1950-03-31

NEWFOUNDLAND


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of special privilege and of interest, I am sure, to all hon. members of the house, may I take a moment to refer to the event of which the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) reminded the house yesterday. Even if he had not done so I am sure hon. members would have felt that today should not pass without our recalling that at midnight tonight Newfoundland will have been a Canadian province for a full year. It seems to me that, without any formal motion, the house would like to extend to tha people of our tenth province greetings and good wishes on this occasion. We have all been delighted at the way in which hon. members from Newfoundland on both sides have contributed to our proceedings. They are at home with the rest of us, and we are at home with them. That, I believe, is the spirit in which Newfoundland has fitted, and will continue to fit, into our Canadian union.


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, this is the 31st day of March, and in a few hours we shall stand on the threshold of Newfoundland's second year as a province of Canada. It may not be inappropriate that at this time I should make brief reference to our first year of partnership with the other provinces of our nation. I want to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for the words which have just fallen from his lips. They constitute an official confirmation of the fact that the other provinces of Canada and its citizens from east to west have received our people and our country as one of themselves.
From 1933 until 1946 Newfoundland experienced what some people were pleased to term a holiday from politics. In the latter year began a period of political warfare of various types which continued unceasingly until June of 1949. We had a national convention election, with all the guerrilla warfare and pitched battles which followed in its wake. We had the campaigns of two referenda. We had a provincial election, and, lastly, a federal election in June last. The net result of these three years of uninterrupted political battle was that we became the
tenth province of the nation, with Liberal ministries returned to power in both federal and provincial fields.
To date, our experience of provincehood has been a short one-too short to measure long-term results with any degree of accuracy. But we can perhaps estimate broadly the prospects for the future, even by the short experience of the last twelve months.
The reception which was accorded to my countrymen and myself upon our first appearance in this honourable assembly of the Commons of Canada was so spontaneous and wholehearted that even the most implacable and irreconcilable anti-confederationist must have been convinced that our position here was not that of unwelcome guests, but that of valued members of the Canadian family of free people extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
During the year, changing world conditions indicated that difficulties lay ahead in many of our foreign markets, and there were indications that our favourable position as sellers, which had continued for a number of years, was disappearing. Outlets for pit props, pulp-wood and sulphite practically dried up, with the resultant substantial unemployment in the industries concerned, as well as in certain other fields which ordinarily profit by their activity. In some sections of the country a short fishery added to our difficulties. In these circumstances the value of Canadian social services in the fields of unemployment insurance, family allowances, and indirectly even old age pensions, has been very substantial, and their beneficial effects are apparent even to the most casual observer.
The prospective problems which our people now face as a result of increased competition from soft currency countries, the devaluation of the pound, and the difficulty of obtaining convertible currency for sales in our European market, are of a character which might prove almost beyond the powers of an independent Newfoundland. Our people are heartened by the knowledge that their negligible bargaining power in the world markets is now supplemented by the weight and influence of this nation.
In the field of modernization of our basic industries there is much to be done. Aids to navigation and the industries of the sea, which are essential to any program in this field, are already under way and in contemplation.

Newfoundland
Extensive research, aimed at increased production at lower costs, is to commence this year and will, I believe, in the foreseeable future, bring revolutionary economic improvement in this ancient and pre-eminently important Newfoundland industry.
Union has inevitably brought some stresses and strains. No reform was ever effected painlessly, but I am quite sure that the net effects thus far have been of great benefit to our people. And the unquestionable desire of the federal government to aid necessary development in every possible way gives confidence in the future, and an assurance that A'e made no mistake in joining the great Canadian family.
I have been a confederationist for nearly forty years. Our struggle to achieve union covered a period of three years of intensive effort against the honest, though mistaken, views of many opponents, and ended in victory but twelve short months ago. The experience of the year which is just expiring has proven to me that, amongst any achievements in my lifetime which may be laid to my credit, my share in bringing about this union stands pre-eminent. In the light of the events of the last twelve months, I am further assured that it is the effort in my career in which I can take the greatest pride.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of Ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself and the members of my party with the expression of good wishes that has been conveyed in this house to Newfoundland on the first anniversary of its becoming a member of this great partnership. I should think that on this occasion every Canadian would wish to extend to the people of Newfoundland the simple but well-understood greeting, "Many happy returns of the day".
We now share with the people of Newfoundland that justifiable feeling of pride which has been earned through centuries of effort and fortitude by the sturdy people who inhabit the oldest British colony in North America. Today one can still see there the souvenirs of these earliest settlements which really laid the foundation for the establishment of our system of free democracy on the North American continent.
Newfoundland, by its geographical position, was from the early days the bulwark of this settlement which gradually spread over the whole of North America. Much has happened since those early days when John Cabot, and others following after him, discovered the great possibilities of that rugged, challenging, and beautiful island. We have passed from the time of the small sailing ships to the present period of extremely fast transportation which now brings Newfoundland within

a few hours of Great Britain and the European continent. It is in that modern world that the adjustments which are inevitable with a new association of this kind must be made. These developments of the past few years offer new opportunities to the people of Newfoundland, as they do to the rest of Canada. As a result of this union I would hope that vast new opportunities will open up for the people of that province, through the employment of their water power and other natural resources.
This marriage between Newfoundland and Canada, like even the happiest marriages, is not without some difficult adjustments. I feel certain that all Canadians who have welcomed Newfoundland so wholeheartedly into this union will express the hope that everything may be done by the government of Canada and the people of Canada to make the people of Newfoundland increasingly happy in this new association.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Although my remarks will not be lengthy, Mr. Speaker, they will be none the less sincere. May I say that we join with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and all other members of the house in expressing our appreciation that at last confederation has been consummated. We hope and believe that the first year of this association has been a happy one, and we feel sure that it augurs well for the future.
The Secretary of State referred to the bitter controversy that occurred in Newfoundland prior to confederation. I was glad yesterday when the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) rose in his place, expressed his appreciation of the union, and introduced no note of partisanship. That, after all, Mr. Speaker, is the manner in which this house carried on the discussions which led to confederation. Differences of opinion there were with regard to details, but it is a happy instance of good will that, in reference to this parliament at least, there was unanimity in welcoming Newfoundland into confederation.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I think it is fitting, Mr. Speaker, that this house should mark the end of the first year of Newfoundland's membership in the Canadian family of provinces and the beginning of their second year. At this moment I do not wish to do more than to join with those who have spoken in wishing the people of Newfoundland well, and to say to them that it has only been about forty-five years since Alberta joined the confederation. We have had our ups and downs; we have had to kick a time or two about the

way things were going; but, all in all, we have been happy that we came in. I am sure that the people of Newfoundland, at the end of their forty-five years, will feel the same way.
Judging from the calibre of the members of this house sent to us by Newfoundland, I would say that the people in Newfoundland in the future will be happy and will be one with us. I think we all feel much like the parents who have finally seen the last member of the family in at night and safely in bed.


Mr. J. H. Harris (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, it has been my happy experience during the last three decades to have associated with me two gentlemen from Newfoundland and their families. The Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) spoke about some basic industry in Newfoundland. I just could not hear what he said, but I thought to myself that perhaps the greatest basic industry of the people there is to produce fine citizens, some of whom come and settle in other parts of Canada.
I want to take this opportunity of mentioning two names. One of them is Eli Frank Benson, a former neighbour of mine, whose dear wife is still alive, although he has passed on; she was the daughter of a Methodist minister. The family are still neighbours of mine. He had been associated with me for some twenty-five years, and did a great deal to help build up the industry of Canada. The other one is Stanley Patrick Martin, also of Newfoundland, whose widow and family are still in my community. These were two men from Newfoundland with whom it was my privilege to be associated. In common with thousands of others they did a great deal to help build up Canada.
I hope that the basic industry to which I referred will continue to produce such men. I am happy to have this opportunity of being associated more and more closely with the province in which is included the constituency of the Secretary of State.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the privilege of being allowed to pay tribute to these two families.



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING


Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Drew be substituted for that of Mr. Browne (St. John's West) on the special committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
31, 1950	1425
House of Commons HOUSE OF COMMONS

Mr. Speaker:: I wish to lay on the table of the house the report of the civil service commission respecting revisions in the classification of officials of the House of Commons.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: May I give notice, Mr. Speaker, that on Monday or Tuesday next I shall move concurrence in the report of the civil service commission concerning the revision of salaries of the officials of this house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Alphonse Fournier: Many hon. members have inquired as to the business of the house next week and when we reconvene on the seventeenth. Monday will be private members' day; Tuesday we shall resume the debate on the budget, and Wednesday will be private members' day. Monday, April 17, will be private members' day.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. A. Blanchette (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: In
reply to an inquiry made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) on March 30 with regard to the accommodation of the air force now at Sea Island, may I say that there are thirty-five married quarters units under construction under contract arranged by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and it is expected that an additional seventy-five units will be allotted to the Sea Island station in the 1950-51 program.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 88, respecting the purchase by Canadian Pacific Railway Company of shares of the capital stock of the Shawinigan Falls Terminal Railway Company.-Mr. Pinard.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries, notice

Inquiries of the Ministry of which I have sent him? Has the minister recently signed a treaty or convention with the United States government with respect to halibut fishing on the Pacific coast? If so, will the minister make a statement as to the provisions of that treaty, and whether it will extend or split the halibut season?


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: The convention signed last week with the United States is not a revision of the existing Pacific halibut fishery convention. The new convention gives to United States and Canadian halibut fishermen reciprocal port privileges on the Pacific coast. These privileges allow Canadian fishermen to land their catches of halibut and sablefish in Alaska or other United States ports, to sell them locally on payment of duty, or transport them in bond to any part of either country. Our fishermen are allowed entry into United States ports also to obtain supplies, repairs and equipment. Similar concessions are granted to the United States halibut fleet in British Columbia ports.
Formerly the two governments had to pass enabling legislation each year to make this possible. The new convention will permit the continuous exchange of these privileges. In addition, the new convention gives Canadian halibut vessels these rights in ports of the United States proper as well as of Alaska. It has nothing to do with a split season.


Mr. Green:: May I ask a supplementary question? Is there not a treaty being negotiated between Canada and the United States which will deal with the halibut season and other related matters? If so, when is it expected that the treaty will be concluded?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: There was a meeting of the halibut commission last fall in Prince Rupert, and also in Alaska. This matter was then discussed, but no agreement was reached. There will be another meeting of the halibut commission shortly, and they may decide then to split the season, or they may not. However, it will be decided by the commission.


Howard Charles Green: There is no new treaty being negotiated?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: There is no new treaty. This is only a port privilege treaty. It is not a halibut treaty or an extension or renewal of treaty.



SEED AND FEED GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Minister


of Agriculture. I ask him the question now because of the approach of the Easter recess. In the drought areas of the west it is being asked whether the federal government intends to do anything to assist the farmers in those areas to procure seed oats, barley and wheat, which are selling at a high price this spring. As the minister knows, the situation on the prairies is serious.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: As I have said on a number of previous occasions, the matter of supplying seed grain to farmers, either by gift or otherwise, has always been considered a responsibility of the provincial governments, both east and west, and there has been no change in that policy. So far as I am aware, the provincial governments of the west are making provision to have seed supplied to farmers.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister permit one more question, having to do with feed oats and barley? Out west the price of feed oats is fifteen cents higher than it is in eastern Canada. The farmers want to know how that comes about, and are asking whether the government will do anything to give them similar advantages in the prices being paid for feed oats and barley.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is just possible that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who handles the marketing of grain, may have some information which I have not. But I am not aware that farmers in the west are paying more for oats and barley than they are in the east. It is a fact that freight is paid on grain from Fort William east, but I was not aware that that lowers the price that they are actually paying for it in the east as compared with what the western farmer pays. It lowers the price as compared with what they would have to pay if the freight was not paid.


John George Diefenbaker: The complaint I have is that the western farmer is paying a higher price.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Just to clear up that one point, if I may, Mr. Speaker, the western farmer buys at the street price in his locality. To the street price must be added the freight to Fort William. Therefore I am quite sure my hon. friend is mistaken when he says that either oats or barley sell at higher prices in western Canada than in eastern Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: I am talking about grains for feed purposes.


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



DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
423. Departmental administration, $482,875.
Mr. Ross (Souris):: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. Perhaps in introducing these estimates, Mr. Chairman, I should make a statement. In doing so it will be my purpose to review briefly the trading position of the past year, 1949, and to give an analysis of prospects for the year 1950 as they are seen by the Department of Trade and Commerce.
A discussion of trade cannot be wholly separated from a discussion of the economic position of Canada. But as a good deal has been said about our economic position, particularly by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech and in earlier speeches, I will touch on the economy of the country only to the extent necessary to explain the trade position.
I need not tell hon. members that the past year has been one of extreme and violent world changes and adjustments. We have seen nations disappear behind the iron curtain. An example is the great nation of China, which was an important customer and supplier of Canada. Other nations have had changes of government which have not been to the benefit of Canadian trade. The shortage of dollars has caused the employment of restrictive practices, the result being prohibitions, quotas, and various arbitrary methods of cutting down dollar expenditures. We have been faced with a lack of convertibility of currencies, and this today is one of the serious obstacles to a free exchange of goods.
Another consideration has been the shift of economic power from Europe to North America, which has been important in dictating the conditions of movement of trade between North America and other countries. However, in spite of all these difficulties, the past year has been a prosperous one. Our economy has been riding pretty well on the crest of the wave. We can look back to 1949 as a very prosperous year for Canada.
I think it is remarkable that while other countries have been experiencing social and economic upheavals incidental to post-war . readjustment, Canada has been almost totally unscathed during the reconversion period. I think it is too much to hope that we can complete our own adjustment fully without receiving a few scars, but up to the moment I think we can count ourselves as the most fortunate 55946-92
Supply-Trade and Commerce nation on earth in having escaped any serious difficulties in bringing about the adjustment from war to peace.
In discussing the future situation it is my purpose to give a fair balance as between the favourable factors and the unfavourable factors. As the Irish might put it, I intend to give a balanced statement, with the weight of the balance on the side of the unfavourable factor. I am not pessimistic about the future, but, as always, I shall try to give the committee my own outlook, and the reasons for it, without introducing undue optimism into the statement.
Let me give first a summary of trade for 1949. The exports for that year were very close to the peacetime high. As a matter of fact there was a drop in exports amounting to about three per cent of our total. Imports were about the same as in the previous year. We had a favourable balance of trade of about $250 million during 1949.
It is more and more the tendency, in discussing Canada's external trade, to discuss it in separate compartments. Perhaps I might first discuss our trade with the United States. That trade last year amounted to about $3,500 million, which is by far the largest trade between any two other countries in the world. As a matter of fact it is larger than the trade of the United States with any other four countries in the world.
Our exports to the United States last year were about the same as in the previous year, standing at about $1,500 million. Our imports from the United States increased by about $160 million. One contributing factor to that -and there are several-was the relaxation of restrictions that had been put on when we found it necessary to correct our dollar exchange position. But a very important contributing factor was the recession of business in the United States, which occurred about the middle of that year. Many items which up to that time had been in short supply became available from the United States in ample supply; as Canada was carrying out a very large investment program, a good many orders that had been placed previously were shipped in over the period of two or three months, and a great increase in our trade for those months appears in the statistics.
As I have said, however, we sold to the United States last year $1,524 million worth of goods, and we bought from that country $1,952 million worth of goods. In other words, we sent to the United States about fifty per cent of our exports, and bought from the United States about seventy per cent of our imports.
The balance of payments position on account of the larger imports without an

