1953-01-27

[Stage Direction]
Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina) presented the first report of the special committee on defence expenditure, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. Jean Frangois Pouliol (Temiscouaia):: Before the motion is carried I have just a word to say. If we revert to times gone by, in Hansard of July 3, 1935, at page 4198 there appears the following discussion:


Jean-François Pouliot: -the comptroller of the treasury's office is no good and I protest against this vote-


Mr. Mackenzie King:: -the comptroller of the treasury took over certain of the functions which formerly belonged to the Auditor General.


Mr. Bennett:: No, several of the departmental functions in connection with disbursements.


James Horace King: The expenditures in that one branch are getting to be very large.


Colin Emerson Bennett: It has control over all the disbursements of the country.
Mortuus adhuc loquitur!
Well, sir, I want to bring to the attention of members of the committee the fact that since Mr. Bennett, not by legislation but by order in council, changed the auditing system of all departments by centralizing them under the comptroller of the treasury, no minister except the Minister of Finance is responsible for any expenditures in any department.
It was not Liberal policy, it was Tory policy, and I opposed it bitterly at the time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The motion before the house is to concur in the first report of the special committee on defence expenditure. The committee report is a recommendation to the house that the committee be empowered to print from day to day 750 copies in English and 200 copies in French of the minutes of proceedings and evidence, etc., and to sit while the house is sitting. I do not believe such a' recommendation would permit a general discussion of the matters which have been referred to the committee or a discussion of the procedure in the committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, if you permit me, what I said was the preamble of the
argument that I am going to make now. It will be very short and to the point.


Mr. Fulton:: Tell us what you have been doing for the last seventeen years if you objected to that policy.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) that this was one of the most onerous legacies that a subsequent government inherited from the late Mr. Bennett. I know it hurts the Tories, but I am going to make my point. What I am saying is strictly in order, as you will see, Mr. Speaker, and as hon. members will see. I am not a miracle man. I cannot make the blind see, nor can I make the deaf hear. I know that it hurts, and I am sorry. I do not say this to hurt anyone; I say it to tell the truth and to guard against any injustice being done to either one of the Ministers of National Defence.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member
now to discuss the motion. The motion is that the committee be empowered to print from day to day 750 copies in English and 200 copies in French of its minutes of proceedings and evidence, and such papers and records as may be ordered by the committee to be printed, and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto; (2) to sit while the house is sitting. It is only those two matters which can be discussed at this time.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, there is more to it.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I want the evidence to be
taken by the committee to be in accordance with the elementary rules of justice, and I do not want the committee to sit while the house is sitting to commit any injustice with regard to anyone. It is for this reason, sir, that I bring to the attention of the hon. gentlemen, especially those who will serve on the committee, the fact that hundreds of accountants in the Department of National Defence are not under the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). They are under the comptroller of the treasury since Mr. Bennett centralized the whole business of government payments.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know they will not understand. I have said what I wanted to say, and I thank you, sir.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Monday, February 2, and on Wednesday, February 4, 1953, and every Monday and Wednesday thereafter to the end of the session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not
propose to debate this motion, but it occurs to me to wonder whether the Prime Minister has given any consideration to the suggestion that, instead of taking away both Mondays and Wednesdays at this stage, he might devote the Mondays to government business and leave the Wednesdays for a period of another two or three weeks. At this stage of the session, Wednesday is only a half day and there are a lot of private members' motions remaining on the order paper. Speaking as one who has been fortunate enough to have his motion called, I can say that I know there are others who have not had such good fortune. I am sure these members would appreciate it if Wednesday could be left for the time being.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: It has been the practice
in some of the former sessions to take away the Mondays first and then afterwards the Wednesdays, but that has always been when the Mondays were being taken very much earlier than has been the case this session. There have been more days allotted to the application of the ordinary rules this session than for a very long time hitherto. I think there has been an ample opportunity for the discussion of all those notices of motions that members really wish to have discussed. There are two hours remaining when the public bills and orders can be reached if private bills do not occupy all the time allotted. So far private bills have taken up very little of those two hours, so I would imagine there would be no serious inconvenience in proceeding now to the extent which is being proposed.
Prior to Thursday, very little inroad has been made on the long list of government business that has been on the order paper since the opening of the session. We do not like to be arbitrary, but it was felt at this time it was not being arbitrary to propose this motion.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: I think it is fair, on this motion, to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) a question. It will be recalled that last July when the

