitled "Chante Jeunesse", which was made by a constituent of mine, won a prize at Venice. It has been said that a prophet is not without honour save in his own country and among his own people.
I say frankly to this house that I do not like to see the film board or any other agency being kicked or pushed around. I do not like to see these red-herring tactics being employed. It is time we started encouraging the creative young Canadians. The Canadian National Exhibition, which takes place in my city, is one of the largest, and is viewed by a large number of Canadians. Think of it; as an indication of Canadian culture, we present such trash as Olsen and Johnson. That is no indication of our culture, and our art. How are young Canadian entertainers going to develop if we do not encourage them in our own departments, in our own government. We are making a serious mistake to be overly critical.

I do not need to tell this house how easy it is to destroy, and how hard it is to build. We have to be measured in our attacks on this or on any other government agency. What I object to-it has not happened so much in the house except by innuendo-is the smear tactics used by some people outside. I know full well, and I believe people who are acquainted with the film agency know quite well, that the film board speaks eloquently for Canada. I ask this house to encourage it. I ask this house to expand it. In this film board, we have an organization of which we can well be proud. Criticize it-I am in full agreement with that-but let us make sure our criticism leaves it with more and not with less reason for pride. I appeal to this house to give the film board the ordinary fair play we give other agencies. It is ten years old, and it has been able to stand on its own feet. It has been able to do a great deal, particularly for rural life in Canada. I think we ought to encourage it rather than hamper it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I came here with notes for a fairly lengthy speech, but I find most of it has already been made by other people, so I shall be quite brief. I had a considerable number of questions, but a large proportion of them have been asked. Two or three speakers have referred to the rather definite charges which were made in the article appearing in the Financial Post. There were four complaints by government departments against the film board, and those have been mentioned. In addition to that, there were listed three definite complaints by commercial picture makers. It was said that the film board made use of political pressure; that it wasted public money through inefficient production methods; and that they used discrimination as regards allowing commercially made films to be shown on certain circuits. When the minister replies, I think he should answer those seven definite charges.
Since that phase of the matter has been thoroughly covered, I shall say no more about it. I might say that, unlike the hon. member for Peterborough West, who has made such a study of this subject for the last four years, my knowledge of it is not detailed nor complete. For that reason, I should like the minister to answer the various questions he has been asked by the committee, particularly those covering the seven charges. I should like to comment briefly on the remarks of the member for Winnipeg North. To a considerable extent his speech consisted of an attack on the member for Peterborough West and other members of the house, because they were criticizing the film board. In my opinion it was an intolerant speech
Supply-Reconstruction ana Supply delivered in an intolerant manner, a manner which I am sorry to say too often characterizes the members of his party. This does not apply to all the members of that party by any means, but it certainly applies to some of them. Some of them seem to believe that all knowledge and all right thinking lie within themselves. Anyone who disagrees with them is wrong and damned.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North reminds me of my Scotch ancestors, who believed quite firmly that the only way to heaven was through the Presbyterian church. Anyone who did not belong to that church was headed for an extremely hot spot, indeed. At least, I have gathered this from reading certain letters and works. I can imagine the hon. member for Winnipeg North, if he had lived 300 years ago, delivering himself of those same sentiments, in much the same manner as he did this afternoon. I should like to say to him and to the hon. member for Spadina that those of us who criticize the film board do not for a moment believe that there is no good in it. There is much good in it. It has done valuable work particularly with regard to circulating films in rural areas. For that work I should like to commend it. But the fact that it has done certain good work is no reason in the world why we should cease to criticize it for things that we think are wrong and bad. If the method of criticism which we employ is based on the old biblical adage "Spare the rod and spoil the child", it is a widely-accepted method of criticism and discipline, and I do not think anybody should complain because we employ it.
I should like to say something about screening. When the discussion of the estimates of the Department of National Defence was going on, the minister of that department said that it was not until May of 1949 that the film board was looked upon as vulnerable and thus needing to be screened. Apparently a "vulnerable" person means a person who is in a position in which he might do some harm if his political sentiments were not correct and therefore some attention needs to be paid to him from that point of view. It seems to me to be a peculiar thing that the film board was not looked upon as vulnerable until May of this year. The policy of instituting security measures certainly was put into effect earlier than that. The fact that certain people whose affiliations were suspect, to say the least, had been employed in the film board, -and some of them were still there apparently-should have been a reason why some screening of the film board should have

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply been done before May of this year; that is my opinion. In fact, the delay in this matter is quite unexplained, and needs explanation. That is one point I wish the minister to touch on.
It was stated at the same time that screening of the film board employees had been going on since May, and that the situation should be cleaned up fairly shortly. There was, of course, a considerable amount of difficulty over what screening meant. We received a couple of explanations. It finally developed that the Minister of National Defence, to begin with, was speaking of screening as the work being done by the R.C.M.P. The Prime Minister said that was only one step in it, that the actual screening was done by the heads of departments. As a result, we perhaps did not get just as definite answers and as definite information as we should have had with regard to some of the questions asked as to when screening was done, how much was done, and so on and so forth. I think this is the time for the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply to clear up these uncertainties which still exist. As a matter of fact, the statement was made in the house that this screening was still going on, and I believe the minister repeated that statement this afternoon. My private information is that the screening of the film board, so far as the R.C.M.P. are concerned, was completed some time ago and that it is not still going on.


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member's information is wrong.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Furthermore, my information is to the effect that as a result of the screening by the R.C.M.P., there were between 40 and 45 of what are known as "rejects". In other words, I take it that that means people who, the police reports would indicate, were not fit to be entrusted with matter of a secret nature for the Department of National Defence or any other department which had secret matter to film.
Furthermore, I have been informed of something else. I should, of course, like answers to all these questions. I do not know whether or not this is correct, just as, at the time this matter was first brought up, I did not know whether or not the allegation that the Department of National Defence would not entrust classified work to the film board was correct. I do not know whether these things are correct, but I have had information to this effect also, that with regard to these people who are classed as "rejects", the film board is now in the process of trying to transfer them to other departments or to other parts of the government

service. If that is correct ,1 would take extremely serious objection to it. It seems to me that a person who cannot be trusted in one government department, because of communist leanings or anything else along that line, cannot be trusted any place in the government service. It does not matter what particular position a man holds in the government service, opportunities exist for sabotage and for undermining the way of life of the people of this country. I should think that the last thing that ought to be done is to transfer to other departments of the government, into positions where it is presumed there will be no opportunity for subversive activities, persons whom the film board or any other branch of the government is not prepared to keep, on those grounds. The very idea of that sort of thing of course seems remarkable, if it is actually taking place.
When the minister was speaking, I noticed that he quoted something from a speech by Mr. Ilsley when the security measures were first introduced, and in which occurred a phrase to the effect that the government will not employ in positions of trust members of the communist party or people affiliated with them. I should like to know whether the government is prepared to employ people of that kind in positions of any kind. This business of saying "in positions of trust" is all very well; but as I said a moment ago, I do not believe that people of that kind should be employed in any capacity. They should be removed from the government service altogether. The government service certainly should not be a place in which people who believe in a way of life different from ours, and who believe in overthrowing our system of government by force, should find a means of making their livelihood and opportunities to spread their own particular ideas and faith.
I have a number of short specific questions which I wish to ask the minister, but I shall leave them over until he has replied to the various questions I have already asked.


Mr. Coldwell:: I do not want to delay the committee, but I desire to say a word on this matter. First of all, I greatly regret that over the last few years the house has not been given an opportunity to set up a committee before which the national film board could appear and tell the house and the country what it was doing, and where members of parliament would be given an opportunity to inquire into its activities. Because of that fact I believe there has been in the country, with regard to the film board and its employees, a great deal of discussion that has not been particularly well informed. In some quarters it is fashionable for people

to classify as communist everyone whose views differ from their own; that is a fashion that I hope will eventually pass, but many people suffer because of it from time to time. I think there should be no objection whatsoever to the screening of the employees of the national film board or of those of any other department. One of the things that puzzles me is that, when it was said that an assignment had been given to a private corporation, there was no outcry that the members of that corporation had not been screened. I say to the committee that while there is considerable danger from the activities of those who follow the principles adopted in the Soviet union, we must not forget that there are others, some of whom are violently opposed to the Soviet union, who are right on the other side and are equally dangerous to our democratic institutions.
Those of us who have followed recent events in Europe know that it was very easy for some of the leading nazis in Germany to find a place in the communist party and in the communist movement when the Russians entered that country, and to occupy even positions of trust in the eastern part of Germany when it was taken over by the Russians. I could recount several instances of that which have been told to me by people who fled from that area because they were neither communists nor nazis.
We have to remember that from time to time we get symptoms of the fascist mentality in this country. In a question he asked this morning the hon. member for Winnipeg North referred to the situation in Dresden, Ontario, where coloured people, old citizens of this country, are being discriminated against. Another instance is the spread of antisemitism that we have had in this country over the years. Therefore we should not confine our activities to just one sort of subversive movement or subversive element. If we are looking into that kind of thing at all we should look into other elements subversive of our democratic way.
In my opinion the film board has done a fine job in many respects. As the hon. member for Spadina said a few moments ago, it has interpreted Canada well to many other parts of the world. Its films are shown in thousands of theatres in the United States and South America, as well as in the United Kingdom. The film board has given this country very noteworthy and very good advertising. As to its work in the rural areas, those of us who have knowledge of that work and of the circuits that have been promoted by the national film board realize what a fine job it has done of interpreting one part of Canada to another and of giving our people an idea of what might be done in this
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply great country. A friend of mine in Great Britain wrote some months ago asking me whether I had seen or heard the Winnipeg choral festival. He said that he had the pleasure of seeing a film of the Winnipeg choral festival somewhere in Great Britain. He mentioned how delighted they were from time to time to get some idea of what was being done in this country, not only materially but in a cultural way.
While I have no doubt that there are many aspects of the film board's work that could be criticized, yet there are many aspects of it that could be strengthened by proper constructive criticism. It is a great pity that when we have an organization of this sort-and the same applies naturally to our Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-there are elements in this country, and I am not criticizing my hon. friends, who want to tear it down and destroy it because they feel that it interferes with some vested interest that they may have. Perhaps the minister might tell us the extent to which the national film board's finances have been depleted by giving to private corporations, on account of reductions in staff, and perhaps false economy, some of the work that should be done by our film board. We should see this problem in perspective. My suggestion is-and I have advocated it in the house-that we should set up a committee which would look into the operations of the film board, and see to what extent the criticisms are justified and to what extent improvements can be suggested, and to give this organization an opportunity to develop, not as a propaganda agency-goodness knows if I thought it were a propaganda agency I would be opposing it-but as an educational facility. From what I have seen of the film board's films, and I have seen a good many of them, there has not been any party political propaganda in them. So long as it continues to interpret one part of this country to another, to enrich the cultural life of the country and to give the people of other countries some idea of what this country is doing, we should do all we can to improve it and to expand and encourage its activities. We should see that vested film interests in this country, who fear that the film board interferes with their private gain and private profits in this field, do not propagandize members of parliament as they have attempted to do. We should endeavour to see this thing in its proper perspective and to give this organization, which I believe has done a good job for our country, an opportunity to continue its good work.
In order that we may know what it is doing I suggest again that at the next session of parliament we set up a special committee

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply to deal with this very important agency. I believe that all our government agencies, the national research council, me Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the national film board and other agencies of that description, should from time to time be the subject of investigation 'by a parliamentary committee. We have just finished discussing the work of the atomic energy committee. I must say that I have never sat on a parliamentary committee which was more satisfactory and more free from recriminations and so on. I believe that if we all approach parliamentary committees in that way we can strengthen these organizations and put the record straight in regard to the misinterpretation of their efforts and misstatements of fact that we see in papers that try to promote various vested interests in this country.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, there are just one or two matters to which I wish to make reference. On more than one occasion I had the honour to visit the headquarters of the national film board in Ottawa and to see the work there, and also to see in my own constituency and generally in rural parts of Saskatchewan some of the work done by the national film board. I say-and I represent no vested interest-that the work done merits commendation in so far as it is educative, aesthetic and artistic. One of the reasons why the film board has come under severe criticism is the fact that there is no direct responsibility to parliament, and also the fact that it is one body from which it is almost impossible to get answers to questions asked in the house. I have asked a number of questions and I find that they have become embalmed in orders for returns and do not find their way into the records of the house. To begin with, I am going to refer to a question which should not have taken a week to answer. The Votes and Proceedings of November 21 records this question in my name:
What is the total expenditures in each of the years 1946 to 1949 for the production and processing of film for any government department or departments by commercial firms, giving particulars of the said commercial firms and the amount paid to each?
2. Did the national film board make any decision during said years that it considered1 the use of commercial firms for the production of films advisable in the public interest? If so, in what case or cases, on what date or dates did it so decide and for what reason in each case?
Those were questions which should have been answered. Yet we have waited since November 21 for the answers to questions which should have been brought down immediately. Was there a reason why these questions were not answered? I suggest it was not because of a lack of information. For if one reads the statute some questions do come
[Mr. Coldwell.l
to mind. The National Film Act, 1939, makes provision for a national film board consisting of the minister, who shall be the chairman- with the exception that the minister referred to in the act is the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and there has been no amendment to the act by parliament since that time.
Section 11 deals with the processing and production of films, and states:
All processing and production of films by and for government departments shall be undertaken by the bureau, except where the commissioner agrees that the work can be done through officers of other departments and that the results obtained will be technically adequate and economical, or where the board considers the use of commercial firms advisable in the public interest.
I ask the minister this question: When did the national film board meet to determine that in the public interest any department of government should have its films made by commercial corporations? You cannot get around that section by simply saying that the Minister of National Defence decided, "I do not want to be bound by the law." There had to be a meeting; there had to be a decision made. I shall read that again:
-except where the commissioner agrees that the work can be done through officers of other departments and the results obtained will be technically adequate and economical, or where the board considers the use of commercial firms advisable in the public interest.
Is that another of those statutes the cabinet walked right through?


Mr. Rinfret:: What was the last part of that section?