Supply-Trade and Commerce increase in exports worsened by about $200 million, to which dividend payments' from Canada contributed. So that our balance of payments position with the United States was about $200 million worse for 1949 than it had been for 1948. In other words, our adverse balance of payments position rose from about $400 million in 1948 to $600 million in 1949.
When we turn to the balance of our trade with the rest of the world we find the position reversed. Instead of being on the same side as our overseas customers vis-a-vis the United States, we find that in our overseas trade we are on the same side as the United States vis-a-vis most of the world.
Taking, for simplicity, our total merchandise trade exclusive of the United States, we had in 1949 an export surplus of $690 million and a current balance-of-payments credit of some $800 million. About fifteen per cent of our overseas trade was with the dollar countries of Latin America. That presented no dollar problem. But for the balance of our trade we had to meet the difficulty of selling in dollars as against other countries selling in sterling. The fact that we were able to maintain our position in overseas markets is, I suggest, rather remarkable, taking into account all the unfavourable circumstances that faced our trade in those markets.
When we turn to the United Kingdom we find that our exports to that country actually rose $20 million above the level of 1948. The year 1949 was in fact the year of greatest exports to the United Kingdom of any peacetime year in history. I call that particularly to the attention of the committee, because, from statements which have been made during the past year in the house, one would almost assume that our market in the United Kingdom was gone forever. The fact of the matter is that our exports to England actually increased during last year.
Our total overseas exports, however, fell by some $90 million, or less than six per cent of our overseas trade. The reason for that was that some of our trade in the previous year had been unusual, in that it had included replacement of capital equipment. There were large items such as locomotives and railway rolling stock shipped to India, Egypt and South Africa. There was the sale of ships to overseas buyers. Those unusual items more than account for the drop in trade. Had these capital replacement items been cancelled out, our exports to overseas markets would have been about the same as in the previous year.
Our imports from the United Kingdom were slightly higher than in the previous year. Determined efforts are being made to step up
tMr. Howe.]
imports from the United Kingdom, but the program is necessarily long-range, and we expect much more decided improvement in that direction during 1950 than we were able to achieve in 1949.
To sum up our trade picture in two sentences, in 1949 our exports to the United States were maintained in spite of a recession there, while our imports were increased, largely for productive and new investment purposes. Our overseas exports fell about six per cent, and while there was an increase in imports from the United Kingdom, there was a small over-all decline in total imports from overseas countries. Our adverse balance of trade with the United States consequently increased significantly, while our large favourable balance with the rest of the world was slightly reduced.
Turning now to 1950, we expect that our exports to the United States will rise substantially, and we expect our imports from that country to fall. The trade returns for the first and second months of this year support that view. In January and February our exports to the United States were up $38 million and our imports were down $15 million, improving our trade balance with the United States by $53 million. We regard that as a trend likely to continue throughout the year, for various reasons which I need not go into, one of which is the increased production of exportable commodities in Canada, such as petroleum and iron ore.
We expect some drop in our exports to the United Kingdom and to the rest of the world. We have not been able to measure the extent of the drop. In the first two months of the year there was a drop in exports to England of $20 million, but it is not definite at the moment whether that fairly indicates the trend. The drop of $20 million in January and February was accounted for almost entirely by lower shipments of wheat. The reason shipments of wheat were lower was that we found it impossible to deliver wheat in sufficient quantity at the seaboard to meet commitments and had to ask the government of the United Kingdom to permit us to postpone shipments of a substantial amount of wheat. That wheat will come back into the trade figures in April and May, and I am not sure that the drop of $20 million in January and February is particularly significant.
We know that the government of the United Kingdom has in hand a belt-tightening _ program designed to save dollars and we are pretty certain to feel the effect of that program over the new year. On the other hand we believe that there will be an increase in imports from the United Kingdom as a result

of the current dollar-sterling effort and in consequence of efforts that have been made already.
So far as the rest of the world is concerned, the situation in Argentina is disturbing to the point where we have been able to trade very little. Dollar markets have been practically closed in that country. Trade with the rest * of South America continues on a fairly stable basis, and the probabilities are that exports to overseas countries, excluding the United Kingdom and the sterling area generally, will be on about the same level as those of the past year.
During the past year we took in various trade discussions, including the tripartite talks in Washington having to do with trade between the United Kingdom and the sterling area generally, the United States and Canada. We will also take part in another trade discussion at Torquay to follow up the trade discussions at Geneva and Annecy. It is well to keep in mind that the trade discussions at Geneva played a great part in opening up markets in the United States and making possible the considerable increase of exports to that country. Some forty nations will meet at Torquay in September of this year, and we hope that meeting will result in a still further lowering of trade barriers between participating nations.
As a trade promotional effort I may mention the international trade fair to be held once again in Canada at the end of May. This trade fair has been most helpful, particularly to our overseas customers in opening up Canadian markets for their goods. This year there will be a considerable increase in the displays from abroad. Through the agency of the trade fair I think the department is doing useful work in promoting the exchange of goods in a field where effort of that kind is badly needed.
Canadian trade at the present time reveals a number of cross-currents and divergent trends which may well seem confusing. In fact a good many can be traced to the same source- the chronic world shortage of United States dollars. There have been two outstanding considerations in the development of Canadian trade. One is the over-all growth of both exports and imports has increased twofold and threefold in value in the last decade. The other is the increased proportion of our increased trade which we now carry on with the United States. There has been an increase from about fifty per cent in our total world trade in 1939 to 60 per cent of current world trade.
We find that we now have, and I think we can expect to continue to have, a good market for staple products which Canada traditionally
Supply-Trade and Commerce exports, such as wheat, flour, metals, lumber, pulp and paper. These markets seem to be in excellent condition, and we do not expect any particular difficulty with such products. Canadian manufacturers are finding it easier to sell their manufactured goods in the United States than in Europe. I believe that our sales in Europe of manufactured goods depend largely on the amount of effort that is being put behind the selling. During my recent visit to Europe I met vigorous representatives of one of our large farm implement companies in Rome, in Paris, in Belgium and in Holland. As a result of the efforts being put forth by that company its sales in Europe have risen greatly. Because of that kind of selling that company is now the third largest manufacturer of agricultural implements in the world.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Was that from the Canadian plant?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I refer to a Canadian company with foreign subsidiaries, but Canadian exports play a large part in selling on the continent. That company has risen from twelfth place before the war to third place now in the list of farm implement manufacturers in the world.
I am glad to say that in all four capitals I met representatives of the government's own Polymer Corporation. That company is operating at full capacity, and has been since the war, largely as the result of a very active sales program. More than one-third of the rubber produced at that plant is sold in the United Kingdom and in Europe. That, I think, is worth noting at a time when synthetic rubber is being produced greatly in excess of demand and when the price of synthetic rubber is higher than the price of natural rubber. In spite of such handicaps this government-owned corporation is capable of carrying out a selling effort which is disposing of its output, more than one-third of which is going into markets which our manufacturers consider the most difficult in the world.


Major James William Coldwell: A pretty good recommendation for public enterprise.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, this is different; this is my enterprise. I could give other examples of manufacturers who are selling their products in Europe. They would all be manufacturers who are willing to spend money and effort on selling programs in Europe, and willing to send their top executives there to do the selling rather than third-string sales agents.
Canada must battle for agricultural markets, and in that battle Canada and the United States are handicapped in competing with producers in sterling countries. The dollar

Supply-Trade and Commerce shortage plays its part but there is no indication that the markets are not sufficient to absorb Canadian products as well as those of sterling countries.


Mr. Fulton:: What about apples?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a bright remark. We are talking billions, and my hon. friends speaks of apples, which incidentally are hardly food. Their main content is water. However, Canadian food products have an excellent position in foreign markets. Our wheat, in particular, is outstanding in quality. It is the preferred wheat in every country in the world. The grades are reliable, the protein content is high, and I have no particular worry about being able to sell Canada's wheat crop.
Our sales are being guided by our Canadian trade commissioner service abroad. We have able men in every country whose duty it is to warn us of market changes and to give us advice on market opportunities. I believe it is remarkable that when one market has been lost through restrictions or for other reasons, these trade commissioners have been able to find outlets for the same products in other markets. The world is wide and we know from experience that the loss of one market does not necessarily mean that no alternate market can be opened up.
One very striking fact is in evidence; the seller's market is over. Today all markets are buyer's markets, and in every market the Canadian exporter meets tough competition. I am glad to say that our price structure in Canada is such that we are well able to meet that competition wherever we encounter it, in the United States or in world markets abroad. It seems to me that a buyer's market is a normal market, and I am not particularly disturbed because of the fact that we are now in a market where the seller really has to work to dispose of his products.
A great deal has been said about Marshall plan dollars. They are not nearly such an important factor in selling today as many would suppose. It is generally considered that to sell in the sterling market, or in any foreign currency markets, there must be Marshall plan dollars. That is not so. The supply of free dollars is increasing all around the world, and each year we are becoming less dependent upon the Marshall plan. Of course that was the purpose of the Marshall plan-to rebuild the economies of the recipient countries so that by the end of 1952 that kind of support would no longer be necessary. A little later I shall say something about the Marshall plan as I saw it in operation at its headquarters in Paris, but I can say that only a very small proportion of our overseas trade

today depends upon Marshall plan dollars, and much of that trade would be carried on if there were no such dollars. It is well to remember that overseas buyers do not purchase Canadian goods just because they love Canada. That may be a factor, but the main reason is that they need the goods. If the goods are needed badly enough, I think there are very few countries that are not able to finance necessary purchases at this time.
I might say something about the gross national product-that is, the value of everything produced in Canada in a certain year. I know our gross national product has been mentioned on other occasions, but its total amount is very closely related to the volume of our exports. Last year the gross national product in Canada rose to $16,000 million, being up $500 million from 1948. For 1950 we are forecasting an increase of between $200 and $300 million in the value of our national product. It is interesting to run back over the years to see how that value has increased:
Gross
national
product
(billions)
1926	 $ 5-2
1929		 6 0
1933	 3-5
1939	  5-6
1948		 15-5
1949		 16 0
1950	(forecast)	 16-3


Mr. Wright:: Has the minister the figures showing the physical volume?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; I shall give those in a moment. First I should like to give the value of our production per capita-that is, the value produced for every man, woman and child
in Canada:
1926		 $ 550
1929	  600
1933	    330
1939	   500
1948	 1,200
1950 (forecast)	 1,210
In terms of volume-that is, reducing values to the basis of 1926 and taking that year as 100-the figures were:
Gross
national
product
(billions)
1929	   $H5
1933	  82
1939	  124
1948	  205
1949	  211
1950	(forecast)	 214
On the same basis, the volume per capita went up from 100 in 1926 to 152 in 1950.


Mr. Brooks:: That is not per capita, like the dollar value?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, the figures are production in billions of dollars. Taking 100 for the year 1926, the per capita figure is 109 for 1929; 73 for 1933; 105 for 1939; 151 for 1948, and the forecast for 1950 is 152.
We also expect a substantial rise in public investment in 1950. Investment, of course, stands side by side with our export trade, as a significant factor in the strength of our economy. I do not seem to have the figures for the increase, but I believe last year the total capital investment was approximately $3,400 million, and the prediction for 1950 is that it will be about $3,600 million. We expect 1950 to be the greatest construction year Canada has ever experienced.
It is interesting to note that since the end of the war there has been a total investment in capital equipment-that is in buildings, machinery and production	equipmentamounting to $11,700 million up to the end of 1949. In other words, Canada has invested in plant and equipment practically the amount of Canada's total national debt in the five postwar years beginning with 1945.


Major James William Coldwell: Can the minister tell us how much of that is public and how much private investment?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am afraid I have not that break-down with me today. I have a few notes before me, and I am trying to pick out significant figures as we go along. I will give the hon. member those figures later.
The trend for 1950 is towards a larger proportion in business properties, hospitals and government investment generally. A smaller proportion is going into factories and machinery than was the case in 1949.
One thing that has affected the situation this year, and will continue to do so in 1950, is the drop in agricultural production in 1949. Owing to weather conditions, there was an over-all physical production drop of about ten per cent. The wheat crop was about 26 million bushels less, yet there were 3-4 million acres more in production. Approximately 2-6 million acres had been taken out of other grains, and this, coupled with unfavourable weather conditions, reduced the coarse grain and flaxseed crop by 115 million bushels. The hay crop was about one-quarter less, putting pressure on our dairy producers. This will have its effect on exports in the early part of 1950, because, owing to these short crops, we have not as much to export as we would have had if the crop had been normal.
I should say that our forecasts for 1950 are based on average crops rather than on the subnormal crop that we had last year. If this year's crop is subnormal, the estimates
Supply-Trade and Commerce will be too optimistic; if the crop is above normal, our estimates will be too pessimistic. In referring to agriculture generally, the fivefold increase in farm machinery sales in Canada from $52 million in 1939 to $239 million in 1948 and $255 million in 1949 hardly indicates an agricultural industry that is unduly depressed.
So far as the basic industries of Canada are concerned, the construction industry will have its biggest year in 1950. The newsprint industry is running at capacity for the present, and the indications are that it will do so throughout the year. The pulp market was soft during 1949, but has now strengthened, and Canada's pulp industry is running at full capacity. Indications are that this is likely to continue throughout the year. The lumber industry is in a prosperous condition. To illustrate how conditions change, I may say that last November the lumber industry felt itself to be in a serious condition. I believe that was mentioned in the house. Delegations from both the east and west waited upon the government, pointing out the serious conditions facing that industry. Today, however, the lumber industry is booked to capacity. I am told that industry has sufficient orders to keep it running at capacity for the remainder of the year.
To indicate the position of the west coast lumber industry, tenders were asked by the United Kingdom for 132 million feet of lumber. The west coast mills were unable to quote on the full order, not having unbooked capacity. The United Kingdom fortunately decided to extend the time of delivery and Canadian mills can thus quote on a substantial portion of the order. So far as the east coast is concerned, last autumn we were endeavouring to get the United Kingdom to call for tenders for $2,500,000 worth of eastern lumber from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and eastern Quebec. The call for tenders was delayed, but was finally issued in January and tenders were sent in for about $6 million worth of lumber. Instead of buying the $2,500,000 worth of lumber, the United Kingdom bought the entire $6 million worth. This will keep the eastern lumber industry booked with all it can handle, in addition to supplying the normal United States market and the domestic markets for the remainder of the year.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I had intended to ask the minister a question along that line, but I should like to ask about the pit prop industry in New Brunswick. Can the minister give any information about it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The pit prop industry is not going to be the industry it has been in the

Supply-Trade and Commerce past. When I was in France I happened to pass a considerable forest that had been burned over. The timber from that forest was being cut up for pit props. I asked the man in charge where the pit props were going, and he said to the United Kingdom.
Pit props are the lowest form of lumber that can be cut, and it is inevitable that those using them will get them in the cheapest market. Taking transportation costs into' consideration, the cheapest market is not likely to be Canada, although I understand small quantities of pit props are being sold. The pit prop industry, as we knew it during the war years, was an abnormal industry. I am afraid it will never reappear on that scale in the foreseeable future.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: At one time the minister suggested we might get a market in Turkey; has he any information on that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Negotiations are still under way. We have had a market in Turkey, and I think its purchases this year will be about on the same scale as the purchases last year.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Nothing definite?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nothing closed.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister comment on the attempt which is being made by the lumbermen in Washington and Oregon to have restrictions placed against the importation of Canadian west coast lumber into the United States? We read articles about these men demanding this and that, and I was wondering how serious that attempt is.


Clarence Decatur Howe: 
Major James William Coldwell: In Europe?
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Clarence Decatur Howe: In Europe, yes. With that program is coupled the lowering of trade barriers and removal of restrictions.


Howard Charles Green: Does that include the pound?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is hoped that it will include the pound. The British treasury is not fully in agreement, but would seem to be coming into line. The program is hardly workable without the pound. The objective is a program that will make the pound and European currencies freely convertible. You might take the offhand view that this will mean a European bloc, and that trade with America will be influenced adversely. I do not agree *with that view. I put that hypothesis before the officials in Paris and it seemed to me that their answers were satisfactory. They seem to have provided safeguards against inflation, and for preventing that market getting out of balance with our own market. It seemed to me that they had satisfactory answers to the questions that I asked in that regard; and I came away convinced that such an arrangement is a logical first step toward the return of convertibility of currencies throughout the world.
I found that the countries I visited were becoming less dependent on Marshall aid, and more and more tending in the direction of the return of trade to private enterprise. In Belgium wheat and coarse grains are about the only commodities that are now handled by state agencies. In Italy and France more commodities are being handled by state agencies, but the list of those commodities is being cut down from time to time. There is a return in Europe to private trading, which I think is most favourable to Canadian trade. We in Canada find it easier to do business with private traders, who are concerned only with price and quality, than we do with governments that have other factors in mind.
I found the people in all four countries that I visited were working hard. That was particularly noticeable in driving about the country districts. Every square inch of land was being cultivated. Those who were working the land seemed to be cheerful and happy. Food was plentiful. There were no food restrictions in the countries that I visited. There was plenty of food at reasonable prices. Each of the countries had a population problem. The growth of population has outstripped the productive capacity of the soil. That fact is a worry in all of these countries. Wherever I went I met a discussion of the possibilities of immigration to Canada. We in North America, with plenty of land, are bound to give serious attention to that problem.


Howard Charles Green: Did the minister find that in the United Kingdom, too?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not visit the United Kingdom. On the day I left Canada an election date was fixed in the United Kingdom. On the day I left Europe the results of the election were known. I thought perhaps the timing was unfavourable for a visit from a Canadian cabinet minister. I had wanted to go to England, but I cancelled that visit.
The threat of communist domination, which was very evident and very serious during my visit in 1947, seems to have been reduced to manageable proportions. There are still large numbers of communists in France and Italy, but they are clearly in the minority. The dividing line has been drawn, and, assuming that the productiveness in those countries can be kept up, provided there is no shortage of food, I think the fear of communist domination in the four countries that I visited was much less than during my visit in 1947. I came back from that earlier visit feeling that there was a possibility that communism would sweep western Europe, as it has swept eastern Europe. I came back this time with a very strong feeling that that would not happen.
I must say that I never had a more enjoyable holiday. My wife and I combined a good rest with most enjoyable contacts with old and new friends in Europe. I hope that I may be privileged to repeat the holiday under similar circumstances before many years go by.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that all hon. members have listened for the past hour with intense interest to the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Those of us who have spent some years in the house have come to know him as a great optimist. He certainly has been optimistic about Canada's future, at least for the next year. I am quite sure that every hon. member, irrespective of where he sits, hopes that that optimism will be fully realized, and even more.
The minister spoke on the matter of trade and economics and said that they could not very well be separated. I am sure we agree on that point. He spoke on the lack of convertibility of foreign exchange. That is one of the very great problems of this nation today. There is not much argument about that. He dealt at some length with our trade with the United States, and said that it was greater than that of any other two countries in the world. I accept the statement he made. He said that 50 per cent of our exports were to the United States, and 70 per cent of our imports were from that country, and that our adverse trade balance increased from $400 million in 1948 to some $600 million in 1949. He also pointed out that the manufacturers in Canada found it easier to sell in the United States of America than in Europe.