question of the adjournment of the 1952 session of parliament until the autumn, and the commencement of the 1953 session in the autumn of 1952, was proposed by the government, I asked him as to the reason for it. The Prime Minister indicated that the purpose of calling parliament so early was to conclude the session at the end of April or the first of May so that those who would be going to the coronation would have an opportunity of doing so. May I ask if that is still the aim of the government with respect to the present session.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: The government still
hopes that will be possible.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue) moved:: That a select committee be appointed on 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. Beaudry, Boisvert, Breton, Carter, Courte-manche, Decore, Diefenbaker, Dinsdale, Fleming, Fulton, Gauthier (Portneuf), Gauthier (Sudbury), Hansell, Henry, Jones, Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth), Knight, MacLean (Queens), McCann, Murray (Cariboo), Mutch, Richard (Ottawa East), Riley, Robinson, Smith (Moose Mountain), and Whitman. That standing orders 64 and 65 be suspended in relation thereto.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we have again proposed the appointment of a special committee on radio broadcasting. Regarding the study of all the aspects of the national system the terms of reference are practically the same as those similar committees have had in former years. There is, however, one change in the wording of the notice of motion. As bon. members will note, the resolution reads:
That a select committee be appointed on broadcasting to consider-
-and so on. Formerly, the word "radio" was inserted in front of the word "broadcasting". It was our former conception in years gone by that broadcasting consisted solely of sound broadcasting or what is known as radio. Within the last few years, however, there has been in this country a new development in the matter of television, so that when we put in the word "broadcasting" without

the word "radio" in front of it, that procedure naturally broadens the scope of the investigation or inquiry that will come before the committee; and it is proposed that they examine into the matters pertaining both to sound broadcasting and to television.
The last committee that sat on this particular subject was in the fall session of 1951. There had previously been an examination in 1950. The committee in 1951 brought in its report. Its sessions were not perhaps as long as usual because of the fact that at that time-in the summer of 1950 and from then on-there had been sitting a commission which had been set up on the development of the arts, letters and sciences and which was commonly known as the Massey commission. That commission had its report ready about that time, and the committee on radio broadcasting made a thorough examination of all the recommendations which were made in that report. The committee itself brought in its report on Friday, December 14, 1951. While it is not my purpose at this time to review extensively the recommendations and the findings of that committee I might, however, bring to your attention some of the recommendations which were made. One in particular was recommendation No. 8 which is as follows:
Your committee shares the view of the royal commission and of the previous committees of the house that the national broadcasting service carried on by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is essential in the development of our national life in Canada, and is efficiently performing an extremely valuable and important function. It has been impressed by the variety and extent of the services being provided by the corporation, and by the complexity of the problems which Canadian conditions impose.
Then the report went on and dealt with the other recommendations, one of which was:
It also recommends the initiation as funds become available of a second French network corresponding to the English language dominion network, the establishment of a French network station in the maritime provinces and increased service of French network programs by transcription to French language stations in the prairie provinces.
The committee recommended the desirability of improving the program services. They made recommendations with reference to the financing of the corporation. They were favourably impressed by the activities of the international services, and in the consideration of the representation of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters they made certain observations. There then came up another important question and their recommendation was this:
That the grant of the privilege of radio broadcasting in Canada continue to be under the control of the national government; that the control
Committee on Broadcasting of the national broadcasting system continue to be vested in a single body responsible to parliament; that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as now constituted be that authority and continue to provide directly by its operations and indirectly by its control of the operations of others a national broadcasting service free from partisan influence.
I am merely bringing these matters to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and I think perhaps the most important one, in the light of developments since 1951, was their recommendation with reference to television. That recommendation was No. 23 in the report and it was as follows:
Your committee is strongly impressed with the vital need for the development of a television system that is essentially Canadian and which gives expression in this new form of broadcasting to Canadian ideas and aspirations. It agrees with the royal commission that the situation must be avoided under which commercial pressures will lead to the major part of the material on Canadian channels being non-Canadian. Your committee supports the recommendations of the royal commission regarding television development and your committee recommends that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation proceed as soon as practicable with the extension of television coverage.
What I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, is the fact, that as a result of this investigation by the radio committee in 1951, considerable progress has been made with reference to the implementation of their recommendations. For instance, we have now established a French network in western Canada and also preparations have been made and work is now being done in connection with the French language station down in the maritimes. In addition to that, a number of low-power relay transmitters, as they are called, have been installed in northern Ontario and in northwestern Canada as well as in northwestern Quebec, in order that coverage may be added in those particular regions.
That committee made it a point to visit our facilities in the city of Montreal at the Radio Canada building there, and I am sure they were impressed with the advancements which were being made in the development of that centre.	I would suggest to the
committee this year, when they meet, that they again avail themselves of the opportunity of visiting Montreal or Toronto or perhaps both, and seeing the advancement that has been made there both in the physical attainments and in the technological advancements there have been both in sound broadcasting and in television. You will remember also, Mr. Speaker, that in our discussions in 1951 there was reference to certain amendments to the Canadian Broadcasting Act. At the time when we had the debate on the setting up of the committee we joined together both the resolution with