John George Diefenbaker: "Or where the board considers the use of commercial firms advisable in the public interest". Because no minister of any department had any authority to have films printed for his department, except through the film board, unless there was a resolution such as that provided in section 11.
That question was asked as far back as November 21. Why was it not answered? We have become so used in this session to laws being passed by parliament and not followed that this may come to be known, not as a constitutional session but the session in which unconstitutional matters have been revealed.
I now come to the minister's reference, made in that amiable attitude for which he is to be commended, to the recommendations or submissions made to the royal commission. The film board is composed of the minister as chairman, with six other members. Recommendations were made to the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences, and among those recommendations was, first, that the board wanted to get into television; secondly they needed

more money than the $2 million to discharge their responsibilities; thirdly they noted with regret that the total number of film board employees has declined to 540, and proposed an increased staff; next, that the film board should be reorganized, operating under an appropriate review by parliament. In other words, no doubt this would involve the setting up of another crown company.
I cannot understand how the chairman of a board, who is also a minister of the crown, can so lightly dissociate himself from the recommendations made to a royal commission by the board, and simply say, "Well, with some of those recommendations I do not agree". Surely there is no board set up by parliament, of which a minister is the chief member, that can make recommendations, and then have the minister turn around and say, "I have nothing to do with that; I am just the chairman of the board. The board cannot be set up without me as chairman, but the board has a separate existence apart from me that allows it to make representations in regard to improvements that should take place in the board".
This is another example of a disregard of parliamentary responsibility. The minister cannot have it that way. He cannot say, "I am the chairman of a board; they make recommendations, but I remove myself from them. There were some of those recommendations with which I did not agree". In order to have that cleared up so that we will know that the body which made the recommendations did not have the concurrence of the minister, I say parliament should be told those parts with which he agreed and the parts with which he did not agree.
After all, he is the responsible minister. Having said that, I pass on to one other matter, namely this screening operation. When did it start in the national film board? Going back to the days of Mr. Ilsley, we find that on June 22, 1948, he told parliament that in the interests of national security the attention of the heads of departments and agencies of government had been drawn to their responsibility with respect to the reliability of employees under their charge, from the security point of view. And then he went on to say this-and it was quoted by the minister-
No person who is a member of the communist party or associated with it shall be employed in work of a secret character. I may add that the same rule applies to those associated with fascist organizations.
Then again, on June 26 he said this:
As was indicated in my statement of June 22, in the government's view loyalty is not susceptible to any precise series of tests, and the only specific instruction which has been given by the government on this subject is that which I mentioned
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply at that time, namely, the special case of those who are members of or associated with communist and fascist organizations.
Then, having done nothing until May of 1949, something took place, and the so-called screening began. What has been the result? Who but the government put the employees of the national film board under suspicion? They put all the employees of that board under suspicion-and it is not fair. Surely the minister can say now what was done between June of 1948 and May of 1949. How many members of the film board were found to be members of communist or fascist organizations? That is a question that he can answer. The phrase "associated with" is a difficult phrase to define, but I would take the meaning of associated with communists or fascist organizations to mean close association, collaboration if you will, with those who have membership cards in those organizations. The minister said that 71 went out this year.


Robert Henry Winters: Sixty-one.


John George Diefenbaker: Sixty-one; I am ten out. Possibly I am being given the revised version which we get so often around here. How many of those 61 are now in other departments? That is a simple question.


Robert Henry Winters: Something like eight.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says that of the 61 that went out following the institution of this screening-


Robert Henry Winters: No, it was a matter of normal separation. Most of the employees of the film board are not civil servants; they are employed for renewable terms on a three-months basis and there are quite a number of separations in the normal course of events.


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly what I am trying to get at. You place suspicion on all of these people-


Robert Henry Winters: That is what the hon. member is doing.


John George Diefenbaker: No, I am not doing that; the minister did it. That is having recourse to the old method; that does not work at all. The minister has said that 61 went out. Will he answer this simple question in order to relieve the eight of suspicion: Were any of the eight screened for being members of communist or fascist organizations or being associated with them? Were they let out for that reason?


Robert Henry Winters: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Then we are clear on those eight who were formerly employed by the national film board and who have since

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply been employed in other departments of government. They are now of no concern to us?


Robert Henry Winters: Quite right.


John George Diefenbaker: That clears them, but until that question was asked they were not cleared.


Robert Henry Winters: I said that earlier today.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister's statement was obscured with enough verbiage to make it impossible for us to follow it.


Robert Henry Winters: The direct answer was made in reply to a direct question.


John George Diefenbaker: If I missed that I offer my sincere apology for suggesting what I did. If I have made a mistake, I will withdraw. I did not hear that, though I have been sitting here all day. Is it correct to say that, when an individual is put out by reason of communist or fascist membership or association, he is not taken into any other department of government?


Robert Henry Winters: I cannot say how he is disposed of after he is screened out.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the minister not in a position to say that when they are screened out, because they are not regarded as individuals who place their country above any other country, the government is not going to employ them in any other department?


Robert Henry Winters: Each department has its own responsibility, as I pointed out quite clearly in the statement I made earlier and as has been said on previous occasions in this house. Therefore I am not in position to speak for other government departments.


John George Diefenbaker: Surely there must be agreement as between ministers of the government as to the policy to be followed in this connection. Surely if a person is not safe in one department the ministers of the government must be sure that he would not be safe in another. Does the minister say that there is no agreement among the members of the cabinet on the question, whether a person who is regarded as being unsafe in one department can be regarded as being safe in another? That is what the minister said. Is there a policy in that regard?


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member is well aware of the policy because I read it earlier today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: My friends applaud. All I can say is that I am asking the question, and if the minister wants to have his estimates proceed in the way in which we always

try to expedite them, he will answer the questions I have asked. First, is there a policy? The minister is not going to put me off that way. I submit that the question is a fair one and I ask for a fair answer. I do not intend to be put off by an answer such as this: "I previously read a written document which answered your question." I am asking if there is any policy among the ministers of this government that when a person is let out or screened out of any department by reason of his communist or fascist membership or association he is still available for employment in other departments of government? I am asking for an answer to that question.


Robert Henry Winters: The answer revolves around the use of the word "trustworthy".


John George Diefenbaker: We shall follow that through. I have all the time in the world and if the minister does not intend to answer, that is fine. Is a person considered to be trustworthy in one department when he is considered to be untrustworthy in the department of the minister?


Robert Henry Winters: I am not going to interpret the regulations of other departments of government. I can only judge a man's trustworthiness to do a specific job that I may have for him.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the measure of trustworthiness upon which the minister proceeds? He says that he has a certain metre of trustworthiness. What is that? If a person in the minister's department is screened out [DOT]

I will put it the other way-if someone is screened out-my hon. friends may help the minister all they want, but I am going to get an answer-of another department-


The Chairman:: The hon. member should deal with facts relating to the film board.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know what you said, Mr. Chairman, so you will have to repeat it.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The hon. member should deal with those things that have to do with the film board.


John George Diefenbaker: With all respect and deference to you, may I say that these questions have not been answered before. I have asked a simple question: If a person is screened out of another department-


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: -will he under any circumstances be taken into the film board under the minister? What is the basis of untrustworthiness that denies a person being taken into another department? That is a simple question.


Alphonse Fournier: Perhaps it is too simple.


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member is posing a hypothetical question as far as I am concerned. Each case would have to be considered on its merits. I do not know whether the hon. member was listening-


John George Diefenbaker: I am listening and I hear everything the minister says.


Robert Henry Winters: Of course each case would be considered on its merits but I suppose that as long as human beings are what they are there will be variations in human judgment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, it is
because of human nature that it has received the support of my hon. friends to my right. The matter is perfectly clear now. I should like to ask the minister one or two questions about a certain individual. Before I do so, may I say that there is no suggestion of this man being a subject of suspicion in the slightest degree. I mention that because when I bring up his name somebody may say:	Did he in any way do anything of a
suspicious nature? I want it to be clear from the beginning that he did not. I should like to ask the minister whether there was a former employee of the film board by the name of Wesley Greene who set up his own distribution facilities in Chicago? If so, how long has he been distributing films there for the Canadian government?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, there was an employee of the film board by the name of Wesley Greene. He has been distributing films in Chicago for the film board for about five years.


John George Diefenbaker: Is he still engaged in that capacity?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, he is still acting in that capacity for the film board, among a great many other agencies which also have films to distribute.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Ask him if he ever returned the $7,000.


An hon. Member:: Ask your own questions.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I just wondered if Wesley Greene ever repaid the $7,000 he owed the film board at one time.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The hon. member for Lake Centre has the floor.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Peterborough West asked a question. He is looking for information.


An hon. Member:: What are you looking for?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like an answer.


Mr. Miichell:: This is not a police court. Let us get down to business.


Robert Henry Winters: This man, Wesley Greene, owed the film board an amount which at March 31 of this year was $3,200. The balance owing as of December 2, 1949, is $2,900.


John George Diefenbaker: Is there one Vaughan Deacon connected with the film board at the present time, and if so where?


Robert Henry Winters: He is the regional supervisor in Toronto.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am not going to detain the house very long, but I want to say a few words at this time as a member representing a large number of people who are most sympathetic to the work of the national film board, and who appreciate the work that is done by the board. I was pleased indeed to listen to the minister's statement which I thought was most constructive and complete. The general expression of opinion among the members surrounding me was one of great pleasure with his presentation of the facts. I prepared two or three sets of notes this afternoon, but I found as the afternoon proceeded that other members were saying what I intended to say. Therefore I am not going to repeat what they said except to say that I endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North and the hon. member for Spadina. I noticed that the hon. member for Calgary East criticized this group, but he did not answer the comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
I was most pleased to note the reference by the hon. member for Spadina to the difference in the personnel of a department such as the national film board compared to other departments of the government. I think he said they had more imagination. I want to say I have found that out from experience. One day I had occasion to go to a branch of the Department of Mines and Resources where I had to deal with an ancient and frigid biddy. I found it difficult to get any information about natural resources from her, and I received very little inspiration concerning our natural resources. I went from there to the national film board and met some of the people there who are making films, and particularly one employee very interested in our natural resources. I thought at the time, what an interesting person. In the one case the lady was without imagination and could not enthuse or inform anyone about Canada's natural resources. In the other case the person was one of a group

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply which has lived somewhat under a cloud because of the attacks of certain people, but a group able to inspire interest in our natural resources. I am sure they are doing more than thousands of the other type to make Canadians proud of Canada and its natural resources.
Comments about the national film board have been more or less concerning the larger sphere in which the board works, but I must say the people of my constituency appreciate the good work carried on by the board1. I have had people tell me how much they enjoyed the community film, "Hometown Paper". It is a most instructive film for adults and children. The same applies to the film, "Country Health", the educational film, "The Postmaster", and films portraying British Columbia logging and other industries. Repeatedly I have had people working in various fields express their appreciation to me of the type of film presented by the national film board.
I believe the hon. member for Peterborough West spoke in somewhat critical fashion, at least by implication, as to the program, "Canada Carries On".


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Pardon me; all I asked was whether it was still being carried on and what the cost was.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Possibly the hon. member's continued interest in the cost is an indication of a somewhat critical frame of mind. I am pleased to note that the dominion-provincial tourist conference, which met in Ottawa during the month of November, passed a resolution urging the national film board to provide a certain film under the program "Canada Carries On" because of the great benefit it would be to the tourist industry. I think the hon. member for Spadina said that in his constituency the film council had the largest number of members of any such body. According to the Trail Daily Times of November 25, I am pleased to note that the Trail film council has set a Canadian record. The article reads in part:
Talks on Trail's film society and on radio operation were heard at last night's dinner meeting of the Trail junior chamber of commerce. G. L. Groutage, speaking of the work of the film board in the past year, said that the Trail group had achieved an all-Canada record in attendance at films on a population basis. A total of 55,000 people had attended 605 showings to date in 1949.
I think that indicates the interest of the people in the cities of Trail, Rossland and Nelson. As to the isolated country groups, mention has been made previously of the support of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Legion and other national organizations. Why do they support the national film board and express these

opinions? Because they are advised to do so by their local branches, their local rank and file, the people who support them and who appreciate the work of the national film board.
I think the hon. member for Peterborough West said that people were interested because it was something for nothing. I challenge that statement. The people of my constituency are interested in this service because they appreciate its value. They appreciate it as a service for which they are entirely willing to pay. Farmers' organizations, the Legion, women's organizations, parent-teacher groups, teachers' organizations, church organizations, and in fact a very wide section of the people have expressed their appreciation to me of the work of the national film board. I think what counts in this respect is what the people think, and not the opinion of a few prejudiced people who are opposed to the principles under which the national film board is working. I am sure the minister will realize that the people of Canada as a whole are behind the constructive work of the national film board.
In conclusion, may I say a word about the staff? I have had an opportunity of visiting some of the technical branches of the national film board in Ottawa, and other branches of that board. I would say that I perceived a much different approach to their work than in some departments of government, and a keen interest, in contrast to the more formal application to duty which is found in some branches of the civil service. The same thing applies to those who work in the field. There have been a number of young men in my constituency doing work for the national film board. They have gone to unusual lengths to make certain that small, isolated communities receive film services. I should like to express the appreciation of the country people of my constituency for this good work on their behalf.
One other suggestion, Mr. Chairman: This session the minister forwarded us a letter, requesting suggestions about the regular Saturday morning showing of films by the film board to the members of this house. I believe the idea of showing films to the members is an excellent one, but I do suggest that on Saturday mornings the members are busily engaged in doing their office work or other tasks. I am in favour of these showings, but I suggest the showing be made to the members of the House of Commons on Wednesday evening, when they are more likely to be free to attend.