I am sure that most of us are very much concerned about the United States market. The minister also said that there was no trouble in selling Canada's wheat crop. That will also interest very many of us. May I add that the great nation to the south of us produces many of the same types of surpluses that we in Canada do. Especially is that true of agricultural production. Therefore we do have, as the minister said, very many of the same problems, in the matter of looking after foreign markets.
He also said that, as a barometer of agricultural prosperity in this country, farm implement sales had increased fivefold in the past year. They had increased from about $52 million to $230 million. I am sure that anybody who knows our farmers, particularly our western farmers, knows that they are great spenders. If you give them the money they will see that there is prosperity, and money moving in this country. That has been their tradition in Canada up to date.
The minister might have added that the cost of farm implements had increased 12 per cent in Canada during the past year. The estimated requirements of farm implements in Canada in the coming year, which the minister has been so optimistic about, are still over $200 million, and farm implements are still increasing in price. Of the Canadian farm implements 95 per cent are manufactured in eastern Canada. I know we cannot discuss in detail one factor which is going to enter very effectively into the rising cost, namely, freight rates. Increases have taken place in freight rates, and arguments are going on now. That will add considerably to the cost of farm implements. Of the estimated requirements for 1950, 60 per cent of the implements are required in the prairie provinces. Therefore we shall have quite an added cost over last year on these important commodities. That in itself is quite an item.
Our farmers, even sometimes when they have not the wherewithal to purchase these implements, are great buyers. They do try to keep up to date in modern equipment in so far as possible, and they should.
The Canadian people, despite all of this optimism, have a bit of fear about the future. I hope that that fear will not be realized. Some of us have it today. The Canadian people are now realizing that our trade is slipping, to some extent. In 1949 our over-all external trade dropped by about $87 million. In the first two months of this year indications are that our over-all trade was $22 million down, and our trade with the commonwealth $45 million down. I know I cannot discuss this, but measures have been proposed in this house to try to bring about a

trade conference, which I think would be all to the good for our primary products. But the government defeated the proposal.
During the past year we have been very fortunate in that the Marshall aid of the United States-and the minister made some reference to that plan-has helped us. Money was supplied to the extent of several hundred million dollars by the United States, especially in order that Canadian wheat could be supplied to the United Kingdom. Had this all been done otherwise, our trade position with the United Kingdom would have been very different from that set out by the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


James Arthur Ross: Wheat could be delivered to them, involving several hundred millions of dollars of Marshall aid money.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Marshall aid money was applied to Canadian wheat; but we would have sold our wheat, whether it had been or not. Marshall aid money for wheat did not help Canada particularly. It did help Great Britain's dollar balance with other countries. The dollar balance with Canada was taken care of in other ways, without Marshall aid.


Mr. Graydon:: It didn't do you any harm.


James Arthur Ross: No, it did not do the
minister's position any harm at all. That plan was made available to Great Britain to take much of our production, and much more wheat than anything else. That is what happened.
Canada is-and we will all agree, including the minister-a great exporting country. Our prosperity certainly depends upon export markets abroad. I pointed out that while we are deeply interested in United States markets, yet the United States and Canada produce many of the same type of surpluses. Therefore we both have to look abroad for trade.
I have here the December 10 issue of Foreign Trade, a most interesting journal put out by the minister's department. On the first page I find an article which, because of its interest, I shall read into the record. It deals not only with the export but with the domestic situation, and says:
A reduction in Canadian export volume from the peak year of the war did not reflect corresponding reductions in production. It was due in part to increased domestic consumption. The Canadian agricultural economy, at the present time, was producing at a level that met the effective demand, and in some commodities tended to exceed it. But, the effective demand was restricted by monetary difficulties and trade restrictions, rather than lack of hunger, when the dollar supply was taken into consideration.
"The importance of agricultural exports in our economy places Canada in a unique position," the
31, 1950	1435
Supply-Trade and Commerce minister declared. "Products of farm origin, while below wartime levels, still represent a substantial part of total exports, and of these wheat alone accounts for about 15 per cent. Canadian farmers, therefore, are still vitally concerned with world markets and are fearful lest monetary difficulties and other trade obstructions deny them entry to their natural market, which is the market of Great Britain. We are the nearest of all countries which supplied them in wartime. We still want to supply them until their needs are satisfied. If we did that, we would not have any marketing problem in those products which they required from us during the war.
"During recent years, as much as 44 per cent of our farm production has entered export trade. To take wheat again, as an example, about 75 per cent of our production has been sold abroad. Thus, in relation to some other exporting countries, Canada has an economy which is particularly dependent upon exports; both from the point of view of the volume and the consequent reaction of Canadian prices to changes in world prices.
"We welcomed the statement of the United States representative that they are anxious to put part of the area now in grain back into grass. The economy of Canada would benefit by that being done at an early date. It is essential for us to export 75 per cent of our wheat. Unless our exports can be maintained, we cannot continue to purchase large quantities of goods from the United States and the United Kingdom. We should purchase from other countries, including those two, such goods as they can produce at lower costs than they can be produced in Canada.
On that point, I think there should be more co-operation between the departments of our own federal government. It was pointed out during the discussion of the estimates of one department, which amounted to $420 million, that the purchase of one hundred F-86A aircraft had been recommended. I am not technically qualified on the subject, but that recommendation had been made. True enough, they were to be produced from a plant in Canada, financed to some extent by American capital. It was pointed out however that the Vampire machine, which has features which make it preferable, could be purchased from the United Kingdom for one-third of the amount asked for the F-86A.
I am not going to discuss the details, but if that suggestion is correct, then we see here where a saving could have been made, and our relations with the United Kingdom fostered, so that our trade might be helped in the matter of disposing of our own agricultural production. I am citing only that one example, but I do suggest there should be closer co-operation between departments of government in making purchases, so as to create a better export trade market.
Apparently there are different points of view held by different ministers of the federal government concerning the methods which should be followed. We heard the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) state that, while he was not speaking for the government, he was setting forth a plan for barter deals to boost
1438	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Trade and Commerce Canada's trade, and to sell Canada's food and other primary surplus production in the nondollar area. That is a plan which certainly should be given some consideration. He said it was his personal view, and it was evident that there is a great difference of opinion within the government on such matters. But even the fact of a minister of the government giving it serious consideration is of importance.
Many of our manufacturing and assembly people in Canada enjoy far greater protection under the federal government today than they have had at any time in the history of Canada. This comes about because of controls, taxation and the like. Many large industries now enjoy greater protection, as a result of federal government plans, than they have ever enjoyed. This has an important effect, because it all enters into the cost of production of the primary producer, and into the cost of living with which the consumers are faced.
When discussing another matter on March 27, I set out a list of figures, and they may be found at page 1168 of Hansard. At that time I was quoting from the Winnipeg Free Press of March 20, in which had been set out a list of articles, many of them very important not only to the farm producers but to the people generally throughout the nation. These figures dealt with an automobile which cost 20 per cent more in Winnipeg than in Minneapolis. Then there was an article which appeared on March 21 that dealt with many electrical fixtures, some of which cost as much as 40 per cent more in Winnipeg than they did in Minneapolis, despite the fact that both these cities are centrally located in the neighbouring countries, and are about the same distance from the great manufacturing areas.
In my view that great difference should not exist, in view of the degree of co-operation we profess to have with the nation to the south of us. As I said, I do not believe there was ever a time since confederation when certain of these industries had greater protection than they have today. Controls, taxes and embargoes applied by the government have added to the cost of agricultural products, and to the cost of living in this nation.
When the Minister of Trade and Commerce is discussing his estimates I would ask him to explain why this situation should continue during these times. I also placed on Hansard some figures having to do with raw products -livestock and other such commodities- sold on the same date by agricultural producers at Winnipeg and, in the United States, at Minneapolis and St. Paul. Those figures may be found at page 801 of Hansard.

It is a strange fact that in practically all of these instances the United States farmer received a great deal more for his raw product than did the Canadian farmer; yet when he came to buy a processed article, in most cases it could be bought cheaper in Minneapolis than in Winnipeg. Surely that situation requires some explanation to the consumer. It is a condition which should not be allowed to exist at this time, particularly in view of the measure of co-operation which we are told exists between these two great nations. I would ask the minister to give the committee some explanation as to why a situation of that kind does exist, because it is a matter of some importance.
The point is made, in the article from the minister's department to which I have referred, that it is essential to the economy of Canada that we export 75 per cent of our wheat. It is essential not only for the people who produce that wheat but, as indicated by economists, in the Sirois report of the 30's the production of wealth in the form of wheat and other grains has more to do with saving our economic system in Canada than anything else. There is not only the production of wheat, there is its transportation, financing, storage and the many other ramifications of this industry during the year after the crop is grown and delivered to the elevator. It is most important to the economy of this country as well as to those who produce the grain itself.
It is realized by many people that the powers of the Canadian wheat board expire on July 31, 1950. At the opening of this session I asked if the policy with regard to the handling and disposal of the 1950 wheat crop would be made known before the Easter recess so that our farmers would have that information before seeding time. The minister has stated that floor prices for oats and barley will be announced before seeding time, and I now ask him to state whether an initial payment will be made for the 1950 wheat crop which commences on August 1, 1950, in order that those who are going to seed may be given some guidance. I think that is most important.
While I am talking about the Canadian wheat board may I say that I think everybody in the house knows where I stand about it.
I have always favoured the Canadian wheal board, and I am sure that with the feeling of this house in general it will be continued.
I do not know what powers will be granted to it or anything of that nature, but, as I say, with the feeling of the house I am sure

the board will be continued. I hope that a policy in this regard will be announced as soon as possible.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It will be announced next week.


James Arthur Ross: The initial price of wheat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It will be announced on
Wednesday.


James Arthur Ross: Supply-Trade and Commerce that oleomargarine is going to put them out of business. It is the responsibility of this government to give these people a lead as to whether they should retain their herds and continue in dairy production or go out of business. I should like the Minister of Trade and Commerce to follow up what the Minister of Agriculture said on this matter because I am sure these people would appreciate a lead on this.
There are other matters that concern the manufacturers and processors of this country but there are colleagues of mine better able than I to deal with these. I am interested in the primary producers' point of view because, as I have often pointed out in this house, the basic industry of almost all nations, and certainly of Canada, is agriculture. The prosperity of agriculture has a definite influence on the prosperity of all Canadians, no matter what their vocation or calling may be. That is very important, and should not be overlooked. As I say, I know that others more conversant with the manufacturing and processing of these articles will have a great deal to say and many questions to ask the minister. I want to thank him for stating that he will announce these initial prices next Tuesday, to give a lead to our farmers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think I said Wednesday.


James Arthur Ross: In any case it will be before we adjourn for the Easter recess?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


James Arthur Ross: I appreciate that very much on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of producers who will be vitally interested. I hope the minister will explain, even if I am not here, the great loss caused to the public treasury by the operation of the government elevator at Saskatoon, as well as the storage charges for flax in respect to the carry-over from 1948 to 1949 at the head of the lakes,


Mr. Argue:: I was glad to hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce state that on Wednesday of next week he will announce the initial prices for wheat, oats and barley for the coming year. I asked a question in that regard some time ago, and I am happy to learn that this announcement is to be made.
While I agree with everything the hon. member for Souris has said about the wheat board, I did not notice whether he said-he might have omitted it inadvertently-that he would support the wheat board as the sole marketing agency for wheat during the coming year. As far as I am concerned I support the idea of having the wheat board handle all the farmers' wheat, oats, barley and other grains.

I hope the minister will find it possible to announce an initial price for wheat not less than the prevailing initial price of $1.75 per bushel. Further, I hope he will be able to announce a further five-year pool period, and that the present initial price will prevail throughout. Should the minister announce an initial price for wheat of not less than $1.75 per bushel, basis Fort William, as I hope he will, I suggest that the initial prices for oats and barley should be increased. If the initial price for wheat is $1.75, certainly the initial prices of 90 cents for barley and 61J cents for oats are altogether too low. As a rough rule I believe barley should net the farmer two-thirds of the price he receives for wheat at his local elevator, and that the price of oats should be half the price of wheat. The minister will know the exact figures that would bring about that kind of relationship, but I would say that barley should be in the neighbourhood of $1.20 a bushel and oats about 90 cents, basis No. 1 feed Fort William.
I very much enjoyed listening to the minister this afternoon. He did not seem quite as optimistic as on other occasions in the past. During the first part of his speech in particular, he did give a more balanced picture of many of the factors entering into our export trade. I am glad he had the opportunity of making his trip to Europe; I was happy to hear his report this afternoon, and I am pleased to see him looking so hale and hearty after his journey. I hope Canada's trade in 1950 will be as good as it was in 1949, if not better. I do not want to make any dark predictions as to what will be our trade position. I believe the minister was wise in not attempting to emphasize the disturbing factors too much, because if he had done so he might have caused some panic in this country. At the same time, as far as Canada is concerned, I feel there is a growing pattern of trade that has some dangers in it. We are now, to an ever-increasing extent, tying both our export and import trade to that of the United States; and when we do that, prosperity or otherwise in Canada depends very largely upon conditions prevailing in the United States at any given time. This afternoon the minister stated that early last summer there was a recession in the United States. A recurrence of recession there could have very serious implications as far as Canada is concerned. Many of the things we produce have to compete with commodities produced in the United States; and while I would hope that trade throughout the world will be expanded, I would hope still more that we might see an expansion of trade with Europe, because I believe the policies being followed by many of those governments

would be more likely to bring continuing high levels of trade and prosperity to Canada than we would achieve by tying our trade as we are more and more to that of the United States.
The minister went on to state that he expected exports to the United Kingdom from Canada this year to be down. He also said that the shortage of dollars is causing many European countries to adopt restrictive trade practices. He further stated that perhaps Canada would be able to come through the present period of readjustment with only a few scars. I believe that statement is correct. I only hope that the sections of Canada that get the scars will not be those sections that have always gotten the scars in the past, when any readjustment was taking place. I refer in particular to the industry of agriculture. While our export trade with Europe may be good on balance, nevertheless certain sections of agriculture have suffered and are suffering because of a falling off in the European market. The other evening the Minister of Finance stated, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce said today, that while our markets in Europe for grain have continued at a high level, there has been a drop in the markets for animal products, timber and certain other commodities.
In the world as we have it today I do not believe we should have to worry about agricultural surpluses. I noticed what the minister said in reference to European countries whose populations were increasing, and his statement that they would have a continuing and growing problem of feeding those populations. Then he went on to say that this presented an immigration problem to Canada. I agree with that statement; and I believe that a country as wealthy as Canada should accept its responsibilities in the world. But I do not believe that immigration to Canada by people from European countries is necessarily the whole or the main solution. When we have certain agricultural surpluses in Canada, and when the United States has huge agricultural surpluses, those surpluses should be made available to the European countries. That would remove some of the pressure against European food resources.
The minister quoted figures to show that Canada's trade position with the United Kingdom over the whole of 1949 was better to the extent of an increase of $20 million in exports. He also made note of the fact that Canadian exports to European countries declined by about $90 million. I believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce took a more realistic attitude this afternoon than that taken by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech
Supply-Trade and Commerce last fall. In referring to devaluation during that speech the Minister of Finance said at page 974 of Hansard of October 20, 1949:
It was agreed that the solution must be sought primarily in a rapid and substantial increase in dollar earnings through an expansion of trade.
The simple facts presented by the minister this afternoon show that, in the last few months since devaluation, there has been no increase in Canadian dollars earned by European countries. As a matter of fact, if I may quote what I said in the budget debate last fall, I feel I came a lot closer than the Minister of Finance to hitting the mark. My remarks are found on page 1335 of Hansard of November 1, 1949:
I contend that devaluation, instead of bringing about an expansion of trade, will in fact bring about a contraction in trade. A 30 per cent devaluation of the pound sterling in relation to United States dollars means an increased price of 44 per cent to the British consumer of goods bought in the United States. That is certainly going to mean a substantial reduction of British purchases of United States goods. The same thing will be true to a slightly lesser extent in British purchases of Canadian goods.
Then with respect to the British attempt to increase exports to this continent. Great Britain following devaluation can reduce by 30 per cent the price of her exports to the United States. But should Great Britain, for example, reduce the export price of British automobiles to the United States by 30 per cent, then she must increase the quantity exported to the United States by 43 per cent in order to obtain the same number of dollars that she has been receiving before devaluation. It is certainly doubtful to what extent Great Britain can increase her earnings of United States and Canadian dollars by reduction of price, since following reduction in price she must increase the quantity sold to earn even the same number of dollars as she earned heretofore.
Rather, I believe the chief result of devaluation will be a further loss of the British market.
In the budget address the other night, the Minister of Finance told us that in the last four months there had been a decline in our exports to the United Kingdom by an amount of $20 million, and our imports from the United Kingdom were down by $3 million. Our overseas exports as a whole, however, were down by more than $100 million in the first four months; and our overseas imports by $92 million. In my opinion devaluation, instead of bringing about a better balance of trade, made it worse and has substantially reduced our exports to European markets. It has not increased the amount of dollars earned by European countries. I trust the government will take all necessary steps to increase our imports from European countries. I hope our exports to the United Kingdom will not fall during the coming year, as was forecast by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Our exports to the United Kingdom and other European countries should be maintained, and if we want them maintained