George Alexander Drew: The discussion that has taken place this afternoon has indicated how far some hon. members have strayed from the

point at which this board came under discussion, concerning the screening that is taking place. An attempt has been made to create the impression that an attack was made on the board by those who sit in other parts of the house than where the supporters of the government sit. I believe it is important for hon. members of this house, and the public, to remember that the only reason the film board is under any measure of suspicion at the moment is because of a statement made by the Minister of National Defence. He said his department was not prepared to entrust to the film board the filming of certain matters connected with national defence. If anyone is to blame for any cloud which hangs over the film board, it is the government for having failed to clear up the limited information which was given to the house on the night the Minister of National Defence answered the question concerning the article which appeared in the Financial Post.
I am astonished at the statement made in the house this afternoon, criticizing that article in the Financial Post. Those of us who believe in democracy in this country, and the right of a free press, also believe that it is the duty of the press to make use of that freedom for the purpose of keeping democracy a working mechanism, by informing the people as to the facts. The press is performing the service for which it is free only when the members of the press do give to the public information which comes to their attention, and which they regard as being of public importance.
Far from the writer of the article being subjected to any criticism by any member of this house, the writer of that article deserves commendation for having brought to public attention something of which the members were unaware before the statement appeared in that article. From that point forward, the members of the house have tried to find out what the facts really are. May I say with considerable emphasis that the members of the party which I lead have not indicated opposition to the national film board, but they have indicated opposition to the lack of information; they have indicated opposition to a system which denies to the members of the house the information they should have. Incidentally, it appears to deny that measure of supervision over the film board itself, which would assure the sort of efficiency that I should imagine every member of the film board would desire most.
This afternoon it was said that it was about time the film board received a bill of good health from this house. The way for the film board to get a bill of good health in this house is for the minister concerned to clear
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply up the uncertainty that was created by the statement of the Minister of National Defence. There is no other way in which it can be done. That is not an obligation which rests upon the members of the opposition; it is an obligation which rests upon the minister in charge to say what the facts are, in a way that removes the doubt and uncertainty that was created in that statement, which was reported in the press and over the radio in Canada, as well as in the press and over the radio outside Canada. Certainly, this government agency upon which $2 million is being spent deserves to have a bill of good health. The fact is that, without a bill of good health, this house should not be passing these estimates. Unless the good health certificate is given, then we do not know whether this money is being properly spent.
Let us briefly review what did happen. The Minister of National Defence said that this department could not be entrusted with the responsibility of taking moving pictures of certain defence matters for educational purposes. Yet, we are told that the same organization which cannot be entrusted to take pictures of the workings of the breech block of a field gun, or the operation of the buffers of a gun, the taking down of a machine gun, or the movement of a tank, something of that kind for the purpose of instruction, is sent to Chalk River to go inside that ultra-secret plant and take pictures. This is the plant in which our atom secrets are kept. On instructions from this government, this same organization was entrusted with the taking of certain pictures connected with atomic energy in the United States.
Of all the fantastic nonsense this house has heard at any time during this session, that does exceed anything we have heard to date. A government agency cannot be entrusted with the taking of pictures of mechanisms of national defence, most of which we know to be simply carryovers from the war, yet this very organization is entrusted with the one thing that is still regarded as highly secret in connection with national defence in this country. Unless we have some explanation of that strange position, we shall not get very far. This whole thing started with the admission of the Minister of National Defence, and not through any criticism on the part of any member of the opposition, and unless we receive some explanation the whole thing will end up in a farce. The government entrusts highly secret work to that organization, but it is unwilling to give it work in connection with which the secrecy is only limited.


An hon. Member:: It is six o'clock.
2874	HOUSE OF
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply Mr. Fournier (Hull): Before calling it six o'clock, in a spirit of co-operation, we should like to have the unanimous consent of the house to have a discussion of television at ten o'clock tonight. If that discussion is held tonight, we may have with us the manager of the C.B.C., but I am told he is going into the hospital tomorrow, so we would not have his advice and services on another day. If the matter were postponed, then the minister would be alone. We would hear speeches, but we would not have answers to all the questions that may be asked.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
["It is six o'clock.\n2874\tHOUSE OF\nSupply-Reconstruction and Supply Mr. Fournier (Hull): Before calling it six o'clock, in a spirit of co-operation, we should like to have the unanimous consent of the house to have a discussion of television at ten o'clock tonight. If that discussion is held tonight, we may have with us the manager of the C.B.C., but I am told he is going into the hospital tomorrow, so we would not have his advice and services on another day. If the matter were postponed, then the minister would be alone. We would hear speeches, but we would not have answers to all the questions that may be asked.\nAt six o'clock the committee took recess."]
George Alexander Drew: I will just continue my remarks, Mr. Chairman, from where I was when we rose at six o'clock. As was said by one of the members who spoke this afternoon, the two most powerful agencies of propaganda that exist today are undoubtedly the radio and the moving picture. In saying that, a distinction must be drawn between them and the daily press which has its responsibility for a much wider coverage than is possible in either of those cases. It must be a matter of concern that in each of these agencies which are under the control of the dominion government we find that a screening process has been taking place for many months and that we are unable to find out what the result of that screening is.
It is not enough for the minister in charge of the national film board to say that the board has accomplished great things and has won certain recognition. All of us will acclaim that fact and all of us will hope that the circumstances will be such that the work can be carried out on an even better and more satisfactory level in the future. But having regard to the bald statement that has been made, that the filming of certain ordinary national defence details cannot be carried out by the national film board until screening is completed and there is given the bill of health which the Department of National Defence is asking for, and not the house, then we are left in the position that we do not know what is being accomplished with the money we are being asked to vote.
Last night we found that in the case of one branch of the C.B.C. there is also a screening process which has been going on for many months. There again the minister responsible had no report, although he was not in a position to say that there had been none. In fact, it would be a surprising thing if he had stated that there was no report, because it has been going on for some time.


A situation has been put forward here which is not consistent with our principles of ministerial responsibility and the joint responsibility of the members of the government for what is done. In this case the minister of reconstruction is the chairman of the national film board. Without discussing the nature of the recommendations that were made by that board to the Massey commission, may I say that the statement made by the minister that he does not identify himself with the recommendations of that board expresses a lack of ministerial responsibility which should not be overlooked. He cannot wrap himself in some magic cloak; he cannot at one moment, as minister of reconstruction, be a responsible minister, and then at another moment in the same day, by wrapping this cloak around him, cease to be a minister of the government and simply be an independent chairman of a board which is an emanation of this parliament. That is utterly inconsistent with the simplest basic propositions of our system of responsible government and joint governmental responsibility. Whether the recommendations of the film board to the Massey commission were right or wrong, or whether they were partly right and partly wrong, is not the point that is so important. What is important is this. The minister should either accept full responsibility as minister for the chairmanship of that board or he should cease to be chairman of the board.


Robert Henry Winters: May I just say that that is strange logic.


George Alexander Drew: It is not strange logic at all. Anything else is a strange lack of recognition of the responsibility of the minister.


Robert Henry Winters: That is your opinion.


George Alexander Drew: I am quite prepared to let that opinion stand the test of any recorded history of parliamentary government.


Lionel Chevrier: We have just had a test of opinion.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, we had a test of opinion; and nothing could better illustrate the whole attitude of this government than their constant reference to that fact. Not so long ago there was a man in Europe who said that as long as you could get away with something, it was all right.


Mr. Whitman:: But he did not have elections.


George Alexander Drew: That is not our principle of government.


Lionel Chevrier: It is yours.


George Alexander Drew: And it is not our system here.


Frederick Primrose Whitman: Talk about North Stars; you know more about them.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


George Alexander Drew: It is unfortunate that we are not dealing with the department of excise because that would be a subject which the hon. member who is speaking now would know more about. The point I am making Is this-


Frederick Primrose Whitman: What about Hong Kong?


George Alexander Drew: Obviously a door has been left open, Mr. Chairman, and there is some rather noisy bit of equipment around this building.


Frederick Primrose Whitman: Just another member.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


George Alexander Drew: The minister who is now dealing with this department is the chairman of the board. He must either accept the responsibility as minister or he should cease to be chairman of the board. As to the present situation, he is the one to clear this board of any suggestion that it is not in a position to deal with the matters which should be entrusted to it, which suggestion has been raised by the statement of the Minister of National Defence and has not yet been answered in the house by any member of the government. As to the details, if the minister has not yet received reports from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as to the result of their investigation, then it is high time that he did. I would ask the minister to tell the house whether he has received reports; and if so, what the effect of those reports is, and what he intends to do about them.


Mr. Pouliot:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to what has been said about the film board. I should like to know who went to China to make a film. What was the cost of his trip and of making that film? Has this film been shown somewhere? If not, why not? What was the relationship between the man who went to China and Mr. Ross McLean, the commissioner of the film board? I warn the minister that my information is to the effect that a tremendous sum of money has been wasted on the making of a communistic film in China, boosting Mao Tse-tung, the communist leader, and it was made by someone who was closely related to Mr. Ross McLean of the film board. I am not screening anybody. I do not know if it is true or not, but I should like to have complete information about that venture. If the minister is good enough to tell us I shall be thankful to him and I have some other questions.


Robert Henry Winters: The film referred to by the hon. member for Temiscouata was made for
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply UNRRA. The man who photographed it was a film board employee, lent to UNRRA. His name is Grant McLean, and he is a nephew of the film board commissioner.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. Why has that film not been shown in this country? I have been informed-I wonder whether it is true or not-that the picture has not been shown because that man McLean, a nephew of the commissioner, took pictures that were glorifying communism in China. All I ask the minister is why that picture, made for UNRRA, has not been shown in Canada. I would ask him a supplementary question. Where is that film now? Who keeps it? What was the total amount paid for the film?


Robert Henry Winters: The film has been sold to Cardinal Films of Toronto for Canadian distribution, and it is distributed in the United Kingdom by United Artists.


Jean-François Pouliot: Distributed under a socialist government. The minister did not answer my question. All I want to know is why the film has not been shown in Canada. What was the cost of the film? What was the amount paid for it to the film board?


Robert Henry Winters: The picture was sold on a percentage agreement to Cardinal Films and to United Artists. There is no information yet of the revenue that will accrue. The film has been released in Canada and has been shown in Canada.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister for his answer but I am not satisfied. What I want to know is the cost of that film to the film board. Here is an instance of nepotism. Here is a commissioner who sends his nephew to China to make a communistic propaganda film and it has cost a lot of money. If they have some businessmen in the film board the minister should be able to answer me. All I want to know is how much that film has cost the country. That is my first question.


Robert Henry Winters: Sixteen thousand dollars.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does that include the travelling expenses of McLean, his paraphernalia and his entourage to China? I want to know what has been paid for the travelling expenses of that tribe to China, the whole amount of expenditures, the travelling expenses and boarding in China and giving parties for the mandarins and everything. I want to know the total expenditures of the whole outfit.


Robert Henry Winters: The travelling expenses to which my hon. friend refers were paid by UNRRA.


Jean-François Pouliot: How much was it?
2876	HOUSE OF
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply


Robert Henry Winters: I understand that the expenses to UNRRA for work done by Mr. McLean for the full year's assignment in China were $20,000.


Jean-François Pouliot: Twenty plus sixteen is thirty-six, $36,000. Does that cover everything?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, that does cover much more than the film to which my hon. friend refers; it covers other films as well.


Jean-François Pouliot: And the whole venture was authorized by Ross McLean, the commissioner, was it not?


Robert Henry Winters: It was authorized with the approval of the board.


Jean-François Pouliot: Outside the knowledge of the government?


Robert Henry Winters: I understand that the then chairman of the board knew about it. He was a member of the board. There are two members of the government on the film board.


Jean-François Pouliot: Who decided that this film should not be shown in Canada?


Robert Henry Winters: Nobody has decided that. The film is being shown in Canada by Cardinal Films of Toronto.


Jean-François Pouliot: Why was it not shown to members of the House of Commons to inform them about what is going on in China? I will ask the minister a supplementary question. How is it that the film board has lent one of the McLean clan to UNRRA to make a communistic film for the benefit of a Toronto company which has sold it to the socialist government in England? I wonder whether they are commercialized to that extent. I am quite surprised that the film board is trading films of that kind to another government. I warn the minister against all those who were in the film board during the war. Since the war has ended some returned men and women have been employed in the film board. Will the minister be kind enough to tell me what are the personal qualifications of Ross McLean, the commissioner of the film board, to act as such? On whose recommendation was he appointed in the first place? What was his training?


Robert Henry Winters: That was before my association with the film board, but the qualifications have been cited before in this house. Mr. McLean has had experience abroad in various capacities. He served as deputy commissioner of the film board for some time before he was appointed.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is not a qualification. I will tell the minister that he was a low grade clerk at Canada House in London, and


he was picked up by Grierson, and instantly he became the great pasha of the national film board.


Robert Henry Winters: I should remind the hon. member that Mr. McLean was private secretary to the high commissioner at Canada House in London.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, that is no recommendation.


Robert Henry Winters: It is a fact, though.


Jean-François Pouliot: And I have another pertinent question to ask the minister. Who is the man who has been most photographed by the film board since the beginning of the war, and the one of whom there are so many pictures in the archives of the national film board? I want to speak of a man who has been over-photographed on all sides-and if the minister does not realize what I mean he will have only to ask McLean, who will tell him about it.


Robert Henry Winters: I cannot answer that question, Mr. Chairman; I don't know.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then I will tell this to the minister, that there are thousands of proofs, and enlargements of proofs, and films, and snapshots, and camera films and exposures, of one man alone and in a group of two or more persons. They were taken since the war. My information is that there are ten thousand such pictures of various descriptions, with all the great of the world. I would like to know how many pictures there are, and who he is.


George Alexander Drew: The mysterious Mr. X.


Jean-François Pouliot: Photographed-


Robert Henry Winters: I do not know the answer, Mr. Chairman.


Jean-François Pouliot: Photographed from the right, photographed from the left, photographed right in front, face photographs, photographed backwards, profile photographs, up and down -I would like to know who it is.


An hon. Member:: Who is it?


Jean-François Pouliot: The commissioner knows, And I would like him to tell the minister. I am told there are 10,000 pictures, proofs and enlargements, of that man since the beginning of the war.


An hon. Member:: Who is he?


Jean-François Pouliot: He was ten years younger then; now he is ten years older. But not a day passed without having several pictures taken of his glorious self. I would like to know who he is.


An hon. Member:: Who is he?


George Alexander Drew: It is not the hon. member for Temiscouata, is it?


Jean-François Pouliot: What is the use of having so many pictures that serve no purpose? I do not mean the exposures of moving pictures. It is one moving picture, with many poses, many shots, taken on the way to the end. But it seems to me that I speak English clearly enough. I would like to know who is the human monument the film board has photographed so often, and with such joy, and at such expense to the country.


An hon. Member:: Tell us.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, no; that is a fair question. I speak of a living tower, of an historical giant, who is no more. I did not mean a physical giant, I meant an historical giant- and an hysterical giant; and I would like to know if the film board has some pictures, scores, hundreds of pictures, thousands of pictures, tens of thousands of pictures of one single man, to advertise the beautiful scenery of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Who?


Jean-François Pouliot: I don't know; I want to know.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the item
carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, Mr. Chairman, before it is carried, if there is no more answer than that, the whole film board should be discharged, dismissed, sent home, fired-goodbye.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Temiscouata and I find ourselves at opposite ends of political discussions, but at times we come close together. I think the film board is perhaps one of those occasions when we are close. I believe the hon. member is just as much interested as I am in seeing that this branch of government is run in the way all of us would like to see it run.
The questions the hon. member has been asking come very close to some I had noted down to ask. The first of these is: Have any complaints been received about the leftist slanting of films produced by the film board?


Robert Henry Winters: I have received no such complaints, Mr. Chairman.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister says he has not received any complaints. Has the film board, apart from himself-because he appears to have divorced himself from it to some extent -received any complaints in the matter, or has the government as a whole received any?


Robert Henry Winters: I can only say that to my knowledge the board has received no complaints and I do not know of any other member of the government who has received any.
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply


Douglas Scott Harkness: It has been reported in certain newspapers, so that it is a matter of more or less common knowledge, that certain trade unions have complained that films made by the film board in connection with trade union activities were such as to encourage the development of communism within those unions. Has that never come to the attention of the minister?


Robert Henry Winters: No, it has not.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would recommend that he read a paper known as The Ensign, which I am sure is familiar to most hon. members, and in which there are reports to that effect. In addition to that I think there have been various other complaints from other sources in this connection.
However if the minister says that he has had no complaints and knows of no complaints, there is very little more I can say on the subject. But I think I can assure him that there have been such complaints, and I would recommend that he look into them and find out exactly what they are.
Have any films produced by the film board been suppressed or withdrawn because it was considered that they would have leftist or communist propaganda effect?


Robert Henry Winters: No, sir.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister has said glibly No, that there had not been any; but I would like to ask him-


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that sort of thing should be allowed to go on. If the hon. member-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Who has the floor, Mr. Chairman?
The Depuly Chairman: I understand the minister has risen to a point of order.


Robert Henry Winters: To a question of privilege. If the hon. member wishes to continue with that type of language, I think he should be more explicit. How does one say "no, sir" in a glib way? You tell me that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I can tell the minister that very readily. I was just proceeding to ask the minister whether he had inquired if any such situation had existed, either while he was minister of the department or before. I used the word "glib" because the minister rose immediately to his feet and said, "No" apparently without consulting anybody.


Robert Henry Winters: That is not correct. The hon. member is making statements that are not correct. I said, "No, sir," on the basis of my own knowledge since I have been chairman of the board, and I consulted the officials who are before me and they said the answer was "No" in so far as they knew.

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister is all right, but the film board is not so good.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I accept the minister's statement. If my reference to being glib is offensive, I gladly withdraw it. I did not mean to be offensive in any way. I think possibly the matter to which I refer of the withdrawal of a film or films took place before the minister took over his present position. Before the dinner recess the minister was asked a number of questions which I should like him to answer, particularly those with regard to the charges made against the film board allegedly by departmental officials, commercial organizations and others, as outlined in the Financial Post.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wonder if the minister should not try to appease the hon. gentleman who has just spoken by having 10,000 pictures taken of him by the film board.


Robert Henry Winters: The charges to which the hon. member for Calgary East refers are not charges that have been made against the film board by government departments. As I understand it, they are items which are listed in an article which appeared in the Financial Post. As I understand it further, the seven points to which he refers have to do with high prices and special charges and the lack of co-operation and so on.
To my knowledge no government department has charged that the board charges high prices and makes special charges. I am sure that the board does not make a practice of indulging in things of that nature. As to lack of co-operation, I would say that the board is made up of two members of the government, a chairman, a deputy chairman and six members, three of whom are from government departments and three from outside the government service. I should think that those from the government departments would be in a pretty good position to talk of co-operation with other government departments. There has been no charge of lack of co-operation brought to the attention of the board, either through the three members who are members of government departments, directly to me, or through other avenues. The next item is with regard to the inability to get a firm bid or price. I do not know what specific instance or instances lie behind that. The estimating of the cost of a film is a difficult procedure. As I understand it, no one producing films can give an estimate that will invariably result in a firm price.
Then there is the charge of long delays and unbusinesslike methods. I have told the committee that I have asked the opinion of independent business consultants and I am anxious to see what they will have to say on this point. Then it is said that the national
'Mr. Winters.]
film board used political pressures to restrain commercial competition. I have no knowledge of that. Wherever I have felt that there might be a possibility of any restraint I have taken steps to overcome and prevent it, as I have told the committee.
Then there is a charge of extravagance and wasteful use of public funds through inefficient production methods. There again, as I told the committee, I want a report myself and I have engaged a firm of management consultants to look into that phase. Point seven is that the national film board is discriminatory in allotting screening time to commercially produced cultural and educational pictures on the national film board's rural circuits. I am told that that is not the case; where the commercial films are not in the nature of advertising they are given equal opportunity with films produced by the film board.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The first point dealt with by the minister had to do with the charge of high prices and the minister has said that as far as he is aware the prices were not unduly high, or something of that nature. I ask him if he will categorically deny the statement which appears in the Financial Post article and which reads:
What Government Departments Say
An example:	One department negotiated with
national film board for almost a year trying to get what it considered a satisfactory basis for production of the first two of a series of films for display in all parts of the world.
Rough outlines of how the subject would be treated were billed to the department at $800. That fee the department considered to be "outrageous" since commercial firms submit these treatments without charge as part of their service.
After much controversy, bids were sought unofficially from outside firms. These bids averaged about 20 per cent lower than national film board. Had any of these firms been allowed to go ahead and make the pictures, national film board would then have billed the department with a surcharge for overhead or "advisory" services to the commercial producer, whether it did any advising or not. This surcharge is added to all national film board movie bills. It used to be 10 per cent; April, 1949, the surcharge became five per cent retroactive to April, 1948.


Robert Henry Winters: That charge is anonymous, it mentions no department. To my knowledge it is not well founded and I am informed by the officials who are here now that they have no knowledge of any such circumstance.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I assume that the minister read this article which appeared some weeks ago and I have no doubt he has given some attention to it. Has he taken up that particular charge with the officials of his department and made an effort to find whether it was true or untrue?


Robert Henry Winters: To which department is the hon. member referring?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The film board.


Robert Henry Winters: I have done that.


Jean-François Pouliot: I should like to say a word about the set-up of this board, which I think is all wrong. May I remind hon. members that at the session of 1936 I sponsored a bill to repeal the Economic Council Act which was passed by the house during the regime of the Bennett government. Mr. Bennett's idea was to gather together officials from various departments to form an underground or subterranean government to advise the cabinet. It was just nonsense. When a man is appointed as deputy minister, as assistant deputy minister or as acting deputy minister of a department he should give all of his time to that department. There is no reason why he should divide his work and join other officials to form a board similar to the national film board. What is the conclusion from all that? It is that men who have been appointed for a special purpose pay no attention to the job for which they are paid, and they try to increase their emoluments by sitting on a board, commission or other body. Nonsense! One reason why the film board should be dispensed with is precisely because six of its members belong to other departments. It creates disorder; it prevents good government; it is absurd. That is why I denounced it thirteen years ago. With the support of the government of that day I had an act passed to repeal Mr. Bennett's legislation establishing the economic council. The minister was not then a member of the House of Commons. He knows the regard I have for him, but I do not want him to have any trouble with the film board.
In my view the primordial reason why the film board was established was not to contribute to the war effort or to advertise Canada but only to glorify one man who is now out of the picture. No one has dared tell us the number of pictures of this man which are kept in the archives of the film board, pictures that are no longer of any interest because they were never of any interest except to one who is gone. That is precisely the reason why it is impossible to secure any more information. Now that we have a government composed of real men I hope that all the sissy business will be dispensed with, and that we will not hear any more about the film board.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: I should like to ask the minister whether the charge made by the Financial Post as to these fees is true, untrue, or partially true and partially untrue. That is simple.


Robert Henry Winters: You mean the charge of high prices?
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply


Arthur Leroy Smith: The charge about the overhead charged in connection with these pictures.


Robert Henry Winters: There is an overhead charged. Is that what my hon. friend is asking?


Arthur Leroy Smith: You have read the article, and I have heard it and also have read it. Certain fees were charged to other departments whether or not work was done. Is that true or untrue, or partially true?


Robert Henry Winters: There is no charge made unless work is done.


Arthur Leroy Smith: All right, let us get this straight. The minister's statement is that there is no charge made unless work is done. By that I take it you mean photography?


Robert Henry Winters: I am told it is any aspect of film production.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Let us make it photography; that is what the making of films is. Your categorical statement to the house-is that there is no charge made by the film board unless photography is done?


Robert Henry Winters: No, that is not necessarily true. I say there is a charge for work done. That work may be photography, or it may be supervisory work; it may be sound recording or it may be another phase of motion picture-production.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then the truth is that there is a charge made whether or not photography is done.


Robert Henry Winters: There can be.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is the-truth, and the Financial Post article is absolutely correct.


Robert Henry Winters: But the charge is made only for work done.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I know that. Suppose I put in a tender for something. I do a tremendous amount of work, and if I do not get the job I do not make any charge, but that is not the policy of the film board, is it?


Robert Henry Winters: They would not charge
simply for putting in a tender on a picture.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You prepare a tender and you do a lot of work on it. Your tender is not accepted and therefore there-is no charge you can make. That is not the policy followed by the film board, is it?


Robert Henry Winters: They would not charge for work involved in merely submitting a-, tender.

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am not asking you that. Do they make charges where they do not get the work?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Casselman:: It is not going to carry like that.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Oh, this is tough but stay and take it. It will not take a minute.


Mr. Garson:: The only difficulty is the incoherence of the question.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The Minister of Justice says there is no trouble except the incoherence of the question. After his performance some days ago, he is the last man in the world to talk about incoherence.


An hon. Member:: Shame on you.


Arthur Leroy Smith: If it is shame on me, God help you.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have a few short questions to ask the minister. First of all I want to make one comment. I want to wait until the minister is free to listen to me.


Robert Henry Winters: I am listening.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As I understand it, what has happened is that we have listened this afternoon to a defence right across the board. There is no admission of any weakness of any kind. I want to know if I am making a fair statement. There has been no admission that any of the criticisms contained in this article were in any way justified. Am I stating it correctly?


Robert Henry Winters: No, I did not say that at all. I made it very clear in my statement. I said I wanted to answer criticisms that were not justified, and if and where there is something wrong with the board I want to find out about it. For that reason I have appointed a firm of management consultants to look into all these things which come under the classification of business management and report to me on them.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not
know just what the minister meant by saying "report to me only".


Robert Henry Winters: I said "report to me on them".


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh, I beg
your pardon. The minister has not really answered my question. I am quite well aware he did not say the film board was perfect in every way. He made it clear to us he was getting a business firm to go into this matter. I want to come back to my question again because it is important to me,

at any rate. I want to know if it is correct to say that there has been no admission of any kind that any of the specific criticisms made in the Financial Post article were justified. Is that a fair statement?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Robert Henry Winters: I said very clearly, and I say again, that I do not believe the film board is perfect, and nobody in the film board believes it is perfect. I suggested that if there was constructive criticism from any side of the house we would be glad to have it in the hope of making the film board the agency we think it can be in the development of the country.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister and I seem to be travelling along parallel lines, so I will not ask my question again. I will just give my opinion for what it is worth. If anything could have shaken my opinion of the board, it is what has happened in the last four hours. If there had been a frank readiness to say, "Yes, we made this mistake and that mistake; there are these criticisms, and some of the departments have been critical about us", it would have been much better than to ask us to believe that there is nothing in these statements reported to one of the most reliable men and written by him in his newspaper. I think that is a fair statement. I just want to say that, so far as I am concerned, nothing could have made me feel more-


Robert Henry Winters: That is not a fair statement.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall not take the time of the committee any longer, but it is as close to a fair statement as I can make. I believe the minister is being misinformed to a considerable extent.


Robert Henry Winters: If I have been misinformed, I am certainly taking the steps open to me to find out.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister care to have me read my question in detail? I gave him a list of films for which I wanted the cost. Does he wish me to read that list?


Robert Henry Winters: As you wish; I have the list here.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The first one is "R.C.M.P. file 365", the maker and the
cost?


Robert Henry Winters: The producer was Mr. Mulholland, and the cost was approximately $28,000.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is Mr. Mulholland a private producer?


Robert Henry Winters: No, the national film board.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: "Montreal by Night".


Robert Henry Winters: It was made by the national film board, and the producer was Mr. Newman. I am told the approximate cost of the two-reel version was $24,000.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: "River of Canada".


Robert Henry Winters: "River of Canada" was made by Associated Screen News. I have not the cost, because it was made about six years ago.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: "Feeling of Hostility".


Robert Henry Winters: "Feeling of Hostility" was made by the national film board. The cost was approximately $18,000 and the producer was Mr. Anderson.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: "Feeling of Rejection".


Robert Henry Winters: "Feeling of Rejection", was also made under the direction of Mr. Anderson, and the cost was approximately $22,000.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: "The Mother and Her Child".


Robert Henry Winters: The total cost of that was approximately $49,000 because there were two films, one in English and one in French. The producer was Mr. Paquette of the film board.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: "Horizons of Quebec".


Robert Henry Winters: The cost was about $32,000. It was made by the national film board, and the producer was Mr. Devlin.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Could we return to some of the questions which I asked the minister earlier? When did the R.C.M.P. complete their part in the screening of the national film board personnel?


Robert Henry Winters: They have not completed it yet.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If they have not completed it, how many people are still to be investigated?


Robert Henry Winters: That I cannot say.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then, when did they start this screening activity?


Robert Henry Winters: They started screening in May of this year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is there nobody in the minister's department who knows how far they have progressed? Can the minister not tell me how many people remain to be screened? Surely someone in the department has that information.
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply


Robert Henry Winters: No, there is no one in the department who has that information. The R.C.M.P. have been asked to proceed as quickly as they can, and I understand they are doing that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Upon how many people have the R.C.M.P. turned in unfavourable reports? When I say "unfavourable", I mean from the point of view of their position in working on so-called security films.


Robert Henry Winters: That information is not
available to me.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister says that information is not available. The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence said the other night that the sole purpose of this screening by the R.C.M.P. was to turn the information over to the permanent head of the branch, and through him to the minister in charge.


Robert Henry Winters: That is true, but they have not turned any information over to me.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This screening has been conducted since May, 1949, and it seems rather strange that no information has been turned over to the minister. I find it difficult to believe that the permanent head of the film board, or the minister, has not had some information about this matter. Do I understand you have no information whatever as to what reports the R.C.M.P. may have made?


Robert Henry Winters: That is true; I have not had a report from the R.C.M.P.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Has Mr. McLean, the head of the film board, or the deputy minister of reconstruction and supply had any report?


Robert Henry Winters: No, sir, they have not.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am more or less in the situation, Mr. Chairman, that I find it rather difficult to believe that no one has had any report. I believe someone must have had some report. I shall ask the Minister of Justice if he has had any report.


Robert Henry Winters: I think I can assure the house that I am as anxious as anyone else to have this situation cleared up. A reflection has been cast upon the film board which is in no way justified, as was said when the national defence estimates were under consideration. This screening is a matter of routine, in order to enable the film board to undertake the type of work which is contemplated. We have asked the R.C.M.P. to undertake it, and we have asked them to proceed with it as quickly as they can, and give us their report. I can assure the house that when that report is received the appropriate action, if any is required, will be taken to put the board in the shape I think hon. members of this house would wish.
2882

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply


Douglas Scott Harkness: We will leave that phase of the matter now. When was the film of the atomic energy project at Chalk River made by the national film board?