Supply-Trade and Commerce then we need to increase our purchases of British goods. I hope the government will place greater emphasis on increasing our imports of British goods, rather than allowing the adjustment to come about through a reduction of our exports.
This afternoon the minister said there would be a battle for agricultural markets in the future. I believe that statement is correct. Our farmers are willing to help in that battle for the British market and other European markets. Our farmers purchased $255 million worth of farm machinery this past year, and they would be most willing to buy increased quantities of British machinery if by so doing they were guaranteed a market in Britain for bacon, eggs, cheese and other agricultural commodities. While the government has so far turned its back on the idea of a bilateral trade agreement, nevertheless I feel that such a trade agreement, by means of which farm machinery could be exchanged for farm products at present in surplus, would receive the wholehearted support of organized agriculture.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce told us that the Marshall plan was not as large an* item now in support of trade as it was in the past, but I suggest that the importance of Marshall plan aid should not be minimized. It could be important in getting a market for Canadian agricultural products, but if used the wrong way it could be a factor in taking from us the markets that we now have. It has been suggested by the foreign affairs committee of the United States house of representatives that of the $2,750 million to be voted this year for Marshall aid, $1 billion should be earmarked for the purchase of United States agricultural surpluses. If such a move were made, then Marshall plan dollars would make our market problem much greater than it is today. In order to try to insulate us from this sort of policy that might arise from time to time, and over which we have no control, I feel that the government, through an export-import board, should be increasing its role in international trade. Then, if the United States decided to do something like that, we would have a much safer hold on our markets than we have at present.
I noticed the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that the prospects for marketing wheat and other grains in Europe were good for this year. I hope he is right. I should like to quote to him, however, the first paragraph of the Canadian wheat board report for the year ending July 31, 1949. It says: Increased production of wheat in Europe, ample wheat supplies available in exporting countries, the intensity of United States competition, the imme-
diate effects of United States aid to various countries in western Europe and increasing difficulties in financing international trade, were important factors in the 1948-49 wheat position.
Along with that, I should like to point out to the minister that today the United States has a surplus of more than 475 million bushels of wheat. Then, I might ask him why the Minister of Agriculture suggested that western farmers reduce their wheat acreage by 3 million acres, if the markets for wheat and other grains are available, while the markets for secondary agricultural products are falling? Either the advice of the Minister of Agriculture was not sound or else the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce today, that our wheat market is assured, does not jibe with the actual prospects. I do not think there can be a reconciliation between the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture that wheat acreage should be reduced and the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that wheat and grain markets are secure.
We in this group supported the British wheat agreement. We also supported the international wheat agreement and we trust that it will work throughout the whole period which is for the next three years. We know that under the British wheat agreement we obtained a large share of the British market. But when we did that, we sacrificed some of the markets we had once had in countries on the European continent. For example, France in 1936 imported from Canada
6,250,000	bushels of wheat and last year did not import any Canadian wheat. Belgium, in 1936, imported 16 million bushels of wheat from Canada and last year imported just over 5 million bushels. Denmark, in 1936, imported from Canada almost 5 million bushels of wheat and last year imported only 4,567 bushels from Canada. The Netherlands, in 1936, imported over 7 million bushels from Canada and last year imported less than half a million bushels. We are going to have to maintain a market in Britain for the present quantity of wheat that is going to Britain, namely, 140 million bushels a year; or, if we are relegated in the British market to our 1930 position, then it is imperative that action be taken towards securing for Canada a better position in the European markets. The fact is that today Canada is supplying little of the wheat going to those traditional markets.
When I began my remarks I said that I hoped the Minister of Trade and Commerce would say that oats, barley and wheat at least, and preferably all grains, would be handled solely by the wheat board. As I have said before, the wheat pool organizations and the farm organizations in western Canada are not satisfied with the government's oats and barley

policy in its entirety. They are glad that the wheat board accepts delivery of all oats and barley produced in western Canada but, as was shown by the Saskatchewan wheat pool in convention last fall, they are opposed to the speculative market being continued in the disposition of oats and barley.
I noticed that the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other day, in announcing that there would be no wheat board payment this year-that is, before the end of the wheat pool period-said that one of the contributing factors was the stand taken by the opposition.
I believe that is dodging the real reason why a payment is not being made. In my opinion, the real reason why a payment is not being made is that the wheat board has not large sums of money on hand with which to make a payment. A further factor is that farmers object strenuously to the wheat board's going to the banks and paying on money borrowed from the banks an interest rate five times as high as the rate earned by the wheat board on money it invests in Dominion of Canada treasury bills.
What I objected to in a previous speech was the fact that, before the 1948 wheat payment was made, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that "the payment is being made out of money now available in the wheat board fund." The Minister of Agriculture went further and said that the farmers would not want the government to borrow money in order to make a payment over and above the 20 cents a bushel. Then, during the same debate, the Minister of Agriculture made the statement that 20 cents a bushel would be provided for a further year.
I should like to quote what the Minister of Agriculture said, as reported at page 1720 of Hansard of February 27, 1948:
Under the plan of five-year payments that was brought into effect in 1945 the farmer knows that if there is drought he will have more money coming to him at an increase of twenty cents in each year, no matter when that drought comes.
I say that was a clear indication by the Minister of Agriculture that there would be a further large payment made this year and this spring. There has been no worse crop failure situation in western Canada for a long time than that which prevailed during last fall. The farmers need an additional payment now much more than they needed it at certain times in the past. I might say that I have had a great deal of correspondence from farmers as to the wheat payment, or the fact that there will be no wheat payment, and the method by which the government went about making that payment. In that respect I should like to quote a letter I received from Mr. Ed.
31, 1950
Supply-Trade and Commerce McBride, secretary of the wheat pool committee at Viceroy, Saskatchewan. In writing to me he said:
The farmers at Viceroy are very much disturbed by the rumours from Ottawa regarding our final payment from the wheat board.
When the 20-cent a bushel payment was made a year ago, we didn't hear anything of a bank loan being made to help make it. In fact, we were told there was still a large surplus left after the payment was made.
During last summer and fall different experts estimated the probable amount of the final wheat board payment to farmers at from 17J cents to as high as 26 cents a bushel. Now they are saying we will only get a few cents a bushel.
I believe the government should be strongly criticized for having raided the wheat board fund in order to make a 20-cent additional payment just before an election, without telling the farmers that by doing so the wheat board would have to go substantially into debt. I would ask the minister, as I have already done, to continue the wheat price at not less than $1.75 per bushel and to increase* barley prices to $1.20 per bushel and oats to 90 cents per bushel. I trust that the minister's optimistic forecasts will be proven right. I hope we may obtain markets during the coming year at least as great as those we obtained during the past year; but I hope that the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the government will adopt policies to increase our imports from European countries and that any adjustment that is finally necessary in our trading pattern will be brought about in such a way as not to bring scars to the agricultural industry.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not think that during this session this house has heard a more important announcement than that made today by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. After all, the whole prosperity of this country depends on whether or not our trade will be preserved during the months and years that lie ahead. The striking thing is that, while the minister spoke on so important a subject, few, if any, of his colleagues in the cabinet found it of sufficient importance to be in the house. I was particularly surprised at the fact, for which no doubt there is a very good reason, that the Minister of Agriculture was not present on this occasion, particularly when the discussion that will take place will necessarily be concerned to a considerable extent with the marketing of agricultural products. Wheat and its marketing are of very great importance not only to the farmers of western Canada but also to our economy as a whole.
First, I want to refer to a matter about which I asked some questions this afternoon. The hon. member for Assiniboia mentioned
1442	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce the situation in the prairie provinces. According to a report of the Department of Agriculture the drought situation in 1949 was the most serious in a period of eleven years of western Canada's history. If there is one thing more than another that has been emphasized by the western farmer in recent months it has been the need of having an interim payment made of the moneys in the hands of the wheat pool operated by the wheat board of this country.
It has been alleged that some members of the opposition criticized the payment last spring of 20 cents a bushel. I heard no such criticism from the official opposition, but the fact is that the payment was timed to be made in advance of the election. When it was made was there no suggestion that the money was being dispersed in a considerable measure from moneys borrowed by the wheat board?
. When the Minister of Agriculture spoke in Moose Jaw in April, 1949, he advised the farmers that there was an additional amount to their credit of from 12 cents to 15 cents a bushel at that time. That statement could scarcely have been correct, for now we find that in order to make the payment the wheat board had to borrow moneys and did not have to the credit of the farmer at that time 33 cents to 35 cents, or even 20 cents, the amount advanced.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is there not a difference between cash in the till and the actual credit position of the pool?


John George Diefenbaker: The statement-


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is the working capital item. The wheat board has to borrow its working capital.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not the position. It was said that the money was available in the pool, and not that the pool had the credit and would be able to secure that much money.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not the cash.


John George Diefenbaker: At that time the minister said that the wheat board had on hand in addition to the 20-cent advance from 12 cents to 15 cents a bushel to the credit of the farmer, which is a long way from saying that it would have to borrow in order to meet the situation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He did not say that we had it in cash.


John George Diefenbaker: No, he did not say, "we have it in cash". He said, "we have it available". Certainly when it is in credit it is not available, according to the interpretation placed on those words by the farmers in western Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the pool had stopped doing business that day it would have been available.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the farmer was told it was there. The farmer was not told that the 20 cents was borrowed, or any part of it, in order to make the payment in advance of an election.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was not.


John George Diefenbaker: It was borrowed-


Percy Ellis Wright: The consolidated revenue fund is available at that rate.


John George Diefenbaker: What the farmers cannot understand is why that money had to be borrowed to make the payment for the amount the farmer will ultimately secure will be reduced by the very large amount paid out in interest.


Percy Ellis Wright: To help in the election.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Chairman, the fact that it was paid out just in advance of the election was, as you and I know, merely coincidental.	[DOT]


Mr. Knowles:: The chairman may know it, but you know better.


John George Diefenbaker: I am making another appeal to the minister in connection with an interim payment. I know he has made a decision on the matter and the wheat board have; but if he could see the letters hon. members from western Canada receive regarding this matter he would reconsider it in respect of the areas that were stricken with drought last year. The areas are readily identifiable. If payment could be made in those areas in advance of seeding operations it would indeed be appreciated by tens of thousands of farmers who find themselves in a position where they are unable to get credit. I again make that appeal, as I have over the past several weeks, that the minister reconsider it. I could give the minister, if he would care to read them, at least a hundred letters which have come in within the last week from farmers, particularly of central and southern Saskatchewan, who because of drought conditions last year doubt their ability to purchase their requirements and seed their land again in the next three or four weeks in the hope and expectation of a crop. I do not make this request as a general appeal for all of the western provinces, but for those areas where there was an almost complete failure in 1949.
There is one other matter that I should like to bring to the minister's attention. I asked a question today in connection with feed oats. After I had asked the question I received a letter from a dairy farmer who

points out that on March 27 he endeavoured to buy No. 1 feed oats, and he had to pay 93 cents a bushel for them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: From what point was this?


John George Diefenbaker: At Qu'Appelle, near
Regina. He said, "the price has been fixed by the wheat board." He points out that the farmer received 50 cents a bushel, and that there is a further 10 cents a bushel coming from the wheat board, according to the figures given to the house some weeks ago by the minister. What the farmers out there want to know is this. What about that extra amount of 33 cents a bushel? Who receives that? They also ask the federal government to protect them against having to pay a price per bushel 33 cents more than the farmer will receive from the wheat board for No. 1 feed oats that he has sold to them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps my hon. friend would not mind my clearing up that point. It is quite legal for a farmer at Qu'Appelle to buy from any other farmer at Qu'Appelle. The price of oats at Qu'Appelle is the Fort William price less freight, and the Fort William price is-


John George Diefenbaker: Ninety cents.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not for oats; it is 61J cents.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is 61 \ cents, less freight, which will bring it to about 50 cents at Qu'Appelle. Unless he had the oats railed back from Fort William I cannot imagine how he got the price up to 90 cents. It does not make sense.


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly it. I cannot understand it, and neither can the minister. After I asked the question before the orders of the day this afternoon I received a letter from another farmer pointing out the unfairness to the dairy farmers in Saskatchewan in having to pay a price of 93 cents for No. 1 feed oats.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps my hon. friend can clear it up by writing back and asking who the vendor was.


John George Diefenbaker: I can give the name of the vendor, but I shall not do so in the committee. It is one of the elevator companies.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot believe an elevator company at that point-


John George Diefenbaker: It is a matter which the minister should look into. I have given the facts, and I can give him the letter. I say it is unjust that a price such as that should be charged for feed oats to western farmers.


Percy Ellis Wright: The western farmer is charged the Winnipeg price-not the floor price of the
Supply-Trade and Commerce wheat board. He is charged the Winnipeg price plus whatever handling charges there are. Oats are selling away over the floor. The Winnipeg price today is about 90 cents, and the farmer has to pay 90 cents plus elevator charges.


John George Diefenbaker: And that seems most unfair.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He could buy from any other farmer. The farmer in that area would sell to the elevator company or to the dairy at the same price.


John George Diefenbaker: If we are going to encourage trade between Great Britain and Canada, if Canada is to be assured agricultural markets in the United Kingdom, we should do everything we can to encourage purchases of heavy machinery and the like in Great Britain. It is not a simple problem, and the minister, with all his experience, will certainly be the first to agree. I do feel that if the demoralizing influence of bilateral trade is continued and we build up in this world three blocs and two ideologies, the hope of peace dreamed of in San Francisco in 1945 will indeed evaporate.
I repeat there should be more co-operation between the minister's department and the Department of National Revenue to encourage the purchase of British goods in Canada. A few months ago our Canadian National Railways were unable to operate because of a shortage of coal. I am not saying that British coal could be used for the operation of our locomotives, but it could have taken the place of coal that was used for that purpose.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We buy every pound of coal that we can get in England.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not what was said by a British member recently who stated that there was no reason why Great Britain could not supply us with a million tons a year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: For three years we have been begging for coal from Britain.


John George Diefenbaker: I am just quoting what a Labour member said in the British House of Commons when dealing with this question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps he is as careless with his facts as our Labour members.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a private feud and I am not going to get into it. As one who is looking at this problem in the general way that a person of my training would, I would ask the minister what has been done about canvassing the manufacturers in Canada in order to find out what they can buy in Great Britain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have been over it with a fine-tooth comb.


John George Diefenbaker: We have not been told about it then. I should like the minister to tell the house and the country whether our import defence requirements are being purchased in the United Kingdom to the greatest extent possible. I have read a number of articles published in the United States, one recently in an outstanding journal, to the effect that Canada is not purchasing her defence requirements in the United Kingdom to the extent she should.
31, 1950	1445
Alberta Natural Gas Company
We sent delegations to Colombo. According to a recent issue of the New York Times there is a market in India and Indonesia that can be developed. Will the minister say what is being done in that regard? I have read in the British Hansard that the British board of trade is doing everything it can to build up trade there, not only for the present but for the future as well. The delegations went over there and they returned without letting us know what had been done about exploring the possibilities of trade in India and Indonesia. I would ask, too, to what degree have the recommendations and suggestions as to trade which were made recently by the Minister of Fisheries been considered and accepted by the cabinet?
Item stands.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. May-bank for the second reading of Bill No. 7, respecting Alberta Natural Gas Company, and the motion of Mr. MacDougall: "That this question be now put."
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, in concluding my remarks on this bill tonight I should like to re-emphasize that there has been on my part-and having followed this debate closely I think I can say with accuracy that there has been on the part of others who have spoken in opposition to this and the other bill-no suggestion that we are opposed to the eventual export of gas and oil to the United States. All we have asked for, and what we are still asking for, is that before our gas and oil goes to the United States market the line transporting it should pass through Canadian territory and serve Canadian industries and cities along its maximum length before crossing the border into the United States. Indeed, we have been careful to make it clear that there is no suggestion that we should attempt to curtail the export of these resources to the United States after Canadian needs have been met.
I refer to this because I noticed a report in the Vancouver Daily Province of Saturday, March 25, appearing at page 3, commenting on some remarks made by myself and other hon. members during this debate. That report contains this passage:
Mr. Fulton said he would not oppose the bills if the government saw fit to amend the original Pipe
1446	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Alberta Natural Gas Company Lines Act in such a way that Canadian oil could not be exported into the U.S.
He had received representations from various segments of industry in his constituency, including chambers of commerce, appealing to him to see that the oil and gas did not leave this country.
I said no such thing on the occasion referred to. I made no suggestion that the main act should be amended in the way suggested in the newspaper report. What I said, and what I repeat, was that as far as I was concerned if the government would see fit to amend the main pipe-line act so that any company seeking incorporation to build an oil or gas pipe line must build it for its maximum length through Canada first, before it crossed the border, I would not oppose the incorporation of any company that wished to obtain a charter to build a line under those terms. The position has been made so clear by those of us who have spoken in opposition to these two bills-that what we are seeking to do is serve Canada first but not serve Canada only, and not deny the export of gas to the United States-that I cannot understand how any report in the press could become so confused. As a matter of fact what I said on the occasion referred to was that if the government would amend the original act in the way I suggested, quoting Hansard at page 1109:
-we would be content to grant incorporation to as many companies as wish to build the line through Canada first.
That cannot be taken in any way as a suggestion that we should deny the ultimate export of these resources to the United States, after our own needs have been met.
In conclusion I want to refer to a little history which I think will be of interest to the house, and which I know will be of interest to my colleagues from British Columbia, though in this case they may not agree with the opinions expressed. In the course of my reading during this debate I went back to the debates at the time of the incorporation and construction of the Canadian Pacific railway, in order to see what was said then as to the need for building this great line through Canada to serve Canada first and build up a nation north of the 49th parallel. I found this very interesting remark in a speech delivered by Sir Charles Tupper in 1882. I am going to read it so that hon. members may see why I feel it to be so important that this pipe line go through our own territory. As I say, other hon. members may not altogether agree with the sentiments expressed; in fact I think Sir Charles was a little off in some of his geography, though not in his sentiments. He was off in his geography, of course, because he did not have the advantage which is available now to all horn 
members of visiting our province and, in particular, my district. Referring to the proposal that the Canadian Pacific railway should go through the Kicking Horse pass and down through what we call the interior of British Columbia, he said:
This is a matter which would be of great importance not only to the line but to the country, because it would penetrate the best district in British Columbia, that is the Kamloops district-
There is an unsolicited testimonial that was delivered in 1882. With the support of so great an authority as Sir Charles Tupper, one of the founders of confederation, I think hon. members will see why I am so anxious, together with all my colleagues from British Columbia on this side of the house and one on the other side, that this line should be built through British Columbia, through Canada first.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not delay lion, members long, but I have something to say that has not been said as yet. The other day I heard the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) made a good speech; that is, it was good for the opposition. He was trying to convince the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) that it would be a good thing for the country if he were to appoint a committee of this house. Well, Mr. Speaker, if it is a good thing for the national defence of this country to have a committee, it is a good thing for the development of our natural resources to have a committee. We have a committee and, Mr. Speaker, I think it is an intelligent committee, worthy of being trusted. Any man who stands up in this house and says that we should not trust that committee is asking us not to trust him. Some of these men who do not want the resources of Alberta to be developed are saying, "Do not trust me because I shall sell you down the river."
When I look over this committee, I find the name of the member for Yancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). I think he is worthy of being trusted. I trust him with the development of the natural resources of this country. Then, there is the member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy); a high-school teacher, and an intelligent man. Yet he is asking this house not to trust the committee of which he is a member. The member for Queens (Mr. McLure) is another member of the committee.
I think he is an intelligent man, and worthy of being trusted; a good committee man. I believe we can trust this committee to do this work. If there was ever a time in the history of this house when I believe the government would be justified in forcing closure, it is now.
The people in the country are asking this question. They are asking what is behind