Robert Henry Winters: That film was made in 1947-48.


Douglas Scott Harkness: So far as the persons who made that film, processed it and made the prints are concerned, were any security precautions taken? Was there any screening of those people?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, every security precaution was taken. The people were carefully screened to the satisfaction of the R.C.M.P. and the Chalk River authorities. I understand that at all times they were under escort, and I . can assure the house that every precaution was taken.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If it was possible to screen those people and take all the necessary security precautions and so forth in 1947, how is it that it is impossible to allow the film board to make films for the national defence department of things which are much less secret, and which could not possibly do us as much harm from the security point of view? It does seem inexplicable that the film could be made in the Chalk River plant in 1947, the people were screened, and according to the minister, all the necessary precautions were taken; but today, the defence department will not allow those same people to make training films of national defence equipment which is not nearly so secret as the Chalk River project. This needs explanation.


Robert Henry Winters: That is not unexplainable. I made a note here that the hon. member made the remarkable statement that certain things are inexplicable and need explanation. This is one of those things that are not inexplicable. The number of people involved in the project totalled seven. They were known. Invariably the same people were involved in the film from start to finish. The film board consists of a relatively large number of people. The work within the board varies. There is quite a turnover by virtue of the nature of the employment; that is, the three-month period of employment. In order to ensure the type of security that is required under the government regulations it was felt, out of fairness to everybody, that a complete screening should be undertaken. I may say that the members of the film board were keen to have that done. It is taking a long time because there are a large number of people involved. That explains why the board must be screened whereas seven people from the board could undertake a certain confidential picture.
[Mr. Winters.!


Douglas Scott Harkness: Does the minister mean to tell me that the seven people who were concerned in taking this picture developed these films, printed them, and did everything else in connection with them? If that is the situation, that only seven people are concerned in any secret film that is made, there is no reason in the world why, during the past year, the Department of National Defence could not have had any film they wanted taken by these same seven people.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Chairman, I want an answer to that question.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, if I may be allowed to say something-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. If the hon. member does not mind, I think the minister wishes to reply.


Robert Henry Winters: Yes. I should say that
although the greatest amount of security within the Chalk River establishment had to be maintained and the greatest safeguard exercised over the type of shots that were made, the film itself was not a restricted film and therefore could be developed by the film board without the same measures that have been required now.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister still has not answered the question why, if these people could go and work at the Chalk River plant and make a film, they could not similarly make a film of our new ack-ack gun or any other national defence development which is certainly really not very secret.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I say, Mr. Chairman, that I am satisfied with the answers given by the minister to the hon. member for Calgary East; I am much more satisfied with the minister's answers to him than with his answers to me.


Mr. Fullon:: What is the government film bureau and what is the relationship between the government film bureau and the national film board?


Robert Henry Winters: The Canadian government motion picture bureau, which was under the jurisdiction of the Department of Trade and Commerce, was transferred to the jurisdiction of the film board in June, 1941.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then to all intents and purposes it is the same organization?


Robert Henry Winters: As the film board, yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Who is the head of the motion picture bureau?


Robert Henry Winters: The duties of the motion picture bureau were assumed by the commissioner of the film board.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On whose authority were outside agencies engaged to make the national defence films?


Robert Henry Winters: That is on the authority- under section 11 of the act, as my hon. friend knows-of the commissioner and the film board.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So that the commissioner himself and the film board agreed that at that time they were not qualified, shall I say, from the security point of view to make these films?


Robert Henry Winters: No. They did not agree that they were not qualified from a security point of view. I say again that this matter of screening is automatic, and until it had run its course and the board were declared eligible to do the type of work which the Department of National Defence had in mind, the commissioner and the film board decided that those films should be done elsewhere.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Was it done because of excessive caution, so that there would not be any reproach or criticism, or was it done in an effort to speed up screening, and to bring that problem to the attention of the authorities, or why was that decision made?


Robert Henry Winters: It was conforming to the regulations.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask another question arising out of an earlier one with respect to a film made in China. I do not understand the full implications. The minister said that the film was made by a member of the film board on loan to UNRRA and at the request of UNRRA. Will the minister say why it is and how it is that [DOT] that film cost the film board $16,000? Why was not the whole cost borne by UNRRA?


Robert Henry Winters: Whilst this man was employed on an UNRRA assignment, he made films which became available to the film board and they have used them since.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the minister anything to add to his reply?


Robert Henry Winters: No, except that the rights in connection with the film made under that contract with UNRRA resided in the film board so that the pictures could be made available to the people of Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then is it correct to say that the official who went to China, in addition to making a film or films specifically requested by UNRRA, made a film or films for the use of the film board?
45781-183J
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply


Robert Henry Winters: That is a correct statement, yes. In carrying out his assignment he took pictures of scenes which were also used by the film board.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Was he authorized to do that at the time of his departure?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, he was authorized to do that under the terms of his UNRRA contract.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Finally in that connection, will the minister say what was the division of travelling expenses borne by the film board and UNRRA respectively?


Robert Henry Winters: The Canadian government, through the national film board, paid part of his return fare from China. The remainder of the travelling expenses were borne by UNRRA.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Can the minister say what the proportions were? Is that information available?


Robert Henry Winters: I understand that Mr. McLean returned to Canada from China by air, to carry out work requested of him by the film board, and that the film board paid the difference between his air transportation and the surface transportation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And that is all they paid by way of travelling expenses? Is that the position?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I have just one question and I am going to put it in words of one syllable if I can. Am I correct in understanding the minister to say that the screening of employees began in May of this year?


Robert Henry Winters: That is correct.


Arthur Leroy Smith: And that neither the minister nor any of his officials have any reports from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at this date in December?


Robert Henry Winters: That is a correct statement of fact.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Are you sure that Stalin is not working there, and Nick Zabotin and some of those fellows? That is not the way the mounted police usually work.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There are two further cost figures that I should like to get; they are in connection with "La Cite de Notre Dame" and "Four Seasons". Are those figures available?


Robert Henry Winters: One of the films, "Four Seasons", I have learned was made by Crawley Films of Ottawa. The other picture

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply was made under the directorship of Mr. Paquette of the national film board. They were made about four years ago and I have no costs available now.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I won't delay the matter. Will the minister undertake to give me the cost of this and of the Associated Screen News one that he had not got earlier? Will the minister give me these later?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The whole point is to find the relative cost.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, in regard to the questions that have been asked about the suppression of films, I am aware that the minister has not been in charge of this department for very long, but he has officials here with him. Recognizing that he can obtain the answer from them I would ask him if information is not available about a film that was prepared by the national film board on Russia, giving a picture of conditions in that country prior to the revolution, during the 1917 revolution and afterwards, and the film was suppressed because it was regarded as giving too favourable an interpretation of what had happened in Russia.


Robert Henry Winters: I learn that the picture to which the leader of the opposition is referring is called "Our Northern Neighbour". It was not suppressed. I understand that with the exception of the province of Quebec it enjoyed unrestricted distribution in Canada.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I saw the picture that was taken at Chalk River and there was absolutely nothing in it that those who read the scientific magazines would not know. I imagine that why the members of the national film board were screened is that they were screened on going into the plant and not in relation to the pictures that were taken.


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When I spoke this afternoon I told the minister that I thought the films of the national film board were greatly improved.
I thought that the film taken at Chalk River was an excellent one.
I believe that the hon. member for Spadina suggested that I was criticizing the film board unduly. I am a great lover of motion pictures.


Frederick Primrose Whitman: Just a great lover.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The hon. member for Winnipeg North criticized me. He read an editorial on those who criticized the film board. I believe that I have as much love for art and as much artistic ability as any hon. member in this house.


Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Congratulations!


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This afternoon I mentioned the stills department of the film board. I understand that on occasion the stills department of the film board solicits business from manufacturing plants. They go into a manufacturing plant and ask if they can take a photographic survey of the plant.


Robert Henry Winters: I am told that that is not so.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Information to that effect has appeared in the newspapers. I am glad that that is not so. In the past there have been instances where the national film board has had to employ outside camera men. I wonder whether that is because the film board is not paying top prices for good camera men. Is that why the board goes outside?


Robert Henry Winters: The national film board
retains only four camera men on a permanent basis. It often happens that the volume of the work is such that it is necessary to hire outside camera men.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This afternoon I asked the minister about large blow-up pictures. What are they used for and to whom are they sold?


Robert Henry Winters: For photo murals used for display purposes at such places as exhibitions.


Mr. Cruickshank:: May I ask the minister a question? Has the film board taken any pictures of the pipe line?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to ask the minister another question.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have not received an answer to mine.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The following advertisement appeared in a New York magazine, put in by the national film board of Canada, 620 Fifth avenue, New York. I brought this up in the house once before. This is how it reads:
The answer to this question may necessitate reviewing his life from birth . . .
Why won't Tommy eat?
16 mm sound-2 reels-colour-$150 list
Was the film board set up to sell films of that kind in the United States? It was set up for educational purposes. Was it set up to sell 16 millimetre films in the United States or in any other countries?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes; under the terms of the act it is quite possible that prints of that nature can be sold in the United States.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I wonder whether the business managers who come in on the job will check and find out whether it is proper to do that

or not; whether you are making any money or not, or whether Canada gets any prestige out of selling advertisements of that kind. I do not think it is good advertising for Canada. I think it would be better to advertise Canada in some other way.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In his reply to the leader of the opposition a moment ago the minister said that a certain film referring to Russia was suppressed in the province of Quebec but was distributed throughout the rest of Canada. What was the reason for that? If there is any place in Canada where Russian, communist or leftist propaganda would have the least chance of success it is in Quebec. If it was necessary to suppress it because of its slanting, or anything along that line, I think it should have been suppressed anywhere else in Canada except Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. I should like to know the reason.


Alphonse Fournier: That is not a question; that is a statement. The hon. member does not know the difference between a question and a statement.


Robert Henry Winters: The picture was not banned in any sense; but it came to the attention of the board that certain people felt it might be better not to distribute the picture in Quebec. Therefore it was not distributed in that province.


Frederick Primrose Whitman: I should like to ask a question. Were any films taken of the game between the Alouettes and the Rough Riders and presented to the Calgary Stampeders oefore the final game with the Stampeders took place?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not really think that is a satisfactory answer. The minister said that certain people thought it would be setter not to distribute it in Quebec. That .s not an answer.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You have a closer con-aection with Mr. Duplessis than we have.


Robert Henry Winters: That is a matter of judgment :o be exercised by the board and they exercised that judgment in what they thought ,vas their wisdom.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
889. Trans-Canada highway-to provide for pre-iminary engineering work and studies in co-opera-ion with the provinces concerned, $25,000.
['That is a matter of judgment :o be exercised by the board and they exercised that judgment in what they thought ,vas their wisdom.']
Howard Charles Green: Would the minister explain ;his item?
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply


Robert Henry Winters: It is intended to cover costs incurred by the federal government in making surveys or carrying out any of the functions assigned to it under the act, until such time as further money can be voted by parliament. It is a preliminary allotment.


Howard Charles Green: It is the total vote for this fiscal year?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


George Alexander Cruickshank: As I understand it, this film you are taking across Canada-


An hon. Member:: Wake up.


George Alexander Cruickshank: -will it be available to other branches of the government? They may wish to bring something else across Canada. I am asking this question, and I am not being talked out by anybody. I want an answer to it. This film is being taken at the public expense.


Robert Henry Winters: It is not a film.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I would inform the hon. member for Fraser Valley that this is an item for the trans-Canada highway, to provide for preliminary engineering work in co-operation with the provinces concerned. It is not for a film.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well, that is exactly what I have been trying to say. Will that information be available for other reasons, travelling across Canada? I am asking that question.


Robert Henry Winters: This is a specific vote under item 889 to provide an amount to carry out preliminary survey work on the trans-Canada highway. If the hon. member's question is as to whether it will be made available for purposes other than the trans-Canada highway, then the answer is that it is intended to apply only against that highway.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I think that is a very fair answer, and I cannot see why we should pass this. After all the people of Canada will pay for it. If it is going to be available for one reason-and I am not against it at all

on a route across Canada, then why should not the information be made available to the people of Canada who are paying the bill-not you and I, but the people of Canada?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the item carry?


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, it is not carried. I am asking the minister why it should not be available to any other department.


Robert Henry Winters: The information made available to the federal government will be made available to any other deDartment.

Supply-J ustice


George Alexander Cruickshank: Thank you.


Robert Henry Winters: If they so choose to use it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
121. Departmental administration, $256,281.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, there are one or two matters I should like to direct to the attention of the minister, and I shall be very brief. The first of these has to do with the question of sex crimes. I bring to the attention of the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, a resolution passed and forwarded to the minister by the Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire.
The resolution I have before me is dated at Nokomis, Saskatchewan, November 11, 1949, and reads as follows:
We hereby endorse and approve the following resolution, which has been forwarded to the Minister of Justice, through the proper channels:
"Whereas the 'determinate sentence' system now in use is unsatisfactory in dealing with many sex criminals who continue to be a menace to society after their release from prison;
Therefore be it resolved that we the Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire ask that provision be made that all such criminals may be retained until competent medical authorities are satisfied that they are no longer dangerous to be at large in the community."
That is signed by Julia E. Nichol, Last Mountain chapter of the I.O.D.E.
A number of these resolutions have been forwarded to the minister. When legislation was before the house two years ago the question of sex crimes was discussed. The suggestion was made that those persons who are generally recidivists after discharge from an institution, provided it is a penal institution, during their incarceration should be subjected to psychopathic treatment, such as has proven so successful in the state of Massachusetts.
I would ask the minister what has taken place in the last year and a half in connection with this problem, which is on the increase, and which strikes fear and terror into the families of this country. The number of cases is increasing, and I would ask the minister if anything is being done to meet the situation. Is the system to which I made reference two years ago, namely that in use in Massachusetts, being considered for Canada?
When it had been in operation for one year in that state the results were found to be so encouraging that the system was increased and expanded. Today in Massachusetts, even among major sex offenders, with two or

three previous offences, after psychopathic treatment the number of recidivists has been reduced to nine per cent.
The second matter to which I would direct the minister's attention is in connection with the extension of the Borstal system in this country.
May I say the government of Saskatchewan has-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wonder if we might take up the matters raised by the hon. member when the penitentiaries items are before us?


John George Diefenbaker: This is a general discussion and as a matter of fact I am leaving at ten o'clock and the committee is to go on to something else. I am sure the hon. member for Yorkton will be able to assist me materially in outlining what has taken place in Saskatchewan since 1947 as the result of that system being adopted. There has been a marked falling away in recidivism in so far as juveniles are concerned. According to the latest figures available, in two years there has been a reduction of approximately 30 per cent in crime among young men and women. I know the interest the minister took in these matters when he was premier of Manitoba and I should like to know from him the plans of the government with regard to the extension of the Borstal system, of course within the limits of our constitutional set-up.
There is one other matter I should like to mention. We are approaching Christmas and in one of the jails of this country is a boy of 16 years of age who is under sentence of death for murder, the sentence to be carried out in February or March. There has not been an execution of a boy of that age for many years. What good purpose is being served by holding over his head for two and a half months a sentence of death, which is against public opinion? When a death sentence is imposed on a juvenile in Great Britain under circumstances where commutation must necessarily follow, there is no delay and I suggest to the minister that no harm would be done by having the governor in council commute this sentence. I realize that this comes under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General, but as we are dealing with Justice estimates I am making this suggestion. I feel that public opinion generally would support my submission that no good purpose is being served by maintaining a death watch day and night over this boy. It does not act as a deterrent to keep him in the shadow of death and it will not be beneficial in so far as deterring others is concerned. I should like the minister to comment on that.
I should like to know what provision is being made for prisoners suffering from

advanced tuberculosis who are sent to penitentiary. Has it not been the general practice where a prisoner is suffering from advanced tuberculosis, regardless of the length of his sentence, to grant a ticket of leave as soon as possible in order to allow the prisoner to return home? I ask that because of a letter I received to that effect from one of the penal institutions. It is a rather dangerous principle to accept, that a prisoner possibly sentenced to a long term for a serious offence should be entitled to almost a free pardon because of illness and the difficulty of making provision for him to continue under incarceration.
These are four matters in connection with penal reform to which I direct the attention of the minister. When the minister makes his report I should like to have him state what is being done to implement the provisions of the Archambault report, particularly in the last eight or nine months.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend has asked a number of questions which for the most part have to do with the administration of penitentiaries, which he is quite right in saying comes under the Department of Justice. The annual report of the penitentiaries commission for the year ending March 31, 1949, has been in the printing bureau for some time but is not yet available for distribution. In lieu of the production of that report I had intended to make a statement which would be something in the way of a summary. I hope that in the course of making that statement I shall answer some of my hon. friend's questions, and then when I finish I shall answer those which have not been covered.
We in Canada are fortunate in that some years ago a most comprehensive study was made of the Canadian penal system by the Archambault commission to which the hon. member for Lake Centre has referred. That report can be regarded as almost a textbook on penology in Canada. There may be differences of opinion as to some of the matters set out in the report and as to the practicability of carrying out some of the recommendations in the precise form in which the commission made them, but I do not think there can be any quarrel on the part of anybody who is interested in penology with the broad principles therein set forth.
The report stresses that the basis for a good correctional system must be the protection of society. By that was meant a continuing and not merely a temporary protection. Simply stated, it involves three main principles. First, that those who are committed to penal institutions shall be kept in safe custody until
Supply-Justice
they have served their sentences or are otherwise properly released according to law; second, that to the utmost extent possible the period of imprisonment shall be utilized to change and correct the antisocial habits that resulted in the sentence of imprisonment and to provide the prisoner with knowledge, habits and skills that will enable him to make his way in society upon release without again reverting to crime; and third, that as an aid to the second objective the prisoner will be treated humanely and fairly, and permitted such privileges as may be reasonably allowed with due regard to disciplinary and administrative requirements. I may say these principles have been accepted as the philosophy behind our present program in the Canadian penitentiaries under the commissioner, Major General Gibson, and his deputies, Mr. Joseph McCulley and Dr. Gendreau.
As steps in that direction we have first of all revised the salaries for all officers of the service. Whereas prior to 1945 the salary range for guards ran from $1,200 to $1,500 per annum, as the result of a series of salary revisions the initial salary for a custodial officer joining the service is now $1,980 rising to $2,280, with a higher scale for 20 per cent of the custodial staff reaching a maximum of $2,460. Instructors' salaries have a range of from $2,580 to $2,880, and chief keepers and chief instructors of from $2,280 to $3,480. The purpose of this has been to attract to this very important service a somewhat higher standard of talent than formerly was the case with a view to paying great dividends in the reduction of recidivism. That is one of the first replies I give to my hon. friend's question.
The next step has been taken with regard to the matter of having training courses for penitentiary officers. The first course began in February, 1948, and to date 213 officers have attended the eight courses which have already been completed. These courses are held at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police barracks at Rockcliffe, and are of six weeks' duration. The present courses are for the purpose of orienting our officers to the principles of sound modern penology, to increase their knowledge and to raise their standard in terms of their awareness of the factors that influence human behaviour, their knowledge of social problems and the causes of crime, their efficiency in their own specific responsibilities, their physical fitness, and their general interest in prison work as a career. We have tried to increase the salary schedule, to give training, and to convey to our custodial officers the pride and realization that they are in a very useful and worthwhile career in society in order that they

Supp ly-J ustice
year amounted to a total of 423,445, or an average of over 100 books per convict during the year.
Classification procedure in all institutions-


Arthur Leroy Smith: Is the minister sure of that figure of 100 books? It means a convict reads a book every three days.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am quite sure of that figure. It is contained in a summary signed by Major General R. B. Gibson, the commissioner of penitentiaries. If we all had the same amount of leisure as the gentlemen in the penitentiaries, we might read more books than I can at any rate.
During that period there has been a total of 7,436 interviews with classification officers. In the matter of training officers, 8 training courses for penitentiary officers have now been completed, and the ninth course is in progress. Of the 183 officers who attended the first seven- courses, 126 obtained honour standing.
In the matter of vocational training the statistics are interesting. Up to the end of the fiscal year 1948-49, 31,521 man-days have been devoted to this form of training. There are now 27 instructors in the four penitentiaries employed in the supervision and direction of the various courses being undertaken. Reports to date indicate that over 65 per cent of those who have taken the vocational training courses, and have been discharged, have obtained gainful employment in their trades and are re-establishing themselves satisfactorily in normal life. I believe that is one answer to the question of recidivism. I believe that is a great improvement over what has prevailed in the past, and I think it is encouraging that 65 per cent of those who have taken the vocational training courses and have been discharged have obtained gainful employment and have held it.
The penitentiary industries output has increased from $605,889 to $622,864.


Arthur Leroy Smith: How many workers produced that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There was a daily average of 1,836 convicts employed in these industries.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What about the previous year?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sorry, I have not the figures.


Alphonse Fournier: May I move that this item stand, and with the unanimous consent of the house, we revert to a discussion of television.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: By leave of the committee, discussion on television will now be allowed.


Alphonse Fournier: May I mention that if this discussion is terminated before eleven o'clock, Mr. Chairman, we shall revert to Justice.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE
James Joseph McCann: The rediscussion of this item 934 comes under the heading of "Loans and Investments, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation". The purpose of this item is that it shall be a loan to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation repayable with interest at a rate to be fixed by the governor in council on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine and to be applied in payment of expenditures to cover capital costs of television installations, and to support the development of the services. Such loans with interest shall be a charge on the revenues of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation after the charge imposed under the provisions of section 17 of the Canadian Broadcasting Act.
Let me point out that, in the first instance, the purpose of this loan is to cover capital costs of the television installations and, second, to support the development of the services. Necessarily the capital costs in a great project like this will be very considerable, and the service charges over a period of years will also run into a great amount of money.
On March 28 last I gave to the house a statement of the present policy of the government on television. Perhaps it would be helpful for this discussion if I ivere to summarize that policy again. The government thought it wise to provide for extensive studies of the methods of television developed which would be suitable to Canada. For this reason the government included television as one of the subjects of inquiry for the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences which is now carrying on its work. In the meantime, however, the government decided that while the commission was conducting this inquiry, development of a Canadian television system should be undertaken on an interim basis. By entering the field now Canada would benefit substantially from the experience of others in the establishment of proper facilities and operating methods. A further advantage of development at the present time will arise from the large new outlet which will be provided for our Canadian electronic industry.
In that connection let me say that the experience of those in other countries, notably in the United States, during these past four years has proven beyond a doubt

that television is something which is in demand in that country and throughout the world but that it is a very expensive development. Because I have the responsibility of reporting to parliament on behalf of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I made it my business to make a visit to New York; and through the courtesy of the Columbia Broadcasting System, the National Broadcasting Company, and private concerns such as du Pont, I think I was shown nearly everything they had to show with reference to the development of television at that time. I was told at that time-and that was two years ago this February-that they had spent something over $50 million in the experimental stage and that they had not proceeded beyond the stage where they could produce television in what is known as black and white in contradistinction to what is known as colour television.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Did Columbia not have colour?


James Joseph McCann: Experimentally, but not as a telecast.


Arthur Leroy Smith: They were
ahead of N.B.C.


James Joseph McCann: Not at that time. I am speaking of two years ago.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I understand.


James Joseph McCann: Since that time, I am informed, they have spent another $50 million. That means a total expenditure of $100 million to date by this and other companies in what is primarily experimental work in connection with that development.
In talking over the matter with the governors and the general manager of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation I expressed the opinion at that time that I did not believe it would be in the best interests of this country to proceed at that time with the development of television; that we could well wait until such time as the development had proceeded further; that we could, in the matter of dollars and cents, save a great deal of money and let the United States people who were in this field and had plenty of it do more of the experimental work, and that when the time came for the introduction of television in this country we would have all the advantage of the experimental work that had been done up to that time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the
minister tell us again what that exact date is that he is speaking of?


James Joseph McCann: It will be two years in February. It was in February of 1948.
Supply-C.B.C.
In addition to that, a further advantage at the present time will arise from the large new outlet which will be provided for the Canadian electronic industry. That of course means the manufacture of receiving sets for television. It might be of interest to tell the committee that at that time the sets that I saw there-and which were giving a picture that would be probably 16 inches by 20 inches-cost in the neighbourhood of $2,400.
I was told that, in February of 1948, the cheapest set there cost in the neighbourhood of $400.


Arthur Leroy Smith: They are much cheaper now. The minister knows that.


James Joseph McCann: Yes, exactly. That is the point I am going to make. To such an extent has the industry developed that, from the latest advertisements I have seen, television receiving sets can now be procured at a cost of from $90 to $100; and I am speaking of a good set. Hence I think we gained by the wait which we have had over the past couple of years. But I assume, and I think correctly, that if we do have television in Canada, we have a potential development of an industry for the production of television sets which will be of great industrial benefit to this country. It must be known that if television is going to pay, it will pay upon a commercial basis. In any great centre-and I will take the city of Montreal, for instance, as an example-you are not going to get people in commercial business to spend their good money for advertising unless there is a sufficient number of sets in that centre to enable the advertisers to reach their public. I would say that that is the basis on which success has been achieved in the United States and upon which today television, as I shall attempt to indicate later, is making progress in the commercial field. Now in large centres there are sufficient numbers of receiving television sets to make it commercially worth while for industrial firms to spend their money in advertising by that method.
From the social point of view, developments so far in other countries have made it abundantly clear that television will become one of the most effective means of mass communication which has yet been devised. This new medium can be of great tienefit to the national life of Canada, if properly developed. On the other hand, it could have a negative or a detrimental effect on our national life if it grew up in a haphazard way or in an un-co-ordinated manner.
In making plans for television, the government has been primarily concerned to provide that Canadians in various parts of the country will have the opportunity to receive
2892

Supply-C.B.C.
Canadian programs. To ensure that this shall take place the government is prepared to give the necessary support for the establishment of facilities in Canada that will meet the desire of the Canadian people to have a television system of their own. Because of our relatively small and scattered population, special efforts will be required to produce a good measure of Canadian programs, and to link together different parts of the country by vision as well as by sound. For these reasons it is clear that a large measure of public participation in television will be necessary.
It is not the intention, however, to exclude private operations from the field of television. I want to emphasize that, Mr. Chairman. It is not the intention to exclude private operators from the field of television. The development of radio broadcasting in Canada, through a combination of public and private enterprise, in a manner which a vast majority of disinterested Canadians approve and support, has shown the feasibility of this method. The Canadian Broadcasting Act provides that for broadcasting there shall be a national system publicly owned and operated and that there also may be private stations, the operations of which are co-ordinated with those of the national facilities. This procedure will be adopted with suitable adjustments for the development of television. I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, and through you to the committee, that the fundamental policy is an exact duplication of what has been carried on in this country in the field of radio, namely, a nationally owned and operated system, and in addition to that private stations throughout the country to meet local and community needs.
The public operation of television will be established to be supported by those who benefit from the system. That is the system we have in Canada with reference to radio. Those who receive the benefits of the system are the people who pay for the maintenance of the system. At the same time private stations may be licensed. The government believes that in this way television will become the means of encouraging Canadian talent, of expressing Canadian ideals, of serving the needs of the country as a whole, and of stimulating and strengthening our national life and consciousness.
The following interim plan has therefore been adopted by the government: First, the general direction of television broadcasting in Canada, in accordance with the Canadian Broadcasting Act, will be entrusted to the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which will arrange for television operations by the C.B.C. and by licensed private stations; second, in order to
CMr. McCann.]
provide the required services the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will (a) establish at this time national television production centres in the cities of Montreal and Toronto; (b) they will provide the services of television programs for broadcasting by stations which may be established in other areas of Canada, thus furnishing part of that programming. This service will be provided by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation either by means of kinescope recordings or by direct physical relays when these are available; (c) establish transmitting stations in Montreal and Toronto in association with the national production centres there. Third: In any city or area in Canada, including Montreal and Toronto, a licence to establish one private station will be granted to a private organization giving adequate assurances of financial means and of service.
I might point out here that the number of private stations that are to be licensed in any city will be dependent upon the frequencies which are allocated to those cities by a mutual agreement. Of course, Canada has only a certain number of available frequencies in its possession and at its disposal to meet the needs of telecast.
In view of the high cost of television operations it is felt that individuals or groups interested in establishing private stations in any city may wish to form an association for the purpose of applying for a licence. The reason for that, Mr. Chairman, is the great cost of television. If anyone is interested in the matter of television or has made a study of it all he has to do is to review the experience of people who have established private television stations in the United States. In the articles which have been in Fortune magazine in July and October of 1949, one of which I have before me, instances are given covering almost all parts of the United States. These articles show that the capital cost of setting up a television station is in the neighbourhood of $500,000 or $600,000. In addition to that, in order to operate it, before it is brought to a paying basis, it costs another $500,000. Therefore if it gets to the place where private people are interested in it and wish to get a licence for television they have to be prepared to spend something in the neighbourhood of $1 million before they are likely to get any return at all.
With reference to the number of applications which we have had for private licences, we suggested that it might be in the interest not only of the individuals who had made the application but of the development of television for two or three of these people concerned in a certain city to get together and

Eorm some sort of co-operation or arrangement and perhaps pool their costs. By doing that it would not be as much of a burden is it would be on one single concern.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What was ;heir answer to that?