this opposition to the pipe line. I know there is gas behind it, and there is oil; and so far as I can see the gas will not be sold without the oil, because the province of Alberta is wise enough, according to the member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), not to remove the pressure of the gas and thus lose the oil. As I have said, this committee should be trusted, but I expect that even after I have spoken there will be a lot of people who will say we should develop the natural resources of this country for Canada; we should save them for future generations. To them I would say, why ship wheat to England? Why not turn the wheat into flour in Canada, and ship the flour?
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the best thing to do is to develop the natural resources of our country. We should have the gas and oil from our country meet the gas and oil from the south, so that the people who are asking for this gas and oil can have it. I say, send this bill along; develop the natural resources of our country, and cure any unemployment we have.
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoeb Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor). At times I feel he is almost my representative, because I am responsible for a large industry in his riding. I have been surprised that he has not been struggling to give us Alberta oil in place of United States coal to help support that industry. That is a matter of his judgment, however, or lack of judgment; I know he is sincere in his conviction, so I do not want to be too critical of him.
While I represent a district somewhat removed from the particular district in which the most direct benefits will accrue from the utilization of that great resource in Alberta, I feel that it is rather encouraging to find so many people in this house interested in this oil in Alberta. No similar number of people in the world enjoy the bountiful resources that we do in Canada. I do feel that there is probably only one real issue at stake. I have listened to those who are familiar with the problem this issue presents, and I find there is only one real contention. It seems to be whether this pipe line is going to be built through Canada first, or is going through the United States first. There is no use in talking about technicalities, or this commission or that commission, or what the provinces have to do. This line can be built through Canada first if this house so wishes.
This is a private bill, but it is rather interesting to note the keen concern and support the government has given it. I know there are members of the government, who are absent tonight, who have not been very active
31, 1950	1447
Alberta Natural Gas Company in the debate. I know there is one hon. member from British Columbia who has taken an active part in the debate. I feel that the members from the other provinces are here to form a national representation. After all, this is the forum that represents this great nation. I feel rather keenly that we are dealing with an issue that can mean a great deal in the years that lie ahead. The trend of our development in this country, Mr. Speaker, is interlocked with the great possibilities that surround this issue. While I am still not perhaps as old as the oldest member in the house, in the last quarter century I have seen great changes in the trend of the development of this young nation. I can recall when any man aspiring to parliament would speak of agriculture as the basic industry of Canada; the backbone of the country.
I well recall saying, on one occasion back in 1927, that at some time we might find it difficult to sell our wheat. Some of the members from western Canada laughed at me and said, "You do not know much about western Canada's ability to produce; you will never see wheat below a dollar a bushel. We will always be an agricultural country. We control the bread basket of the world." Since that time, Mr. Speaker, as you have observed, that trend has changed far more rapidly than our fathers ever dreamed it would change. Today we have a country, perhaps showing the effects of two great wars, that has been industrialized until now rural activities make up only about 30 per cent of our national enterprise. Canada has rapidly become an industrial country. Canada is a cold country, Mr. Speaker. Its climate is different from that of the southern states, and many other places. More than anything else, Canada needs food and clothing. If this country is to have a well-rounded economy, it must encourage the production of those things essential to a high standard of living. As every hon. member knows, there is nothing much more important to the women and children of poor families across this dominion than warm clothing and a warm house. Fuel, in other words, is a problem in many districts. We in this country have for years depended on many million dollars' worth of United States coal. We have been importing large amounts of it. We know that today there is no fuel on the North American continent that can compete with natural gas. That fact has been proven across the line. We know that with high wages, with coal being shipped for long distances, and with freight rates increasing, the price of coal is ever on the advance.
We know that if we are going to develop this country in competition with that great republic to the south of us, we must do as it has done. While we will listen to the Minister

Alberta Natural Gas Company of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and other people make statements about the great development or the great markets we have in the United States, with which we all agree, nevertheless, we are similar to the United States in many respects. We produce similar agricultural products and similar industrial products and we are more or less in competition with them.
You will observe, Mr. Speaker, that in the province of Ontario where we have had the greatest industrial development has been where we have had the power, where we have had hydroelectric developments and where we have had coal, just as old England and other countries overseas in the last century developed great industrial progress and led the world in industry because they had the horsepower and the fuel. They had the steam-generating plants and what drove them and made the country great. Therefore not only is this great potential resource important but it is vital to this young dominion for household needs, for providing the horsepower requirements of the industrial plants, and for commerce in general. Remember, Mr. Speaker, that coal to heat a house costs twice as much money as natural gas. We might look across the border to the south of us and take a lesson from there, because no matter how much experience you may have had or how you have watched this country grow, if you want to foresee the future of Canada you can see it better in the light of what has developed just across the border.
It is said that the nineteenth century belonged to the United States. That great leader of the Liberal party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier-I think he was the greatest they have ever had; I have not seen any since that ever came up to him-said that the nineteenth century was the United States' but the twentieth century would be Canada's. There is no one worthy of being in this house who cannot visualize that greatness in the future and who cannot realize what is happening.
I can well remember that, when I first entered the House of Commons, our annual budgets were under $400 million. Now they ire $2,400 million. Our national income now is $16 billion; the difference is greater perhaps in high inflationary dollars than in physical volume, but nevertheless it shows the trend of the times.
We have a small population but, in fairness, it must be admitted that we are making great progress with that small population. While the United States of America has since before the war had an increase in population which is more than our total population, nevertheless, percentagewise, we are keeping reasonable pace with them. Because of our

great resources, the power and the potential reserves such as Alberta gas and oil, even the weaknesses of the present government cannot deter great progress in this country. We have a great country, and a virile and hardy people; and I am satisfied that this country will grow, as has the United States of America, even though parts of it are a little bit colder than parts of the United States.
The United States' experience has shown that the most rapid-growing and spectacular industry on the North American continent at the present time, is the gas and oil industry. We have other great industries but the one that has been most dramatic, the most rapid in development, and the one that is now most spectacular in its relationship to our North American economy is the gas and oil industry. I cite here North American development because, after all, we are very similar. We are closely allied in relationship to the United States of America. We live beside the United States. Although there is that invisible line that separates us, we are tied together in customs, in trade and in national defence; we are tide together in outlook and in aspirations. I can see that, in the future, that close relationship with that great republic and with the British commonwealth of nations offers the greatest hope for security and peace. By the very fact that the people in the United States are annually investing about $1 billion in their gas and oil development they have shown that they realize what it means. The volume of gas and oil transported by the United States pipe lines from the far south into the more thickly populated areas has increased; from 1940 to 1948 it doubled. There is a $3 billion plan now under way in the next five years, and it is estimated that in the next three years it will be double that. There is a country that has great experience in development; it is the greatest industrial country in the world; and it developed with resources and people similar to those we have in this country.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Gas and oil.


Mr. Rowe:: Gas and oil. At the present time a 2,000-mile gas line is being built from Texas into the New York section. The domestic sales of gas to householders in the United States now amount to a billion dollars a year. Householders to the number of 15 million are served by gas. Gas is being used even in those areas close beside great potential deposits of coal that we are importing here into Canada. Much of what is involved in this issue is national energy and power; it is not only a question of fuel but of power for industry. Today the United States of

America, with its gas lines, provides to householders as well as to industry, through gas pipe lines, almost three times as much power as it does through all its vast water powers. Realizing what our great hydro developments have meant to the old province of Ontario,
I can visualize in years to come what the gas pipe lines and the oil development of the western provinces of Canada may mean to them in the next twenty-five years.
We are challenged here, Mi. Speaker, as representatives of this dominion, to pause and realize whether we should divert these lines and send this great potential natural power over to the United States before it serves our Canadian people. I know that someone may say that is not exactly the issue, that they can build the line wherever they like, and that all we need to settle this whole argument is for those of the government who seem to be so interested in this private bill to tell us that this line is going to be built in Canada first, to serve Canadians first and then serve the people of the United States later, just as the United States would do if the positions were reversed. Forty-nine per cent or almost half of all the national energy and power for the industries of that vast country to the south of us is obtained from oil and gas and only four per cent is hydroelectric power or water power.
The question therefore has been considered to be an issue in that country. The fact that in the last twelve years twelve times as much money has been spent in the development of these transcontinental gas lines in the United States is indicative of the possibilities for the future. There are the United States Pipe Lines, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Lines, New York and Richmond Pipe Lines, Transcontinental Gas Transmission Pipe Lines Incorporated, Texas Eastern Pipe Lines and Tennessee Pipe Lines and many others. For instance, the Transcontinental lines alone in the United States spent $191 million before they had a dollar of revenue. The soundest investment houses in the United States, the Boston Mutual, the Metropolitan Life and the leading financiers of the United States, grabbed these securities and gave them bonds at good rates because they saw the possibilities of cheaper heat and power. Surely we in Canada, Mr. Speaker, should realize what it could mean to this country when the great republic to the south of us is piping gas almost two thousand miles; and they are ready to back that investment privately and otherwise. I ask, Mr. Speaker, should we not pause? I ask the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), does he criticize us now for pausing to discuss whether we are going to send Alberta oil over to the United States first? Are we going to let Alberta oil
31, 1950
Alberta Natural Gas Company mean more to the United States than it does to Alberta or British Columbia? That is all we want to know. Personally I am glad to see that there are several companies ready to build pipe lines. We shall have no trouble getting the gas transported. There will be no trouble to get these lines built.
As the hon. member has just said, it does not matter how many lines you may approve. We are not opposing the building of a pipe line. I have no axe to grind, Mr. Speaker. I do not know the personalities in either case, but I feel that I would be derelict in my responsibilities as a member of this house if I did not do everything in my power to see that these lines were developed east and west rather than north and south to start with. I am satisfied that there are greater possibilities in western Canada than many people have yet dreamed of.
In many parts of the United States the domestic requirements are now beyond the supply. Utility companies are asking the governing bodies to restrict the use of gas for domestic purposes, because they cannot build the pipe lines as rapidly as needed to serve the people who want the gas from down in the far south. Gas is an exhausting resource. I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that the future population of this country is not 15 million but 50 million. I have every confidence that in another 25 years, with the progress that you have observed in the last quarter of a century, you will see in Canada the greatest development going on in any place in the world. I am sure that western Canada will be a great industrial centre. It is bound to be. That development will not come by chance. That development will not come by saying that all is well. That development will not come by saying that, if the opposition will keep quiet and not face the dangers of the future, all will be well and we shall be prosperous. You know, Mr. Speaker, that development will come where there are great resources. People live where they can sustain a high standard of living. People seek employment where there are great resources and possibilities. History has shown that there is no greater factor in the development of any country than the possibilities of power. In the old days it was coal; then it was hydroelectric power; and now we are in the oil and gas age. The fact is that the United States of America is now leaning more towards that, and it shows the possibilities that we have in the years that lie ahead.
Natural gas costs little more than one-half manufactured gas. As I have said, the recent development of Alberta gas and oil is, to my mind, the most spectacular single feature of hope in our rapidly changing Canadian

Alberta Natural Gas Company economy. I do believe that there is a tendency to feel more or less inferior to the United States of America. I take second place to no one in this house in my admiration for the great advancement of the republic to the south of us, the great market for many of our products. When the United States is prosperous, as it is at the present time, Canada, with about only one-tenth of the population, with similar customs, is bound to be prosperous.
I do feel-and I believe it has been the policy of the party to which I belong-that Canadian resources should be developed first for the benefit of Canadian people. I know that some of my hon. friends across the way used to be free traders. Now they are not just sure what they are. I know there are those on the front benches across the way who will say we must look north and south. I know that their grandfathers stood for commercial union with the United States as far back as 1885. I know that some of our grandfathers feared1 we might be annexed to the United States. One extreme is perhaps as bad as the other. But I am satisfied now that even those who believed in free trade a few years ago, and believed in building north and south and in supporting the United States and keeping us, as has so often been said, hewers of wood and drawers of water, in this advanced age do not want to ibe diggers of gas and oil for the benefit of developing the great western state of Washington ahead of British Columbia or Alberta. All you have to do, Mr. Speaker, is to look at the map of the United States of America. If you look at the map you will see that the pipe lines are built up from Texas into New York, and into all that great industrial area where about 60 per cent of United States industry is situated. If you will look at that map you will see that that is where the pipe lines are going at the present time. There are not many pipe lines over in the state of Washington. Not long ago I noticed a United States writer said that that would be the next state developed in the United States. Since we have found a great bonanza of gas and oil in the province of Alberta, if they can get the pipe line down through the United States they will develop Washington as they have indicated.
I want to see Washington developed, Mr. Speaker, but I prefer to see Alberta and British Columbia developed first before we take our resources over to develop the United States of America. That is not an unfriendly attitude. Someone said here the other evening in a rather reckless tone, "No truck or trade with the United States of America." It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that many hon.

members on the other side of the house have heard nothing about our Conservative policies except a few catch phrases such as "no truck or trade with the United States", or "brick for brick."


Mr. Abbott:: There is not much else.


William Earl Rowe: No? I will tell you one or two things about your party's policy before I am through. I well remember the hon. Mr. Dunning, an ex-minister of finance. It was not "brick for brick" with the United States of America. He said, "We will have a countervailing duty. Every time they put on a duty in Washington we will put on one here." In other words, Washington would fix the duties for Canada. There has been a great change of heart. You are no longer a free trade party. There are more protectionists, subsidizers and bonusers on the other side of the house than there are on this side. You are no longer free traders. You may criticize us for "no truck or trade with the United States." But the United States is just as friendly to a virile policy to develop Canada first as it is to any wishy-washy policy that does not know where it is going. I know that you talk about trade.


Mr. Hodgson:: A twenty-five per cent austerity program.


William Earl Rowe: When you talk about trade, Mr. Speaker, we shall have bountiful resources of gas and oil for the United States of America. We have sold them a lot here, and we have sold them a lot before. Oh yes, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) smiles.


Douglas Charles Abbott: product?	Where	do you	sell	your


William Earl Rowe: And it	doesn't	hurt	your
department, either.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not a bit, no.


An hon. Member:: Manufactured in Canada first.


William Earl Rowe: We sell our product in the United States, yes, but we do not sell it in crude form, and we pay substantial amounts of money into the treasury of Canada. I am also proud . of the fact that we give employment to 2,500 heads of families.
I want to see a pipe line developed in western Canada that will send gas and oil over to Kamloops. I want to see a gas line to Kamloops, and down through the central part of British Columbia, and then down and across into Vancouver. And then, if you wish to go down farther-there may be plenty of it left-pipe it down to Seattle and those other places.

I do not agree with the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor). I would like to see it in Fort William as well. That little company to which the Minister of Finance has referred spends a million dollars each year for American coal. I would rather spend a million dollars each year for Alberta gas and oil.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What about Alberta coal? What about this "Canada first?"


Arthur Leroy Smith: You can't get it there, and you know it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: A little higher price, then.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is different when it comes home.


William Earl Rowe: This afternoon-


Arthur Leroy Smith: When you learn something about coal, I will talk.


William Earl Rowe: The minister does not disturb me a bit. This afternoon he said he could not use it on the railroads, but tonight he wants me to use it. He does not disturb me a bit by that remark, because I read his speech in Montreal, and I heard him make a few months ago or a year ago just as wild a statement as he made before when he said that the future of this country depends upon trade north and south.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who said that?


William Earl Rowe: You did, in Montreal-and so did your friend, the Minister of Finance. The policy of the Liberal party for the last half century has been to develop trade north and south rather than east and west. The policy of this party, down through the years, whether there have been few of us here or not-and I am not discouraged because there are only forty or so of us here: I would rather be here with forty who are serious and concerned than here in smug complacency with 180.
I tell you, I see a future for Canada. Some may be surprised when I say that, having been here as long as anyone, I am not a bit discouraged, because I am satisfied that we shall have a sound period of development, and that Canada will become what our forefathers thought it would be. I am satisfied that when we have sound leadership the tide will turn, when the goose is not hanging quite so high as you men have it at the present time. We shall be over there and you will be over here.
I say that because the government of today cannot laugh this off as they have laughed other things off. Someone will say-indeed I wonder someone has not said it, because I have heard it half a dozen times in the last while-that you won the last election.
Alberta Natural Gas Company


Arthur Leroy Smith: A hundred times.


William Earl Rowe: You won the last election, true. But remember-


Douglas Charles Abbott: And the one before that, too.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, and the one before that. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I can see this government wobbling under its own power, and complacently sitting by.
The other evening, in answer to a question, the Minister of Trade and Commerce was not sure whether or not the pipe lines were going to be built in Canada. He did not seem to care whether they were or not. He did not mind their being built in Canada, if it was practical and economical to do so. I do not think he would rather build them in the United States than in Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Thank you.


William Earl Rowe: You're welcome. I don't want to charge you for anything.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You are going well.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Don't stop.


William Earl Rowe: Thank you. If it amuses you and interests the rest, then I figure I am doing something. But I sometimes wonder what is behind all this. Why all this secrecy? I am glad I am getting some of your followers interested. I always feel I am making headway when the backbenchers are asking questions, and when the Minister of Finance is laughing.


An hon. Member:: You talk on nothing.


William Earl Rowe: You talk all the time on nothing. Someone has said "If it is practical we will support it; if it is economical we will support it." Economical to whom?-to Canadians, or to Americans? Practical?-yes, it is 350 miles shorter.


An hon. Member:: What about cost?


William Earl Rowe: Over here I hear the question, "What about cost?" Maybe it will cost more.


An hon. Member:: What is a million or two.


William Earl Rowe: Oh yes; it was only a few years ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, "What is a hundred million?"


Douglas Charles Abbott: Coming up!


William Earl Rowe: One of the most eminent authorities on the building of pipe lines on the North American continent is the firm of Ford, Bacon and Davis, Incorporated, of New York, and they say that this is completely practicable and absolutely economical in all respects -that is, by the Canadian route.
Someone suggests it might cost more. Yes, it might. The United States of America is

Alberta Natural Gas Company spending billions of dollars a year to bring gas pipe lines to their householders to reduce their cost of living and improve their standard of living. If you have a pipe line that will serve for twenty years, with a right of renewal, is it not economical and is it not of interest to the Canadian people?
I am convinced this route should be built in Canada; and I know as well as every other hon. member within sound of my voice that it will be built in Canada if the government of Canada wants it built in Canada. You can pass it on to the railway commission, you can pass it on to the provincial government of Alberta-you can pass it on to whom you wish; but if this line to Kamloops and through the central part of British Columbia and the northwest part of the Peace river district is neglected, the onus is on the government of Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why does it have to go through Kamloops?


William Earl Rowe: You understand why you won't take it through there.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is it on account of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton)?


William Earl Rowe: Would you rather have it a hundred miles south in the United States?


Clarence Decatur Howe: You wouldn't mind five or six miles, would you?


William Earl Rowe: All you have to do is look at the map. I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he would rather have it a hundred miles south, in the United States, through the American west, a hundred miles back up to Vancouver-and make Vancouver the back door of Washington state.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who is going to do that?


William Earl Rowe: He laughs best who laughs last.
I say that if this route is built through the United States first it will be a monumental blemish on the present government for the next twenty-five years.


An hon. Member:: Will they still be here?


William Earl Rowe: Someone says they will still be here. That is some of their smug complacency. They do nothing; it does not matter, so long as it does not happen to them.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It all depends on the opposition.


William Earl Rowe: There is something to be said for stability; there is something to be said for a permanent policy of using our own resources. From an aviation point of view Edmonton is almost the centre of the world.


An hon. Member:: Were you ever there?


An hon. Member:: The Americans did it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It will be the biggest airport in the world.


William Earl Rowe: I have been there quite often. I guess I have been in as many other parts of Canada as the hon. member. I may not have learned as fast as some, but I have seized on a few things.


Mr. Winters:: You are a smart boy.


William Earl Rowe: You are a smart boy yourself. You are one of the young fellows who learned faster than I did.


Mr. Kickham:: Tell us about the thirties.


William Earl Rowe: I am glad the hon. member can remember back that far. He was not here, but I know that he was thinking about something else altogether. Look at the great industrial development in this country both in time of war and in time of peace. If we ever got into a conflict with another country-I am not going to say what country it might be-if we ever got into a conflict with another powerful country, Alberta and British Columbia might be in the heart of things. Would it not be a good thing to have a pipe line down through the centre of British Columbia to serve those people in a time like that? Have you no hope for British Columbia industrial development? Have you no hope for the development of the northeasterly and Peace river sections?


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Who looked after us
in the last war?


William Earl Rowe: We are all in favour of having the closest association with the United States of America, but we can be a strong ally of that country only by keeping ourselves strong. Our own protection depends upon our own strength. Our own standard of living depends upon our own industrial production. Our industrial production depends upon our own strength. Our own strength depends upon our future freedom. Our future freedom depends upon whether we are going to-


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: I rise on a question of privilege as I come from the Peace river district. I come the longest distance of any hon. member to this house.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What is the question of privilege?


George Matheson Murray: Is parliament to be thwarted by a little wilful group of men-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Matheson Murray: -who deliberately-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure there is no question of privilege.


William Earl Rowe: I am glad the hon. member has come so far because he must be impressed

when a group the size of this can dominate a group the size of that. It is worth coming that far to see.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


William Earl Rowe: I was watching the clock and I thought I had a couple of minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe can continue only with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Matheson Murray: Is parliament to be reduced to being an annex of the stock exchange?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has spoken already in this debate. Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Sinnoli:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Speaker-


George Matheson Murray: There is a very grave-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member speaking on a question of privilege or a point of order?


George Matheson Murray: I am asking whether parliament can be frustrated and held-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has stated his question of privilege. I might also point out that the hon. member has spoken in this debate and I am afraid the rules prevent his speaking a second time.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Speaker,
I listened to a debate of this type at the last session and for part of this session and possibly I have been enlightened. I think perhaps some hon. members will be surprised when I state that my views are similar to those held by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe).


An hon. Member:: The first convert.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: 
Mr. Speaker:: The hour for private and public bills has expired and the house will revert to government notices of motion.



RADIO BROADCASTING


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue) moved:: That a select committee be appointed on radio broadcasting to consider the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to review the policies and aims of the corporation and its regulations, revenues, expenditures and development, with power to examine and inquire into the matters and things herein referred to and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, and to send for persons, papers and records:
That the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable or necessary;
That the committee have power to meet while the house is sitting;
That the committee shall consist of the following members: Messrs, Baker, Boisvert, Cote (St. Johns-Iberville-Napierville), Decore, Diefenbaker, Fleming, Fulton, Gauthier (Portneuf), Gauthier (Sudbury), Hansell, Henry, Isnor, Kent, Knight, Langlois (Gaspe), Maybank, McCann, Murray (Cariboo), Richard (Ottawa East), Robinson, Riley, Smith (Moose Mountain), Smith (Calgary West), Stewart (Winnipeg North), and Whitman;
That the presence of at least nine members shall be a quorum of the said committee; and
That standing orders 64 and 65 be suspended in relation thereto.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make some brief remarks on this resolution to set up a select committee on radio broadcasting. Since the national radio system was started in 1932 different governments have thought it appropriate that committees of the house: should be appointed from time to time to study the activities of the system and to. consider general broadcasting questions. Through the years different committees have formulated principles upon which broadcasting in Canada is based. They have also made a number of important recommendations which have been carried out following their reports.	.
We believe it is a good thing to have committees on broadcasting such as that proposed in this resolution. Broadcasting is different from most other public activities. Parliament long ago decided that broadcasting should be entrusted to a public corporation having a wide degree of independence of the executive government. There were two important reasons for this: first, that broadcasting,
1454

Radio Broadcasting
which is quite different from ordinary government administration, should be carried on by a corporation able to follow many of the methods of private enterprise in its work and having the necessary flexibility in its operations; second, that broadcasting, carrying as it does much information and opinion, should be run by an independent and impartial body which would be free from any question of partisan influence.
Under the Canadian Broadcasting Act the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is not answerable to me or the government for its actions in carrying on its broadcasting operations, and the government is not responsible for the actions of the corporation in carrying on its broadcasting under the act. The corporation is of course responsible to the overall jurisdiction of parliament. In effect it reports directly to parliament as a whole. That is why it is particularly appropriate that a committee of this house composed of members of all parties should examine the activities of the corporation.
The government does support the principle of a strong, national, publicly-owned broadcasting system independent of any possible partisan influence, flexible in its structure and in its methods. This is a principle agreed upon by all major political parties in the past, and we believe approved by the vast majority of Canadian citizens. The corporation itself is independently responsible for its daily actions in carrying out its trust. It seems fitting, therefore, that a committee of parliament should examine the reports of the activities and plans of the corporation, and get information and explanations which it wishes directly from its officers.
Under the broadcasting act the government has a responsibility for approving large capital commitments by the corporation. Since the war we have approved the establishment of facilities to extend or improve the services to the people of Canada in different areas. We have also provided loans for other purposes. These developments have been all moves toward the kind of national coverage which was always envisaged for this particular system. New transmitters in Alberta, Manitoba, southern Ontario and the Saguenay district went into operation in 1948. Last year a new medium power station was added on Cape Breton island, which it is hoped to improve in the future. This year a new 10 kilowatt station will go into operation near Windsor to bring national service for the first time to the people of southwestern Ontario. The power of station CBM, serving English-language listeners in the province of Quebec, will also be raised to 50 kilowatts, and the power of CBR, Vancouver, will go up to 10 kilowatts. These power increases will
iMr. McCann.]
improve the service to listeners, particularly in parts of these regions away from the larger cities. They will also protect for Canada the classification of the frequencies under international agreement. I want to stress that point, because it is very important.
On the union of Newfoundland with Canada we made provision for the CBC to take over the facilities of the broadcasting corporation of Newfoundland, and to incorporate them into the national system of Canada. Line connections between the two systems previously had not existed; but by strenuous efforts of engineers of the Canadian National Telegraphs, the Department of Transport, the CBC and other co-operating authorities, a permanent connection was established just in time for the day of union which, as we heard in this house, was exactly one year ago this midnight. I think the house will agree that this was an important development for the greater Canada. The first day of the new confederation last year people in Ottawa and all parts of Canada were able to hear the ceremony at St. John's, and listeners in Newfoundland as well as other parts of the country heard the ceremony on parliament hill. Since then listeners in Newfoundland have been able to hear much of the same broadcasting that goes out to other Canadians, and listeners in other regions have been able to hear voices and reports on the air directly from that new province. Probably no single Newfoundlander, any more than any other listener, likes all the network programs he can hear, but I think the national radio system has helped and can still help much further in promoting mutual knowledge and understanding between the new province and the other regions of Canada.
The committee will have before it the annual report of the corporation. The report speaks bluntly of the basic financial position of the system, and of the danger of having to reduce services severely unless the revenue basis is changed. The fundamental difficulty seems to arise from the fact that because of the general increase in price levels during the last twelve years cost rates to the corporation have risen greatly, while at the same time its main revenue rates have remained unchanged. The corporation faces a number of demands from different parts of the country for new or improved services. It reports that it will not be able to meet these demands, and will in fact have to cut its services drastically unless its revenue basis is changed. The committee will undoubtedly wish to examine the finances of the corporation. It may wish to consider questions of present expenditures and revenues. It may wish to consider the basic situation of the corporation looking to the years ahead, though it may

wish to leave basic financial questions until the report of the royal commission now sitting under the chairmanship of the Right Hon. Vincent Massey is received.
The royal commission is making an extensive study of broadcasting questions. It has held hearings now at many points in nine provinces. I understand that it will have a further series of hearings in Ottawa in April which, with a following visit to Newfoundland, will likely complete its public sittings. I understand we may expect the report in a few months; and I believe this report will be of great value in view of the wide study made by the commission not only of the national system but of other broadcasting activities and of a large number of submissions from the public. This committee may decide to deal with some broadcasting matters which appear of immediate concern, and to leave others for consideration after the report of the royal commission has been made.
Television is one very important aspect of broadcasting that is being studied by the royal commission. In this house a year ago I gave a statement of the interim policy of the government in respect to television pending the report of the royal commission. We thought the time had come to begin the development of television in Canada, and we thought that at the beginning a foundation should be laid to provide for a basic service of Canadian television in the national interest, using Canadian talent and Canadian ideas, and with provision for participation by private enterprise. To this end the policy provided for permission to the C.B.C. to establish production centres in Montreal and Toronto, with associated transmitters, and for the first financing for such development. These centres would be set up to supply a certain service of programs to other stations which might be established in other areas. In view of the high costs of television we suggested that any private groups interested in any area should join their resources to try to provide the best possible operation. So far no such applications have been made. The C.B.C. is going ahead with the production centres in Montreal and Toronto.
No doubt the royal commission will have recommendations to make on the further development of television. The committee may wish to consider present plans. I hope that, in any study of television questions, full consideration will be given to the national needs and interests of Canada as a nation. Television is very far from being just a question of whether certain interests should have the opportunity to set up an operation on one of the few public air channels available. Such an opportunity becomes a monopoly
Radio Broadcasting
position to a large extent, and therefore the question needs careful consideration, with full thought for the future as well as the present. Television as it develops will become a strong social force. That force can be for the good, or the opposite. It can serve to weaken the nationhood of Canada, or to strengthen it. I believe that all studies of these matters should be on the basis of how television can best serve the public in a good sense, and best serve the interests of our Canadian nationhood, under our special Canadian conditions.
As well as carrying on its national service in Canada, the C.B.C., acting as agent for the government, operates the international service broadcasting by shortwave to other countries. This service was started during the war. I can remember members from across the house pressing particularly for its establishment. We thought that it would be also very useful in peacetime in helping the knowledge and understanding of Canada in other countries. Now in a time of "cold war", I think its importance is even greater than we expected it would be. It is very useful, I think, for the service to be able to help keep people in other English-speaking and Latin-American countries informed about Canada; about our attitudes, our activities, and our trading possibilities. But perhaps now it is even more vital to be broadcasting regularly to people of many countries in Europe, where the seeds planted from the east are at work, and where knowledge of how this Canadian democracy works and thinks can be so encouraging. Canada, while not one of the great powers, has a voice that is listened to with respect in many parts of the world. One of the ways in which that voice is heard in a very direct way is through the international service. And where the service goes behind the iron curtain, as it does with the well-established Czech service, I think its value is inestimable.
The service is carried on in close continuous consultation with the Department of External Affairs, and with other departments as appropriate. The responsibilities of the service have always been recognized, and great care taken to carry them out properly and securely. In consultation with the proper government authorities, and with full use of the R.C.M.P., careful measures have been taken over a period of years to make sure of the security and the loyalty of the staff of the service. The measures taken have not been sporadic, but form a continuous process. They started on a general basis in 1946, were made still more detailed in 1948, but are still going on and will continue to go on. I am kept informed of the measures taken, and I believe they provide the fullest possible assurance of a loyal staff. For that reason I regard as

Radio Broadcasting
very unfortunate remarks made outside the house tending to reflect unfairly on members of a staff that have not only shown their integrity by their work and attitudes, but have also been checked very thoroughly by the proper agency, and when a watchful eye is always being kept. Because precautions are taken, it is no reflection on members of a staff. They are merely added safeguards which are necessary these days in such a service.
It is unfortunate that because the international service is beamed to other countries it cannot be heard easily in many parts of Canada, so that it is difficult for Canadians to know what it is saying daily to other countries. Probably the committee will wish to examine some of the output and activities of the service. I can assure them that if they visit the international service headquarters in Montreal they will find that it is quite fascinating to see and hear the daily work of the service.
I think the committee might also be interested in going to Montreal to see the Radio Canada building, formerly the Ford hotel. It has been partly occupied for some time, and shortly will be fully occupied. We arranged to buy and transform this building to provide headquarters for the international service, which had been housed in several unsatisfactory locations, the main one of which it had notice to vacate. It provided for the consolidation in one building of all C. B. C. operations in Montreal, which had been scattered among different buildings under highly unsatisfactory conditions. The national service of the C. B. C. will pay proper rent for its share of the use of the new building. I think that on seeing the new building the committee will agree that it will provide very satisfactory quarters for the complicated Montreal operations of both national and international service for a decidedly reasonable amount under present-day costs.
Mr. Speaker, the national radio system has a task that is more complicated, difficult and expensive than is realized by many Canadians, and perhaps by many members of the house. It has to try to cover this huge country of ours from the Avalon peninsula to Vancouver island, with all its different regions and time zones. It has to maintain services in two languages. Above all, it has to try to meet the varying tastes and wants of different people. There are plenty of things on the air which I do not like or do not agree with. But I know that probably some other people like them or agree with them. The national system should be completely impartial in trying to meet tastes of different groups in IMr. McCann.]
as fair proportion as possible, and giving different opinions equitable chances to be heard.
I hope that members of the committee, in considering the programs and activities of the corporation, will take a large view. I hope they will consider matters not from narrow viewpoints, but on the basis of the general good and fairness to all opinions, tastes and needs in Canada. And I hope particular objections or criticism will not prevent them from taking pride in an over-all Canadian accomplishment.


Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: On
March 17, when this notice of motion was read in the house, I rose to protest against the appointment of this committee. I did not do so because I had anything against any member of this committee, but because the minister disregarded one province in Canada, Prince Edward Island. For the size of the station, the Prince Edward Island broadcasting station is superior to anything of its kind in Canada. When one looks at the set-up of the committee, one finds that there are two members from British Columbia; three from Alberta; three from Saskatchewan; two from Manitoba; six from Ontario; six from Quebec; one from Nova Scotia; one from New Brunswick; one from Newfoundland; and none from Prince Edward Island. Now, that is the protest I am entering.


James Joseph McCann: Why did your party not appoint you?


Mr. McLure:: I had nothing to do with it. I do not want to be a member. Why did you discriminate against my province?


James Joseph McCann: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not appoint the committee, and I did not discriminate against anybody. As I understand it, the appointment of committees is a matter for arrangement between the whips, and they try to give representation to all the different parts of the country, and to the different parties.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The minister should have looked over the committee if it was appointed by somebody else. He should know his geography sufficiently well to see that every province is represented on this committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He knows it when he is collecting taxes.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: If we are to pay licence fees and taxes to support broadcasting, why can we not have representation on this committee? That is my protest. I do not believe that any member in this house will want to have Prince Edward Island left off this committee. As hon. members know, for instance,

and especially those from the maritime provinces, we have the finest broadcasting station of its power that there is in Canada. I refer to station CFCY, the friendly voice of the maritimes.
To show how popular it is with the members from the maritime provinces, when the list is made out for the broadcasts from parliament hill, the four members from Prince Edward Island are included. Then the members from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick all want to get on that station, notwithstanding the fact that they have stations in their own provinces. Seven or eight more from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are on the program and there is a waiting list of eight or nine more to get on. Then when we want to see that our province has its rights protected in this committee, the minister does not even give us representation on it.
Here and now, before this committee is set up, I want him to appoint a man from our province. If he says that he has nothing to do with it, then I tell him to let the matter stand aside for another day and let him give instructions that our province be represented. I should like to inform him that I am not anxious to get on this committee; I have more work now than I can do. But there are three other members from Prince Edward Island. My colleague, the hon. member from Queens (Mr. Douglas), knows broadcasting and broadcasting conditions. I cannot see why he could not be placed on this committee and why it could not be made a committee of twenty-six. I do not want to see anyone taken off it. Let all the other provinces have their present representation on it. But in the name of goodness, do not discriminate any more against Prince Edward Island. This government has always discriminated against our province; and even in this small matter they go to work and discriminate again. I want to know right now from the minister whether he is going to grant my request that he add a representative from Prince Edward Island, the cradle of confederation, to the membership of this committee. I think he should give an answer to my question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar.