James Joseph McCann: The answer to that has been almost negative, I think. They have not yet made any arrangements to that effect. Fourth: .n regard to network arrangements, whether )y teletranscription or direct physical hook-aps, the same principles will apply as in the :ase of sound broadcasting.
It will be some time before there are enough *eceiving sets in Canada for television licence ;ees and commercial revenue to cover the cost >f programs and operations. It is necessary herefore for the government to provide loans
0	the C.B.C. to cover the capital costs of lecessary installations and to support the levelopment of the service. For these pur->oses parliament is being asked, through this mte, to approve a loan of $4,500,000 this year, -*et me emphasize that this is going to be a rery costly undertaking. It is going to take
1	number of years to develop it, and it may veil be that we shall have to come back to larliament in another year and ask for a urther loan with reference to the further levelopment. I might as well truthfully tell he committee that $4,500,000 is not going to over all the costs of putting television into peration in this country.
It is expected that the national television peration will become self-supporting from icence fees and commercial revenue in a ew years. The plan by no means provides for tie exclusion of non-Canadian material from ur television channels. One will see a great eal of comment in the newspapers. I have ome articles before me. It has come up for iscussion that there are certain American eople who evidently have the idea that their articular films to be telecast would be xcluded from the Canadian field. That is not 3. Our plan by no means provides for the xclusion of non-Canadian material from our Revision channels. The public will wish anadian stations both private and public to arry some good programming from other auntries. The national plan does make pos-ble however a core of Canadian television roadcasting reaching an increasing number E Canadians across the country. The govern-lent believes that this national plan provides >r the minimum amount of public support ad co-ordination necessary to provide for i adequate development of television in anada. It also provides conditions under hich private organizations will have the pportunity to use television channels, but in Ding so will contribute to the building of a
Supply-C.B.C.
national Canadian television service, at the same time being assisted in good programming by the national system.
When I said the loan calls for $4,500,000, I think it is only fair to give the committee some detail with respect to how that amount would be spent. It will mean the building of two five-kilowatt transmitters, towers, two studio centres, two mobile units, and the purchase of sundry capital equipment. It is estimated that that cost will be $3,600,000.
In order to carry on television you have to train people in that particular new line of business. So that we figure that our training research and travelling will cost $195,000. Experimental technical operation, research and development will cost $470,000. We have allowed five per cent of the amount for contingencies, which is $235,000, making a total of $4,500,000.
It was mentioned this morning that last year we intended to ask for a loan of $4 million. That has been increased to $4,500,000 because of the fact that we will require $500,000 additional for capital expenditures to cover the cost of a studio built in the city of Montreal.
I think I should say that the C.B.C. project will be implemented approximately as follows: A group of officials of the corporation will keep on planning, both for construction, organization and programming for some time to come. Employees will gradually be assigned jobs on television, either full time or part time. A General Electric transmitter will be bought for Toronto immediately upon the passage of this loan at an installed price of $184,000. A similar RCA transmitter will be bought for Montreal at a cost installed of approximately $204,000. Both of these will be five-kilowatt, operating with frequencies now being earmarked for use at these two points, Toronto and Montreal.
Negotiations are being conducted with the city of Montreal officials for approval of a plan for a transmitter to be built on Mount Royal. In addition to the studios, of course, it is necessary to have transmitters. These are very costly because of the great height at which they have to be built. I am told the one in Toronto would need to be 560 feet high, and that that would be of steel construction. The one in Montreal will not be so high if we can get permission from the city of Montreal and from the Quebec government to build it on Mount Royal.
As I said, negotiations are being conducted with the city of Montreal for the approval of plans for the transmitter to be built on Mount Royal. When the agreement has been reached, final approval will have to be obtained-

Supply-C.B.C.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That mountain must be a couple of hundred feet high.


James Joseph McCann: Yes, I think so. And that would mean that the one in Montreal would be 200 feet less than would be necessary for studios at places like Toronto or Calgary.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I wondered how high that mountain was. My house is higher than the mountain they have there.


James Joseph McCann: Above sea-level, perhaps. When agreement has been reached final approval will have to be obtained from the provincial cabinet, which has to confirm the use of the site at the city of Montreal. It is hoped construction will start on that transmitter as soon as weather conditions permit us some time next spring. Plans are now under way for the construction of television studios on the site of the Radio-Canada building in Montreal, with an extension on the sixth floor of that building for TV staff and services.
It is proposed to build the transmitter and studio on the site in Toronto now owned on Jarvis street, and plans are under way in respect to that part of the projects. Studio equipment and accessory equipment will be purchased as we go along, and as we have determined exactly what our needs will be.
Early next spring some personnel will actually start training in some phases of television. Early next fall it is hoped studios will be sufficiently advanced to permit the full training of required staff both on the programming and technical side. From time to time when transmitters are installed there will be some test programs going on the air at regular intervals and on a regular schedule.
This plan will lead to both transmitters going on the air, according to a predetermined regular schedule, about September, 1951. It is hoped that the $4,500,000 will cover this part of the first phase of the development of television. We may be short of money because of the necessity of building some studios in the city of Toronto and, as I indicated, it may be necessary to ask for further loans at another time.
When we project this over a period of years we believe that the total cost will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $10,700,-
000.	We believe that the transmitters will cost in 1950-51 something over $1 million, and that in the next year that expenditure can be spread somewhat more. Operations with respect to research will be $70,000 for research and $125,000 for training. Station operations, through the period up to 1955, will probably cost about $9 million. Networks will cost $875,000, and contingencies

$235,000. This would give a total expenditure up to that time of something in the neighbourhood of $10 million.
In making our calculation we are also looking at the revenue side, and we believe that in Canada in the first year there might be 2,250 receiving sets. In the next year we expect that that will go ten times as high, or 22,000 sets. By 1952-53 it will be probably 56,000 sets, by 1953-54, 111,000 and by 1954-55, 168,000.
If we count on the revenue from those sets, they should bring in a revenue of $3,600,000, and from commercial operation revenue $1,817,000. So that the total revenue in that period we estimate would be in the neighbourhood of $5,420,000. Our total expenditures would run as high as $14 million over the years and our revenue $5,400,000, leaving a net capital cost in the neighbourhood of $10 million. Let me point out that we do not wish to go into this business with our eyes shut. Over a period of years it is going to cost a lot of money. I feel we have followed a wise policy in not being too hasty with respect to this development. I believe that the policy of a nationally-controlled system in accordance with the powers given under the Canadian Broadcasting Act, and the benefit we have had of the experience throughout the years with respect to radio, will stand us in good stead and form a pattern for the development of this medium of communication as we go along.
I think perhaps it might be of interest to tell the committee something with reference to the progress that has been made in the United States. An article appearing in the Montreal Gazette of December 6 refers as follows to a speech given by Mr. John W. Craig of Cincinnati:
-John W. Craig of Cincinnati told members of the Canadian Club at a meeting in the Windsor Hotel yesterday:
Predicting that television will become a prime factor ini Canada's national economy, as it is now becoming in the United States, Mr. Craig, who is vice-president of Avco Manufacturing Corporation and president of Crosley Distribution Corporation, criticized the idea that performances emanating from other countries should be barred from Canadian outlets.
"As television has entered the major consideration of the Canadian government and the C.B.C.," said Mr. Craig, "I have seen several statements to the effect that Canadian television should be for Canadians, and not a means of broadcasting nonCanadian visual material in this country.
Basically, it is very true that any nation's communications media should be devoted to native arts, science and progress. But isolationism here, as elsewhere, could easily be carried too far. We will miss an historic opportunity If we fail to encourage an exchange of television services between out countries. And by exchange, I most certainly mean both ways."

That is, there would be a market in the United States for our films to be televised or telecast just the same as the United States would expect that we would telecast certain of their films in this country. The article continues:
"Television will have a tremendous impact on Canadian life, as it has had in the United States, where the industry is barely more than four years old," he said.
I ask hon. members to note that:
He cited figures on its economic growth below the border, where, he said, there will be 20,000,000 sets in use by 1953, with 75,000,000 people listening to 700 stations. More than 1,000,000 persons will be engaged in the industry within the next five years.
Referring to television's economic growth, he said it outstripped radio this year in dollar volume. Number of sets produced were 6,500 in 1946: 175,000 in 1947; 1,700,000 in 1948; 2,500,000 in 1949.
Related to the population of this country those figures suggest what is possible in the development of the electronics industry here. The article continues:
Next year, he estimated, 3,200,000 sets will be produced. More than 150,000 persons are already engaged in the industry and there is a rush for new stations.
I emphasize again that from the point of view of the economy of this country there is a great potential development if we go along with this program of development of this important electronics industry. The report continues:
Demand for television sets exceeds supply and 1,000,000 more sets would be sold this year, if they were available, he declared. Surveys have shown that 75 per cent of sets in use are owned by families in middle and low income groups.
"Investment to date has not been profitable, but this is always the burden of pioneers in a major field of business," he said. "Industry has never quit under that burden in any worthwhile field and certainly there has been no quitting in this one."
I do not propose to take up any more time and I shall be glad to hear the views of the opposition or any others with reference to this matter. I have taken this time without apology because I wanted to outline some of the basic work that has been carried on so that we may have an intelligent and profitable discussion.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, it is most desirable that the minister should have given this survey of the general policy of the government as well as certain details that were not placed before the house last March. One of the things the minister emphasized is that this appropriation of $4,500,000 is merely the item in this year's estimates and that it represents only a beginning of the expenditures that will be involved. He makes it clear that there will be heavy expenditures in the future.
Supply-C.B.C.
I could not help being impressed by one aspect of the minister's remarks. He referred to a speech by Mr. Craig to members of the Canadian club in Montreal the day before yesterday in which he gave figures of the development that has taken place in the United States during the past four years as indicative of what we may expect here in Canada. The minister referred also to a statement made by Mr. Craig of the experiences in the United States and as to what we might expect this new development will produce in our economic and social life. I think it is appropriate to point out that Mr. Craig was discussing a development under a system where there is not a single government-owned television producing station. All of that development has taken place under a system where the broadcasting as well as the production requirements for broadcasting rest entirely with the ordinary commercial activities of that country.
Having said that, I am not saying that that disposes of the suggestion that governments should be in this field. I am simply saying that it should not be overlooked, when a development in television in that country is placed before us as an indication of what can happen here in the way of expansion and development, that that development took place under a system which we are in effect denying at the very outset as the basis of our system. It is true that the minister has said that licences will be granted to private applicants if they conform with certain requirements. There is no use going over what has already happened, but the fact remains that although a number of private applicants have wanted to start television broadcasting, they have not been able to do so.
They have not been able to do so because it has not been possible for them to conform with the mumbo jumbo of the supposed regulations that are placed before them. This idea of people associating for the purpose of starting a single station in a large centre sounds very well, but it is not nearly as practical as it sounds. The fact is that a number of the applicants either have ordinary radio broadcasting stations at the moment or are interested in other activities. For instance, the minister will know of one who is actually a producer of electronic equipment. Then there are other companies with interlocking interests in other concerns. This idea of merging something which is only part-time does not work in this or in any other social experience in this or any other country.
That has been the rule. It may be that a more practical basis for allocating licences may be worked out, but we should recognize

Supply-C.B.C.
that the experimental development could be carried out without any expense to the people of Canada. There are private operators who are ready to risk their money to carry on through the experimental stages. I must confess that I am at a loss to see why it would not be good business from the government's point of view to allow that experimental stage to be carried forward with the risk capital of those who are prepared to put it up and then if the government is still of the opinion that it should be in this field on a wider basis, it could get into it.
Let us remember one thing in connection with the present situation. There is no similarity to the main purpose of the C.B.C. in what is now being done. At some future time there may be, but the fact that television conveys sound as well as a picture does not give it an over-all similarity to ordinary broadcasting. Ordinary broadcasting will carry for hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of miles. Television still has a very restricted effective area, and consequently the only way that a telecast can be seen over an extended area is to have a system of relay towers-I will not give the technical name but will describe them for what they really are-at sufficiently frequent intervals to carry the impulse forward at a maintained level so that the same image may be carried to a screen at a distant point as will reach the ordinary set within the immediate range of the first telecast studio.
The idea of setting up studios in Toronto and Montreal is, I suggest, contrary to the whole principle of the C.B.C. Why should public money in Canada be allocated for the purpose of giving telecast programs to the areas of Toronto and Montreal, or for that matter assume that you carry it still further and provide these facilities for the larger cities such as Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary, Vancouver, Halifax and Saint John? You have not even begun to approach a similarity to the C.B.C. because the area within which the television image may be seen is probably fifty miles at the outside around these cities. All the rest of the country, which is being asked to contribute through taxes to the maintenance of this great structure, gets nothing at all. On the other hand, ordinary broadcasting covers a wide area, and there are only a few parts of Canada that are not able to hear broadcasts through the co-operation of private stations which really do the major broadcasting in Canada today of programs emanating from C.B.C. stations.
With that difference I suggest that no sound reason has been put before the house for allocating one cent at this time. I believe this is a most improper, unsound and unjustifiable course. I say that believing that we

should have television, and believing that the way we shall get television, without any sense of unfairness on the part of the taxpayer who gets no actual benefit, will be to permit those who are ready to carry it on with their own risk capital to provide for a television system. I am sure that thereby more Canadians will see television in the near future than if we place it under the restrictive procedure of the C.B.C. All that is going to happen here is that we shall be turning on a tap. The flood is going to come afterwards, but the trouble is we are going to put in the pipe, put a tap at a particular place, and then the flood is going to be in a limited area. This is a matter that in the experimental stage should be left to the initiative and the risk of those who are prepared to spend their money.
The advances in one year are almost incredible. Those who have seen telecasts in the United States a year ago and in recent weeks will find the change almost unbelievable. I should think it is likely that next year will see a similar change, and the year after that. This is the very time that a government agency should not commit public funds to something that is changing at such a rapid rate. In so far as this is concerned, I think we might also very well wait until we see what the developments are in the United States in regard to systems of extending the availability of television service through new methods.
I have said what I intended to say as to this item. For the reasons I have put forward I do not believe that on the merits one cent of public money should be put into this venture at the present time. But there is another reason why we should not be asked to pass this item now, one that is perhaps even more important from the point of view of the responsibility of government to parliament. The statement that the minister has made tonight as to policy is a summary of the statement which he made to the house on March 28 of this year. He has given more extensive figures as to the details. I may also say this is the first time we have had an indication that this is just putting in the penny ante, and that we can really expect the expensive chips to come later on.