Major James William Coldwell: think the hon. gentleman has reason for complaint, Mr. Speaker; because, after all, there are twenty-five members on this committee. There are five Progressive Conservatives, two C.C.F., one Social Credit and seventeen Liberals. It seems to me that among the seventeen Liberals one could have been found from Prince Edward Island. I did not rise for the purpose of saying that, however, except to join my plea to that of
Radio Broadcasting
the hon. member and to urge that something be done to meet the lack of representation of Prince Edward Island.
I greatly regret that this year I shall not be on the radio committee. I have been on every one of the radio committees that has been established by this house in the past. I have found great interest in the work and have enjoyed it immensely. It is only because of the pressure of work that I am not able to sit on that committee this year. During the years I have been on the committee I have watched the development of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I remember, as the minister stated in his address just now, that when first of all the commission was set up, followed by the corporation, it was generally agreed among all parties in the house that a national system of broadcasting should be dominant in this country. I think that the corporation has performed a remarkable service to the people of this country in the few short years of its existence. When I have the opportunity to do so, I invariably listen to some of its many good programs. I want to compliment the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on their Wednesday night program. I think those of us who heard the program this week, for example-the music, the songs, the description of Sweden-realize the value of interpreting that country to this one even as our international service of our Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interprets Canada to Sweden and to the other countries.
I think the educational part of the work of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is the phase of it that should be specially noted and specially mentioned. Whenever I get the opportunity I listen in even to "Kindergarten of the Air", a remarkable program. A few days ago a little boy whom I know in this city, while listening to "Kindergarten of the Air", heard the kindergarten teacher who was giving the broadcast say "take your thumb out of your mouth." The little fellow had his finger in his mouth and he pulled it out immediately, so interested and intent was he on the program. Programs that are of educational value we get regularly only through the broadcasting corporation. Once in a while we get perhaps a program over one of the private stations; but the regular programs that are of educational value are heard from day to day and week to week over the C.B.C.
I think too that a great deal of credit is coming to the corporation for the work it has done in raising the standards of appreciation of music and for some of the opera that we have heard by the Canadian cpera singers, young men and women of the conservatory

Radio Broadcasting
of music in Toronto, young men and women who have won various awards in competition, joining together to give Canada the kind of entertainment that we have hitherto been unable to get from our own citizens.
I enjoy the opera which comes from the United States on Saturday afternoons in the winter, but I enjoy much more the opera that comes from the C.B.C. from our own Canadian artists; because I like to think that this country is developing not only in the material but in the cultural way. I think that the broadcasting corporation has done an excellent job in bringing together these young singers, training them and enabling them to give the kind of program that we have heard from time to time, this winter more particularly, as well as last winter.
Then of course I know of the awards that have been given to the broadcasting corporation for some of its programs. Some of the productions on "Stage 50" programs, as well as some of the Wednesday evening programs, compare in artistry and in cultural value with anything that is done elsewhere. I think it is remarkable that the C.B.C., with its limited resources, has been able to retain the services of several outstanding young men and women-I will not mention their names because there are several of them- who have given Canada a fine example of what can be done in the field of drama. Out of this C.B.C. programming in opera and drama, I have hoped that we are getting nearer the day when we shall have in this country a national theatre, with opera, drama and ballet assisted and even subsidized by the state itself. I know that when I meet people who come from some of the small European countries such as Latvia they tell me of the fine opera houses and the fine national drama that they had in the city of Riga. I wonder when we are going to have something similar in our own country, because after all man does not live by bread alone. We need the cultural activities as well.
This evening, just before I came down to the house, I listened to one of the very excellent talks in the series given by Professor Phelps of McGill university, stories of travel, on the interpretation of Britain, England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales and so on. They have been of a very high order and I have, as others have, enjoyed them very much indeed. Another example is commentaries from overseas, commentaries by Matthew Halton and others who speak without any censorship, and who speak as they see it, not always of course acceptable to some because we have men of different views and different types on the air; but none the less giving us a picture of international affairs that is well worth while

from the point of view of the progress and education of the Canadian people. Of course I should not omit to say how valuable the commentaries from the United Nations have been ever since the United Nations was set up. I think these projects should be commended when we have the opportunity to commend them. No private stations, with their dependence on advertising, give us the kind of programs that we are getting from the broadcasting corporation.
I should like to see advertising entirely eliminated from Canadian radio. I know that probably that will not be done now. I noticed, though, the other day that a spokesman for the association of broadcasters, when speaking in New York, suggested that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should do no advertising. Well, I wish that were possible. Perhaps it might be made possible if the government recognized that, if we are to have advertising and the private stations are to do it, something, say 25 per cent or 30 per cent of their gross receipts from advertising, should be handed over to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to enable them to put on the cultural and other programs that they think the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should be undertaking. In that way perhaps advertising could be eliminated from the C.B.C., and the others, if they were permitted to do so, could go ahead. If they set aside 30 per cent, we will say, of their gross advertising receipts, a substantial sum would come to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Perhaps they have that in mind, because naturally if they think of cutting out all the advertising from the C.B.C. they must of necessity have some views as to how the money would be raised to carry on the kind of work that the broadcasting corporation must undertake on behalf of Canada.
I want to say that the many activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the forums and the other programs that I have already mentioned, are heartily supported by organizations of our farmers, of our workers, and of our professional people, and so on, because they give to Canada something that we seldom get in any other way, namely, a free and frank discussion of problems that are affecting the people.
I sometimes go to the United States. I was there the other day, and as usual when there I hear comments on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The comments are favourable, indeed laudatory. Again and again I hear the remark that our news service is particularly appreciated on the other side of the line because it is not sponsored. There is no advertising. As a rule the news service is pretty objective in its reporting. Of course

I understand that the broadcasting corporation news room has to rely on the Canadian Press, and on the United Press and other news gathering agencies. But with the agencies that are supplying the news to it, the C.B.C. does the best job it possibly can, and one which I think is pretty objective reporting as a rule-objective, of course, from the news agency in the first place, and secondly, objective when put together by those who write the scripts for the newscasts over the C.B.C.
When the committee is set up I hope it will go into this matter of advertising. Advertising on the radio, and particularly on the private stations, has become a sickening experience. I do not know what kind of people some of these advertising agencies think our people are. These singing commercials that you hear are examples. One would think that they were appealing to a nation of morons. Then the statements that are made with absurdly extravagant claims are obviously ridiculous. You hear one soap company telling you that its product washes clothes whiter. Then a few minutes later you hear another soap company contending that its particular soap contains some ingredient or other that makes the clothes whiter than new, and so on. You know perfectly well that they cannot both be telling the truth, and you know perfectly well that what they say are unmitigated falsehoods.


An hon. Member:: Soft soap.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, this goes over the air. I sometimes wonder why protests do not come from some of the leading church authorities against these particular claims. I remember about a year or two ago protests against Rawhide's program which followed pretty closely a church period' in the morning. Well, I listen to Rawhide occasionally. His program is liked by a great many people. It is a corny sort of program. He brings along a lot of very good recordings, and makes some amusing comments. There is nothing objectionable, nothing sacrilegious in it, but if you follow the program that comes after Rawhide-I refer to the Breakfast Club-you will find a mixture of prayer, sentimental music, hymns and advertising of pork products and bologna. It seems to me that if there is anything sacrilegious, it is the use of prayer and hymns for the advertising of pork products and bologna. I could not quite understand the objection to Rawhide when there was toleration of a program like the Breakfast Club on the air. Each day we hear other programs on which the advertising is making claims that are absolutely false.
Radio Broadcasting


Stanley Howard Knowles: They will be praying for you tomorrow morning.


Major James William Coldwell: I hope it will be much more effective than the bacon with which they supply me in the morning.
I also want to say that I have followed with a great deal of interest the criticisms of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by the private stations. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters is, in my opinion, a closely knit combination in this country. I believe that if the Combines Investigation Act were amended, as it should be, to prosecute combinations in the supplying of service, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters would come under the heading of a combine. I happen to have before me the rate sheets of most of the stations in Canada, sent out by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. I have forgotten how many there are, but it is a very large volume. Some of them are originals, some of them are photostatic copies, but they are all alike. Some of the rates for the same power are alike. Some for the same power with different coverage are not alike. You find however that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters has a standard rate for the various stations of Canada. They have their time classification, and their standard rates structure for broadcasting.
The one I have in my hand, picked at random, is for station CFNB, Fredericton. It has class A rates for various periods, including from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m. daily, and class B from 6.30 a.m. to 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. to 12.15 a.m. daily.
I notice one reminder printed in heavy black letters at the bottom-and this will be of interest to members of parliament-is that political broadcasting takes single time class A rates, which is the highest rate of all. It seems to me if we were really the democracy we like to think we are we should be promoting free discussion whenever possible and in every possible way, within reasonable limits of course as to time, at the lowest and not at the highest rates.
I appreciate that private stations do give reports from parliament hill. I am also reminded however that when an election comes round radio time is available in large quantities to those who can purchase it, but it must be purchased at the highest rate.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Does the hon. member know that at election time the newspapers do exactly the same thing?


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member says that at election time the newspapers do the same. That is right; I know that is perfectly true.

Radio Broadcasting
But let me point out that, through the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the parliament of Canada alienates to a private station a public utility or channel. The newspaper, of course, is purely a matter of private enterprise in every respect, and on a very different basis.
Radio occupies a public air channel and, as such, it is a public utility and in a different class altogether from newspapers or magazines. So I suggest that when the committee meets it should go into the manner in which private stations are operated, examine their logs once again and see how much, or more likely little, they are doing to develop local talent, see how much they are giving to spot announcements which interrupt programs during most of the day. It should see to it that protection is given to the Canadian public against much of the kind of radio we are getting today.
I wish to criticize the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, too, after I have complimented them on some of the things they have done. When the C.B.C. was established it was never contemplated that the high-power channels granted to this country under the Havana treaty should be alienated to private stations. It was never contemplated that we would have stations privately-owned with power of from 10,000 to 50,000 watts; and it seems to me that over the last few years the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has played into the hands of powerful broadcasting interests in this country, and has alienated valuable channels which should have been retained for the public.
I have read the debates in the house, and I sat on the radio committee for years and know it was never contemplated, perhaps until the last radio committee sat, that these channels reserved for high-powered stations would be turned over for private operation. It was always considered that these would be the property of the people of Canada, and for the use of our publicly-owned radio system.
I regret very much indeed that over the past few years, perhaps in the past ten years, these have increased in power, bit by bit, first from 1,000 to 5,000, then from 5,000 to
10,000	and then from 10,000 to 50,000-all the way up. And bear this in mind, that the high-powered station may be a menace to the local community station. I have no criticism of the local community station that is doing the job some of the local stations are doing. I believe that in any national system of radio broadcasting there should be an opportunity for local community stations. But local community stations do not require 50,000 watts. They do not require 10,000 watts; and they should have been kept within the limits dis-
[Mr. Coldwell.l
cussed in the house years ago of 1,000 or, at the most, 5,000 watts. We have some very good smaller stations across Canada, but these powerful 50,000-watt stations are able to get the advertising and to blanket the countryside over the area that should be served by the community stations.
The minister referred to television. I have noticed, and read with a good deal of regret, that certain private interests have been invited to participate in the establishment of television in this country. I believe television is too dangerous a medium to be placed in commercial hands. I will tell you why: it is because it is going to be a very expensive medium to use; and for that reason only powerful organizations will be able to put together the kind of program and pay for the kind of broadcasting that will have to be done on television.
A couple of years ago I witnessed a demonstration. This was not a demonstration against privately-owned television, but rather one to show what might be done in the field of television. This is what can be done: the presentation on that occasion showed a kitchen in which there was a lady preparing to make a pie. In doing so she took from the shelf a certain brand of flour. Not only did she name the flour and thus advertise it, but the picture was there before the eyes of those who were watching. The same applied to all the other ingredients-right down to the package of eggs to be used. Each ingredient was advertised not only by name but by picture, which is much more potent.
It seems to me that if television is to be used in that way it will be almost impossible for any of the smaller interests, who are producing commodities in competition with those of some of the large business concerns across the country, to survive. Precisely the same applies to the big departmental stores that will be able to advertise their wares by television, while the smaller merchants in the same area will find the competition from those larger stores almost impossible.
I say advertising should be kept off television waves altogether, that it must be entirely in the hands of an independent government organization-and when I say "independent", I mean independent of the day-today control of the government of that day. It must be used as a public educational facility. That is going to be costly; and if we are going to have that kind of television, which I suggest is the only kind we can safely have, then I think we shall have to find in some way the ways and means of financing it from the public treasury. I know it is impossible to get people to agree to an increase in the radio licence fee, but I think we must see to it that the corporation is adequately

financed. Speaking personally, I think the radio in my home is worth, not $2.50 a year but many times that amount because of the real pleasure it gives to some one permanently shut in. But of course all people do not look at it that way. Not all can afford any more than the present moderate licence fee. Therefore we have to look for other ways and means of financing the organization.
If advertising is to be discontinued and if the private stations are to take over and have a monopoly of advertising as they apparently demand, then I suggest that they should give thirty per cent, we will say, or more of their gross receipts from advertising for the upkeep of the national radio system and as payment for the use of a very valuable channel granted to them and over which they have a monopoly.
I do not want to detain the house because there are others who wish to speak on this matter, but I do want to say that over the years I think the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has performed a worth-while service for this country, from the point of view both of amusement and of education. It has raised our appreciation of music and it has brought to us drama such as we never had the opportunity of hearing, not only in our homes but in many of the smaller communities across the country.
I hope the committee to be appointed will go into the affairs of the corporation very thoroughly and will produce a report that will give the broadcasting corporation encouragement, that will help to put it on a better financial footing, and that will enable it to serve the people of Canada even better than it has since it was first established.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy this evening to add my voice to this debate and make some suggestions which I believe are valuable and which may prove of assistance to the committee being set up as it progresses with its work. The other day I was talking with a gentleman about Canadian radio policy and he abhorred the fact that a committee was to be set up at this time. It may surprise you when I tell you that this gentleman is connected with independent radio in Canada. He said to me, "Do you think it is fair to the Massey commission who are sitting to consider this very thing to have a committee of parliament set up now? Would it not be more fair for parliament to wait until the Massey commission has reported and then on the basis of that report let the committee proceed, along with the other work it is expected to do, and bring in its conclusions and recommendations?"
I replied that there had not been a radio committee for the last two or three sessions of
Radio Broadcasting
parliament and that there had been pressure from different sources, quite often from members of the house, that as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a government corporation-there might be some legal technicality as to whether it is a crown company, but as far as I am concerned it is to all intents and purposes-it was about time that it came under the review of parliament. Then I told this gentleman that the terms of reference of the Massey commission were much broader than the terms of reference of this committee, that the Massey commission were dealing with the arts and sciences.


Mr. Speaker:: The other day the question came up as to whether the house should discuss the proceedings which were taking place before the royal commission and I ruled at that time that the proceedings of that royal commission and the evidence given before it should not be discussed in this house.


Ernest George Hansell: Thank you. May I point out that I am not discussing the proceedings of the Massey commission; I am simply stating; that that commission is doing a job and that the terms of reference of the commission are broader than the terms of reference of the committee. I was simply stating that as an answer to the criticism from a radio man of the setting up of this committee.
I told him that even though certain evidence had been given before the commission it was not likely that when the same people gave evidence before the committee they would change it. I said that in all probability any briefs submitted would be along the same lines. Another point comes to my mind more forcibly since you have raised the point of order. I do hope that anything presented to the radio committee will not be ruled out of order because the commission is sitting.
Overlapping between the two bodies cannot be avoided. I believe the minister should give us assurance that this committee will be completely free to discuss radio policy, no matter whether that policy is before the commission or not. As I said, in all probability any briefs submitted to the committee would be the same in content as those submitted to the commission; but the appraisal of the evidence and the conclusions drawn might differ from any conclusions or recommendations that might be made by the commission itself. So I do not believe this committee should be set up if its hands are going to be tied. That puts the matter in a nutshell as far as I am concerned.
There is another matter I should like to state, since I feel rather keenly about it. We in this corner of the house, and I in particular as a member of other radio committees, have been accused at times of being opposed to the
55946-94J

Radio Broadcasting
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. This is not so. I go a long way with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) in what he said tonight. We in this corner of the house want to state emphatically that we think the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have done a good job in many respects. I would compliment them on their efforts to keep the air clean. They have been able to avoid the sensationalism which sometimes characterizes United States radio, and they are to be complimented on that. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar referred to Canadian newscasts as compared with United States newscasts, and said that many Americans had complimented him on our news broadcasts. He indicated the reason was that here there was no advertising. I do not know that this is particularly the reason our United States friends may have been impressed by our newscasts. I do not think they object to an advertising plug in the news as much as they object to the sensationalism that characterizes some of the United States newscasts. Some of their commentators like to dig up a lot of dirt and spill it into the ears of the American people. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are to be complimented on their attempt to keep the air waves of Canada clean. They do not stand for slander and such things; character assassination is not tolerated.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Did you ever listen to Matthew Halton?


Ernest George Hansell: I have heard him, but frankly I never tune in particularly to listen to him.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The greatest character assassin on the air.	.


Ernest George Hansell: I will let that stand as my hon. friend has stated it. I am not going to make that statement, but since he has done so I am not going to contradict it. I have not heard Matthew Halton deal in that sort of thing because I do not tune in to hear what he says. Frankly, I think he is biased. There is no question in my mind but that the gentleman is a socialist and his commentaries are thereby coloured. That is why I do not listen to him.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Does that not apply to all speakers?