Mr. Low:: A slot machine.


George Alexander Drew: This is just the start; this is just the primer. Once we are into it then on the ground of giving Canadians real service we shall be asked to support really large amounts for the next stages of this activity. That is the history of this whole development, and it will be the history in our case if we proceed with it. The minister has frankly indicated that this is just the beginning of

a very expensive venture. There is another reason why it should not be considered now. After the minister had made his statement of policy on March 28, the hon. member for Eglinton said:
May I ask the minister a question arising out of the statement he has just read? Will the radio committee have an opportunity of reviewing this policy and reporting to the house before the house is called upon to approve the loan of $4 million?


James Joseph McCann: The answer is definitely yes.
Mr. Chairman, I submit the government is bound in honour to live up to that undertaking, and not to ask the house, with the majority the government has behind it or otherwise, to pass a loan of this kind when it has given an explicit undertaking that the house will have the opportunity to examine the policy in the radio committee before a decision is made. It could not be more explicit. Surely the minister's words, "the answer is definitely yes", are as definite now as they were on the 28th of March.


James Joseph McCann: Relative to the circumstances that obtained at that time.


George Alexander Drew: Relative to the circumstances that obtained at that time, and the circumstances that obtained at that time were the solemn undertaking by the government to appoint the radio committee. If the government had any intention at all of asking for this loan at this time, it should have appointed the radio committee at this session, and in that way carried out its undertaking. It is no use saying: Oh, the $4,500,000 is printed in the estimates; of course we intended to deal with it. The $4,500,000 was printed in the estimates last March when that undertaking was given. The fact that the government decided not to continue the session at that time does not change the undertaking. The fact that the government, consequent upon dissolving the house at that time, was returned with the very substantial majority which is so frequently referred to by the government in regard to the things that it puts forward, is no reason at all why the government should now say that their undertaking at that time was only related to the circumstances. At that time the government knew there was going to be an election, and a statement such as that would mean that the undertaking meant nothing. I do not think the minister will make that statement because that would be the only meaning that could be attached to it, that it was not intended to mean anything. Some strange statements have been made by this government, but not yet so strange a statement as that. On the basis of that undertaking I submit that the government is in honour bound not to ask for the passing of this item, but should
Supply-C.B.C.
recognize the undertaking to set up a committee immediately the next session opens to deal with this question of policy, and then let the house decide, with some knowledge of what it is all about, after having listened to experts and not having listened to the minister repeat a speech made to the Canadian Club in Montreal-excellent though it may have been-as a basis for our decision of what this may mean to our economy.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I do regret that this particular item in the estimates has been reached at this late hour. When the member for Eglinton raised his point of privilege this morning, I understood the house leader to indicate that he would make a place for the discussion of this item on tomorrow's program.


Alphonse Fournier: May I interrupt for a moment? Before six o'clock I was informed that the officials of the C.B.C. could not be present tomorrow or Friday, since one of the gentlemen is entering hospital tomorrow. I did speak to the leader of the opposition, and suggested that if the hour between ten and eleven this evening could be set aside for the debate, the two officials would be present. At six o'clock, I did announce we would take this hour, and those were the circumstances which led up to this discussion.


Ernest George Hansell: I appreciate the minister's remarks. I was not in the house at five minutes to six, and I do agree that the circumstances warrant the matter being brought up tonight. I must point out, however, that since the minister has made his statement, it only leaves about 25 minutes to discuss this matter. It happens that I have only 5 minutes left.


Alphonse Fournier: We would have no objection to giving unanimous consent if the hon. gentleman wishes to speak after eleven o'clock.


Ernest George Hansell: I think that is what ought to be done. I believe the leader of the opposition has covered this matter thoroughly, but there are one or two things which he left out that deserve some attention. I would call to the attention of the minister and the house the fact that there is a royal commission on arts and letters listening to the various representations being made about this whole matter. This house is being asked to vote $4,500,000 to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for its proposed television operation, without knowing what that royal commission is going to report.
Unless the minister has some inside information, which I do not think even a minister of the crown should have while a royal

Supply-C.B.C.
commission is sitting, how does he know what the royal commission will recommend? Does he know that the commission will not recommend that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation remain outside the field of television? Nobody knows that. The leader of the opposition brought to the attention of the house the fact that the minister committed the government not to introduce this loan of $4,500,000 until the parliamentary committee on radio could be set up. The minister replied that he gave that commitment under the circumstances prevailing at the time. Since the royal commission is sitting today, the circumstances are even more acute now than they were at that time. There should be a special committee on radio before this loan is granted.
While I do not know what the terms of reference for the radio committee would be, in all probability it would have the advantage of the commission's report to guide it. I say, Mr. Chairman, that the government should be urged not to go forward with this matter at this particular time. Why all the rush? Parliament will be sitting again within a couple of months, so why the rush now? It seems to me that the rush is to accomplish this before the royal commission reports. Now, that is exactly the way it appears to me. Four and a half million dollars is a lot of money. I know the minister can say that this is a loan, but the minister has also said it is only the beginning. Television costs a tremendous amount of money, and the end is not yet.'
Upon the basis of his own words, the minister may come back to this house on future occasions for further millions, so there is no purpose in asking him when this $4,500,000 loan is going to be repaid. If what the minister says is true, then it would appear to me that the $4,500,000 now being lent, plus perhaps another $5 million later, plus another $5 million or $10 million later, and plus something else later, running into $30 million or $50 million, will never be repaid. I agree with the leader of the opposition when he says it will mean taxing all of Canada for television services that will accrue to those who are citizens of the metropolitan areas. Now, that is not right. I am not saying that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should not enter the television field, but I am saying that if it is going to cost so much money, and private interests are willing to enter that television field without calling upon the Canadian taxpayer to foot the bill, then private interests should be given the opportunity of so doing.

Up until now, they have not been given that opportunity. As a matter of fact, if anything, private interests have been discouraged.
The minister read from a report, Mr. Chairman. He concluded that report by saying that, in the past, industry has never quit when it has had to put up vast sums of money; it has seen the thing through. They have risked those funds. If he says that, he is offering an excellent argument for private enterprise. Let us be assured that it is private enterprise that is risking its own funds, and is seeing the industry through to a successful conclusion.


James Joseph McCann: That was a quotation from Craig's speech.


Solon Earl Low: Which you used to bolster your own arguments.


Ernest George Hansell: Which was used as an argument for supplying a crown corporation with funds that did not have to be repaid, as long as the taxpayer continued to foot the bill; that is the position.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is in the commercial field, Mr. Chairman, running competitively with independent radio broadcasting. I have no objection to that. But if they are in the field running competitively with independent broadcasting interests, then why should the corporation itself not be able to put up the funds for expansion in this field? That is what the private enterprise of the radio industry desires to do. Why do they not have the same thing, operating side by side as they do? I say again-and I emphasize this-that since the royal commission has not concluded its work and has not finalized its report and recommendations, this loan could well stand for the time being until that royal commission has reported. Then again, the minister has already said that this television is an expanding art. The fact of the matter is that much of this money may well be spent on equipment that might in a few years become obsolete.


Major James William Coldwell: Eleven o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Ernest George Hansell: I know it is eleven o'clock.


Major James William Coldwell: How long are you going to be?


Ernest George Hansell: Only a few minutes. They told me they would let me go ahead.


Mr. Mutch:: Finish with it.


Ernest George Hansell: I will ask the minister one or two questions, Mr. Chairman, since we are in committee, and then I will sit down. I do not think we can be satisfied with the statement the minister has given with respect to the future over-all plans for television in Canada. All he has told us is that they will

be coming back for more money later on. What is that plan? That is the thing we should know. Another question I should like to have answered is this. How many frequencies are available in Montreal and in Toronto? If the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are going to take one frequency in Montreal and another one in Toronto, then will the other frequencies be available to private interests that would like to enter this field and develop it? If we grant this loan, will recognition be given to private operators where these frequencies are available in other parts of Canada in which the corporation is not at present prepared to enter the field?
In conclusion I think I should say that we as a party are absolutely opposed to passing this item until a committee has had ample opportunity to investigate fully and completely and to recommend to parliament that we make this loan of $4,500,000.


James Joseph McCann: May I answer the hon. member for Macleod now with reference to the frequencies. In Toronto there are only three television channels available. One of those is reserved for the C.B.C. That would mean that there are two channels there available for private broadcasters.


Major James William Coldwell: Has that been decided? Has it been decided to grant the television channels to private broadcasters?


James Joseph McCann: That is an international
understanding.


Major James William Coldwell: For private broadcasters?


James Joseph McCann: No, the number of frequencies available.


Major James William Coldwell: No. You said two frequencies were available for private broadcasters. Has that been decided?


James Joseph McCann: I said that would leave two; I said that we were taking only one.


Major James William Coldwell: But the two have not been given to anyone else?


James Joseph McCann: No, they have not been given at all yet.


Major James William Coldwell: They are still public property?


James Joseph McCann: Yes. In the city of Montreal there are five channels, and two of those have been reserved for the C.B.C. In the city of Hamilton there is only one channel.
With reference to the statement that I made before with a view to having applicants get together, there were four applications from the city of Toronto: CFRB, CKEY, Famous Players Corporation and one individual by
Supply-C.B.C.
the name of Mr. O'Leary. If there are only three channels available in the city of Toronto, and one for the C.B.C., that leaves only two that could go to four of them. For that purpose we suggested that it might be advisable for them to get together in order that they could take advantage of them. I may say here that there has not been any rush on the part of private individuals to get into this field because of the fact that it has been so costly. I think we are quite within our rights, as custodians of these channels, to ask people who make application for one of them this question: Are you prepared to spend the money that will be necessary to put this development into operation? In very few instances was that the case; I think in only one, as far as I know at the present time, and that was from the city of Montreal. In very few instances did they say that they were prepared to spend an amount of money sufficient to carry on that development.


Major James William Coldwell: Eleven o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


George Alexander Drew: Speaking of the case in Montreal, may I ask this question? Is it not correct that the Marconi Company and La Presse both suggested terms in money?


James Joseph McCann: That is true.


Major James William Coldwell: It is eleven o'clock; if this is going on, I think we should call it eleven o'clock. If we are going to have a vote right away, then all right.


James Joseph McCann: No. The item carried last night.


Arza Clair Casselman: No, no.


Alphonse Fournier: Yes. Then discussion took place this morning. The item was called last night. It was passed and carried.


Arza Clair Casselman: No.


Alphonse Fournier: And it was so reported. I have had the officials of the house look up the journals and they have not been able to find anything in the way of a formula to bring that item back before the committee.
Mi-. Casselman: Look at Hansard. There is not a word in Hansard about it.


Alphonse Fournier: What I said at eleven o'clock was that, in a spirit of co-operation, we would find time to discuss television. If you read Hansard tomorrow-and I have read it over myself to be quite sure of what I said -you will find there was no question that we would reopen that item, have another discussion and have a vote on it. I think that position is exactly the position taken by the chairman; and I do not think we should let the chairman down because most of the members of the majority think he was right.

Supply


Major James William Coldwell: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we call it eleven o'clock. I do not think that the pages and the staff should be kept here any more than the members of parliament.


George Alexander Drew: Let us have one thing quite clear. I cannot believe that any of the hon. members this morning had it in their minds, when it was understood that this item was to be discussed, that we were merely being afforded an opportunity to speak for the sake of hearing our voices in this chamber. I cannot conceive of any circumstances which would justify the taking of this time unless we were discussing this item with the idea that the arguments put forward would be directed to the item itself. It seems to me that there is another reason that I mentioned earlier why this item should not be considered to have been passed, and I am not now arguing as to the ruling or otherwise. There was a reason why the government should not have permitted that item to be called last night and that is that it will be a gross breach of faith if the government seeks to pass this item in the face of the undertaking that was given by the minister last night.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It was passed last night. Look at Hansard.


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I refer hon. members to Hansard of yesterday, page 2828, which shows clearly that item 934 was carried. May I also refer them to Votes and Proceedings, which are the journals by which we should go. As will be seen from reference to page 345, item 934 was carried. It being eleven o'clock, shall I report the resolution?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall take up peaceful departments, namely, post office, external affairs, justice, transport, mines and resources, health and welfare, veterans affairs, public works, trade and commerce.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In that order?


Alphonse Fournier: In that order.


George Alexander Drew: That leaves what departments?


Alphonse Fournier: That will leave a few departments, also peaceful I hope. There are nine departments. I think it covers nearly every department that has not been discussed.
It being 11.15 o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following Items were passed In committee of supply]:
DEPARTMENT OF RECONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY A-Department-
381.	Departmental administration-formerly under demobilization and reconversion, $98,180.
382.	Public projects branch-formerly under departmental administration, demobilization and reconversion, $123,380.
383.	Canadian government travel bureau-to assist in promoting the tourist business in Canada, $1,298,277.
Demobilization and reconversion-
384.	Reconstruction projects, subject to allocation by the treasury board, $1,000,000.
385.	To provide for contribution towards cost of subway at Sudbury, Ontario, to implement agreement entered into in 1939 (revote), $100,000.
Housing development, including commitments of previous years-
386.	To provide for payments of amounts owing under guarantees pursuant to item 571 of schedule A to the Appropriation Act No. 5, 1947 (and pursuant to corresponding items in previous appropriation acts) to approved lending institutions in respect of loans made for the purpose of financing the conversion of existing houses into multiple family houses, such payments to be made out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund, $1.
387.	Emergency shelter-administration, $350,000.
B-National film board-
National film board, including the motion picture bureau-
388.	General administration, including technical administration, $249,084.
389.	Production of films, including authority to finance temporarily work performed for other public authorities or other agencies as the public interest requires, $784,000.
390.	Distribution of films, $829,826.
391.	Production and distribution of other visual materials, $121,000.
A-Department-
560. To provide for advances to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the construction and conversion of houses for rent to veterans and married members of the armed forces, including the acquisition and development of land, and the purchase of building materials, $75,000,000.
889.	Trans-Canada highway-to provide for preliminary engineering work and studies in co-operation with the provinces concerned, $25,000.
Demobilization and reconversion-
890.	Reconstruction projects, subject to allocation by the treasury board-further amount required, $1,000,000.
B-National film board, including the motion picture bureau-
891.	Production of films including authority to finance temporarily work performed for other public authorities or other agencies as the public interest requires-further amount required, $10,500.
892.	Distribution of films-further amount required, $56,500.
893.	Production and distribution of other visual materials-further amount required, $6,500.

Thursday, December 8, 1949