Ernest George Hansell: Perhaps it does, largely. I do not know whether it is possible to get commentators who are not at least slightly biased by their own thinking. It does seem to me that somehow or other-and I know I am criticized when I say this-the corporation has gathered unto itself an over-supply of (hat type of mentality. That is just by the

way; I do not have that in my notes, but it is my reply to the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith).
The radio corporation, I believe, have been fair in respect to advertising.- They have not permitted the sort of advertising in which people vie with one another in price cutting, and so on. I believe that is a good feature, and there are many others. I agree with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar with respect to the opera program that is sponsored by the C.B.C., though some advertising firms also have done a good deal along even that line. I might refer to the program known as "Singing Stars of Tomorrow". Opera, I know, is not keenly appreciated by a vast majority of the Canadian public. Just the same it is extremely valuable in the cultural life of our country. I am a bit of an opera fan myself; yet I do not understand one word of the Italian language, I am not a musician, I hardly know one note of music, and I play no instrument. Yet gradually over the years I have become quite an opera fiend in a small way. It is a taste that has to be acquired; and when it is cultivated it is surprising how it will grow on one. Whether or not you understand the words, you get the story, you feel the thrill of the music and the singing.
Well, all that is very complimentary to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We are not opposed to it. We are opposed to some of its policies, and we think perhaps radio itself could be made somewhat freer by a revision of the regulations. We have strongly opposed the principle that the corporation should also be in control of radio in Canada. We do not believe that is a good thing. It does not matter whether it is the C.B.C. or any other crown corporation; the same principle would hold. That is our belief, and we have opposed matters along that line.
In the matter of finance, I am not opposed to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation being subsidized. I do believe that, working as they are in the commercial field in competition with independent radio stations, they should be able to operate within the confines of their commercial revenue, plus the approximately $5 million a year they receive from radio licences. I do not believe the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should have to come to the taxpayers for any more money. I may not be an expert at scrutinizing these expenditures, but $5 million is a great deal of money. When that amount is given to the broadcasting corporation, over and above its commercial revenues, I believe that is enough without taking money from the taxpayers.
I should like to say something about the talks department of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I am not doing so in an

overcritical fashion. I would say the same thing if huge networks were under the control of independent radio stations. I do not believe the best way for all shades of public opinion to be expressed over the air is through the channel of any centralized authority. It does not make any difference to me whether it is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, or whether it is a network brought into existence by independent radio people. Here we have a committee of men set up. The number is not important; it may be a half dozen or it may be more. This committee of men decides that some topic or other is to the fore, so they should have different views about it expressed. The problem arises as to whom they will ask to express those views. They say, "We will ask Mr. So-and-So, Mr. So-and-So, and Mr. So-and-So; they represent different views, so we will ask them to take part in this particular program."
There is a tendency there to centralize within those few men the opportunity-I am not saying they take advantage of it, but I am saying we reach the danger point when we give a few men the opportunity of channelling or moulding the mentality of the Canadian people. I feel quite keenly about the matter because that involves something going out over the air in respect of which the people have no say as to whether or not they want to hear it.
It may be said that the social credit view is sometimes heard over the air by reason of the fact that this party is asked to take part in these broadcasts. I am not concerned about whether or not my party is asked to express its views. My particular point is that John Doe out at Pumpkin Centre may believe he has some wisdom that is of value to the Canadian people. Bias he an opportunity of putting his views before the Canadian people? I know I am perhaps using an extreme illustration. There is no way by which this man can talk to the Canadian people. Nevertheless, he can start in a small way. This is not the function now of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. If John Doe of Pumpkin Centre wants to broadcast some of his wisdom, he can go to the local station, which would be an independent station, and say, "I want to talk on the radio." He would be told that the rate was so much. He has to have the money, of course; I know that. We can say what we like, but one cannot do anything in this country without having the money. One cannot eat without having money. After all, perhaps in Pumpkin Centre the rates for the local station would not be very high.
Many people have started in that way. If what they put over the air has any merit at
Radio Broadcasting
all, it is not long before they are talking over the same station again. If the material has real merit, then the person is speaking over more than one station, or perhaps has a weekly program. Through a natural process that person's ideas take shape and begin to grip the imagination of the people. I believe that is the natural way the thing should develop. Now, I say there is danger in centralizing the authority in the hands of a few. It gives them the opportunity, if they care to take it, of moulding the thinking of the Canadian people.
It is an easy thing to popularize something. As a matter of fact, I suggest that the United Nations organization has been overpopularized. A man almost takes his life in his hands if he says anything against this very august body. Why should that be so? Simply because a mentality has been created among the people that takes it for granted that such an organization is the right thing. Who said it was the right thing? I know I cannot talk about the United Nations tonight, but the United Nations might be a dangerous thing. Because it has been popularized, however, people take it for granted that it is a valuable institution. It might be, but it might also be a dangerous institution. Well, that is the power of radio; that is the power of propaganda. I say to you, therefore, that we do give a tremendous opportunity to a few people by placing the direction of the talks department in their hands.
There are just one or two other things I wish to mention. I should like to say something with respect to the political broadcasts that are given by the various parties in the house. This is not in criticism of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation particularly, but I believe that the formula now contained in what is generally known as the white paper on political broadcasting should be changed. Even though the Liberal party have such a tremendous majority in this house, I do not believe that they should have the lion's share of radio time.
I understand that the three opposition parties here-the Conservatives, the C.C.F. and the Social Credit party-are in agreement on having that time equally divided among the four parties. If the three parties are agreed to that, then there is only one party that is not agreed to it; and that is the party which, in spite of its majority in the house, were elected by a minority vote of the people of Canada. The question is this. Should those who are elected by a minority vote of the people of Canada have the lion's share of the time on the air? As a matter of fact, I proposed this division of time in the radio committee a year or two ago, and I know

Radio Broadcasting
that it might be looked upon as a sort of wildeyed suggestion. But the fact of the matter is that because the Liberal party have such a big majority, they should have the least time.
What are you putting over when you are putting over talks to the people of Canada? Is the objective of those talks to inform the people of Canada? Are you putting over ideas or are you putting over a party? If you are putting over ideas, then the ideas of the smaller groups are just as valuable, as ideas, as any that the Liberal party may have. Some of us over here, of course, think theirs are far more important; but naturally, there is a difference of opinion there. But it is the new idea that should be propounded and should have at least an equal amount of time in comparison with the ideas that supposedly have already arrived. If the Liberal party have already arrived, then the people have had their ideas already. Why talk any more about it? I suggest that it might be as well if a change were made in the formula by which this radio time is divided up among the political parties.
I come now to television. I appreciate what 'the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold well) has said with respect to the power of television, that it might be extremely costly and therefore that only wealthy advertisers would be able to use it. I believe, however, at will be proven that television is tremendously overrated. At the present time it is, of course, a novelty. Anyone first looking at and listening to television will, of course, sit there by the hour. But radio has one advantage over television and it is simply this. The housewife can go about her work in the house and listen to the radio; but she cannot go about her work and listen to and look at television at the same time.


Donald MacInnis: In order to get more out of your wife, you should not have a television .set.


Ernest George Hansell: I therefore propose to hon. gentlemen who are married that if they want to get more work out of their wives, they should not instal a television set.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They would have to get an automatic dishwasher and an automatic clothes washer at the same time.


Ernest George Hansell: Personally, I like to have the radio on and tuned to a nice musical program; at the same time I find no difficulty in sitting
IMr. Hansell.]
down and reading a book while the radio is playing music to me.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Watching your wife work.


Ernest George Hansell: No. I do not mind if my wife is right beside me or in a chair not far away, reading a book at the same time. Sometimes I like to read a little bit, and I can do it while the radio is playing sweet music in my ears. But I am going to tell you that you cannot do that and look at television at the same time. Because of its novelty today, the value of television is overrated. I believe that people who instal television sets will not have them turned on nearly as much as they will have their radios on. Advertisers therefore will, to a large extent, stand by the old radios just the same.
Again, if you wish to get the best effect from television, you should not have too much light in the room; and as a rule people do not like to sit in the dark for very long.


Donald MacInnis: It just depends.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, I know; it all depends on who is there. There is just one other matter I wish to mention in connection with television. I am inclined to think that if the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would leave the field open to private broadcasters to develop television side by side with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, television would come to Canada much more quickly than we think. It is on its way; it is developing fast in the United States; and it would come to Canada much faster than most people think. But of course if other channels are not open for development by private concerns, and if the development is to be confined to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, then we may have to wait longer than we otherwise would. I hope that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will not seek to monopolize this field. If they permitted private interests to develop a few channels in Canada, I believe that television would come much faster, that even the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would save a good deal of money and at the same time could still retain the power of regulation as long as radio broadcasting operations were regulated under the C.B.C.
There is one matter in connection with the procedure of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the development of television to which I should like to refer. It has not been mentioned before. I believe the radio committee is entitled to an answer. There

has been some criticism of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation purchasing its television equipment from the United States when, my information is, it could have obtained the same service, and television equipment that is just as good, from Great Britain. I understand that they could have obtained it just as cheaply. Whether I am right in the information I have I do not know, but I believe the corporation will have to give an answer to that question when the committee is set up.
What they have done is to aggravate, shall I say, our dollar difficulties. They could have conserved some exchange in that way. I shall not say anything more at the moment, but when the minister replies I hope he will give us the absolute assurance that the hands of the committee will be entirely free, and that the cry of sub judice will not come up when we attempt, as it may appear for the moment, to encroach upon the work of the commission which is now working on the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, first may I say I am very happy that the select committee which is to be set up will have power to examine and inquire into the matters and things herein referred to, namely, regulations, revenues, expenditures and development, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon. That is the way a committee should be set up. Any committee of this house set up with power to investigate should also have the power to report.


James Joseph McCann: The resolution contains the widest terms of reference that we could give it.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. I now come to the matter raised by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure). There is no necessity of pursuing it much further because I am sure that after the arguments advanced by the hon. gentleman Prince Edward Island will indeed receive representation on this committee.
It has been suggested that provision could be made among the opposition parties' representation. Let me point out that on the committee there are 17 Liberals, 5 Progressive Conservatives, 2 C.C.F. members, and 1 Social Credit member. The five Progressive Conservatives can certainly not be divided among ten provinces. The five are from five different provinces. The two C.C.F. members
Radio Broadcasting
represent two provinces, and the one Social Credit member represents one province. That being so, the only place in which representation can be assured for all ten provinces is on the government side of the house.


James Joseph McCann: We have had no protest from the government members.


John George Diefenbaker: No protest is necessary in that regard, because I feel sure that the minister would agree that, regardless of protest, every province should be represented on a committee that is to deal with so important a matter as radio broadcasting throughout Canada.
There are just two matters to which I should like to make brief reference The minister pointed out that this committee should be free to examine the activities of the corporation. Indeed, it should not be stifled in any way. It should be able to secure all information necessary regarding finances and expenditures to be made by this corporation. The corporation comes before parliament from time to time and asks for financial assistance. I feel that so far as crown corporations and emanations of the crown are concerned, which appear before parliament and ask for money, they should be subject to the fullest possible examination.
Only the other day an answer was given to me indicating a course of action that I think is contrary to good parliamentary procedure. On March 27 I asked certain questions in regard to another crown corporation, or emanation of the crown, namely, the Canadian National Railways. I asked: How many Canadian National employees were retired in each of the years with pensions up to $25 a month, $30 a month and so forth? Then I asked whether any of the officials received a bonus, retirement payment or any allowance additional to or along with the regular retirement pension. The answer was that the management had always taken the position that it would not be in the interests of the company or of its personnel to make public information pertaining to the salary arrangements or remuneration paid to officers. That was not what I asked for. I asked, what was the retirement allowance additional to any bonus that was given?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member referring to proceedings in a committee which has not yet reported?


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker. I am referring to an answer to a question that I received in the house on March 27-

Radio Broadcasting


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry I interrupted.


John George Diefenbaker: -to illustrate my contention that parliament should be furnished with such information. Otherwise parliament is simply in the position of being asked to countenance expenditures, however justifiable or unjustifiable they may be, without having the information upon which to arrive at that decision. I hope that, when this committee is set up, answers such as were given to me on March 27, whereby parliament and I were denied information as to whether retirement bonuses are being granted to officials, will not be given to the members of this committee; for it is a dangerous situation when parliament is asked from time to time to supply money to meet deficits of crown corporations and is not given the right to look into operations such as might be disclosed by a proper answer to a question that is asked, such as the one to which I have made reference.
I come now to the question of television. I do not agree with the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) that television is any longer a novelty. Television has been held back in its development in this country by the policy of the C.B.C. to date, as I see it. Television is receiving consideration in the development of stations to operate it in Montreal and Toronto; but elsewhere in this country nothing is being done in that regard. We in western Canada and British Columbia, and others in the maritime provinces, are asking for television. Certainly if it takes $4 million in money collected from the people of Canada to provide television in only two centres, in the central provinces, then the indications are that if it remains a semimonopoly of the C.B.C. or the. government there will not be that development of television in Canada that we should have.
It is not a novelty today in the United States. Indeed, within the last year the number of privately-owned stations there has increased from 680 to 2,316. Great changes have taken place in technical equipment within the last year and a half, and that answers the objections that were prevalent that it was. impossible to provide television except in areas within 50 miles of a station. Today plans are being made in the United States to connect stations across the continent by coaxial cable and microwave repeater stations. I feel that every encouragement should be given to private industry operating alongside the C.B.C. to develop television in Canada, for if private industry is not given

the opportunity I doubt whether we shall make the advances under this type of broadcasting which characterize portions of the United States where conditions are much the same as they are here.
I believe the experience of the last two years will support the stand taken by the opposition in the committee that, having regard to the disputes which arise from time to time as between the C.B.C. and private corporations, there should be set up in this country a semi-judicial body with powers similar to those of the board of transport commissioners. There is no reason why the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is a competitor of private stations wherever those private stations operate, should be in the position, in the event of a dispute arising over the interpretation of regulations, to demand that such private stations shall submit their case to the competing publicly-owned corporation.
In other words, the C.B.C. is in the position of competitor, judge and jury on matters affecting itself in its relationship with the private corporations. Instances will be brought to the attention of the committee, when it is set up, to establish, from the experience of the last two years, the necessity for the creation of an independent body to adjudicate in respect of disputes that may arise in connection with jurisdiction, or in connection with regulatory disputes as between the C.B.C. and the private broadcasting companies.
In connection with the committee I would make a suggestion to the minister. It is true that the committee has the opportunity of examining the officials of the corporation called before it. I should like to see the briefs these officials intend to present delivered to members of the committee a day or so before the officials of the corporation appear to give their evidence. This would save a lot of time, I am sure the minister will agree that on many occasions we have sat for as long as two or three hours listening to the reading of a brief which, had we seen it in advance, could have been made immediately the subject of examination in respect of those questions in it in which we were particularly interested. We could ourselves have read the brief more expeditiously.
In other words, a brief is merely a guide; it is a submission of all the information available which, in the opinion of the officials of the C.B.C., deserves to be considered by the committee. Why not submit that? Why not let us see it in advance, and thus place

us in a position where we can begin immediately to examine and to do an expeditious job, rather than sit there several days listening to the reading of long screeds which we could read much more carefully and much faster privately.
Originally, and even up to 1938, the understanding was that at no time would the C. B. C. have revenues greater than $500,000 from advertising.


James Joseph McCann: Never.


John George Diefenbaker: The actual statement of the minister in that regard was that $500,000 was to be the limit on advertising. Today it is almost five times that amount.


James Joseph McCann: That was only an expression of opinion by Brockington.


John George Diefenbaker: It was more than an expression of opinion. It was accepted by the minister and was also of the essence in setting up the extension of the facilities of the C. B. C.


Arthur Leroy Smith: A policy statement.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, as the hon. member for Calgary West says, it was a policy statement. But it is no longer expedient to follow it, and today the advertising-and I am speaking from memory-amounts to about $2,400,000 a year.
Having changed the policy in regard to advertising, there is justification for the wish expressed by the majority of those who have been consulted in a Gallup poll, that the time has come to do away with the licence fee. Only the other day the president of the private broadcasters made the statement that in his opinion this would be done away with in 1951. What justification he had for that statement, I do not know; but I do feel that when parliament is in a position of having to vote money from time to time-and this is a national venture-the time has come to remove the licence fee for private radios.
There are many other pressing matters with which I might deal, but they can be dealt with when the committee is set up. Let me conclude where I began: let us make this a national committee of the House of Commons. I am making an appeal to the minister: let us give representation everywhere, to the end that from this committee there will come a report that indeed will be representative of all parts of Canada.
I hope, too, that we shall not hear the argument raised that many questions which should
Radio Broadcasting
be dealt with by the committee cannot be dealt with because of the fact that a royal commission is sitting. I am sure the minister will make a statement to that effect; otherwise the committee would be strangled, so far as recommendations are concerned, by the fact that a royal commission is sitting. After all, it is for parliament to determine what is to be done. All a royal commission does is to make recommendations, after hearing the evidence, in order to assist the government of the day and, indirectly, parliament, in arriving at a proper conclusion.
Suggestions have been made that the C.B.C. news service is not always objective. I am not able to speak about the musical end or the drama end of the C.B.C., but as far as the news service is concerned I feel that year in and year out it is fair and reasonable in its objectivity. It could be used as an instrument of propaganda, but while objections will necessarily be raised from time to time I think that the news service, assisted as it is by the Canadian Press and British United Press, is indeed a service of which Canada can be proud.
Reference has been made by people living in border cities to the fact that the news received at intervals over the C.B.C. is up to date and objective and they compare it with the news services in the United States. Those who are engaged in broadcasting the news and preparing it deserve commendation where commendation is indeed earned.
I have heard strong objections to the slanting of news by certain commentators but all I ask is that all sides be represented by commentators on the news or political events.


Solon Earl Low: With a fair distribution.


John George Diefenbaker: If there is a fair distribution there can be no objection. Every one of us has his own prejudices and is biased on certain matters, and, however consciously we may desire to avoid bias, unconsciously we are affected by it. Everything should be done to assure that in the broadcasting of philosophies all sides should be presented by commentators qualified to discuss the news and comment on events.
This is a committee upon which I have sat during the few years I have been in parliament. It is a committee I look forward to sitting on. A great deal of beneficial evidence is presented to the committee. It is an-educative committee and one that can do a worth-while work in developing higher standards of art within our country and an appreciation of the better things of life.

Radio Broadcasting


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I move the adjournment of the debate.


James Joseph McCann: If this motion is not passed tonight it is unlikely that it will be dealt with before the Easter recess. The work to be undertaken immediately following the recess has been indicated so the setting up of the committee will probably be delayed until some time in May. I have been pressing to have the resolution come before the house for
a long time and if the setting up of this committee is delayed until on in May I hope the blame will not be placed on this side of the house.
Motion (Mr. Herridge) agreed to and debate adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 3, 1950