Committee on Broadcasting reference to the amendments to the broadcasting act and the resolution setting up the committee. May I recall to your memory just what those changes were in the broadcasting act. Two more governors were added to the board of governors which formerly consisted of nine; the board of governors since that time has had a membership of eleven.
Newfoundland, having come into confederation, was entitled to a representative on the board. That member has been appointed and has been functioning on the board ever since.
The second thing that we did under the amendment to the act at that time was to give the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation greater borrowing powers without having reference to the cabinet. Their borrowing powers were increased from $10,000 to $25,000 on any one project. The tenure of office of the chairman was changed. Then we set up an appeal section. We also made it possible by the changes for the chairman of the board, who was appointed by the government and who was not considered as an employee for pension purposes, to be considered as an employee, and he is eligible for pension.
I do not need to say very much more with reference to that, except to point out, as hon. members know, that the C.B.C., being a crown corporation, is probably subject to a great deal of criticism from all parts of the country and from all types of bodies. But still the C.B.C. has a great number of friends. I do not know of any other public institution which receives resolutions from as large a number of influential bodies as does the C.B.C. The federation of agriculture, which is one of the biggest organizations in the whole of the country, as well as the Trades and Labour Congress, different labour bodies, women's institutes and a great many others send in resolutions commending the policies of the C.B.C. I admit that perhaps we do not get the support of wealthy and powerful newspapers and chambers of commerce. While we are not entirely indifferent to them, I think that the other bodies which do pass resolutions commending the work of the C.B.C. are a good deal more influential. In addition to that, they do represent a greater body of public opinion. Of course the C.B.C. has difficulties. Any organization that undertakes a large amount of work in this country, as does the C.B.C., is bound to have difficulties and criticism.
When we are discussing the C.B.C. we should keep in mind that they have to operate on five time zones from one end of the country to the other. They have to

operate in two languages; they have to set up different systems and different networks in order to meet the needs of this country. In addition to the trans-Canada network and the dominion network, it is necessary also to have a French network.
I might recall to hon. members the fact that the C.B.C. has been the subject of investigation ever since its inception. There was the Aird report of years ago, which still is good reading, with reference to the basic principles on which the C.B.C. was founded. From year to year there has been a periodic examination by the radio committee of the House of Commons, and then in 1950 the commission to which I have made reference was set up, namely, the commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences. Its report has become known as the Massey report. The government has followed, and intends to follow, fairly exactly I would say, the recommendations that have been made in that report, because there was *never in this country a more extensive and exhaustive report made with reference to broadcasting than was made by the Massey commission. What we asked them to do, and what we are following, was to lay down principles upon which the government could formulate its policy with reference to the C.B.C. I want it distinctly understood that in the matter of internal management there is absolutely no interference on behalf of the government. When it comes to a matter of large expenditure, under the act these things are referred to the government for either endorsation or rejection.
I have always been in favour of private enterprise. Perhaps some people will wonder why I advocate and support the C.B.C. Well, I do it for this reason, that radio broadcasting and television are a natural monopoly. There are only a certain number of frequencies with reference to sound broadcasting, and what we call channels with reference to television, that are available, and if there were not control over them, and some governing body to do the controlling, the whole matter of broadcasting, either sound or television, would soon be chaotic. And so it is when you have a natural monopoly of this kind, it is in the best interests of the great majority of the people of Canada that there should be a governing body so to regulate things that they accrue to the best interests of the greatest number of people.
That is about all I have to say with reference to sound broadcasting. Hon. members will recall that on December 8 I made a statement in this house with reference to government policy on television.

That statement can be found in Hansard of that date at page 409. It was the first item of business of that day. I am not going to read it again; I am going to point out some of the important features in order to refresh our memories when we get into the discussion on television. I said at that time: -the government has been giving careful consideration to the development of television broadcasting in Canada. In its consideration it has had in mind the report of the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences. The commission recommended that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation proceed with the production of television programs and with plans for national coverage. It spoke of extension of national coverage both through publicly and privately-owned stations. It said that no private station should be licensed until the C.B.C. had available national television programs and that all private stations established should be required to serve as outlets for national programs. It emphasized the need for direction and control of television broadcasting in Canada to prevent Canadian stations from becoming mere channels for broadcasting material from outside Canada and to encourage Canadian content.
The government believes, with the royal commission, that television should be developed in Canada with the aim of benefiting our national life and that it should have the structure and the means required by Canadian conditions to ensure an adequate amount of suitable Canadian programs for Canadians as well as using some material from outside the country. Television will undoubtedly play a considerable part in the lives of many Canadian families. It is bound to have a strong effect on the growing minds of young people watching it in their own homes. The government believes it should be so developed in Canada that it is capable of providing a sensible pattern of programming for Canadian homes with at least a good portion of Canadian content.
We said at that time:
Therefore, it is proposed to ask parliament to approve a loan to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the purpose of building stations on the Pacific coast, in the prairie provinces, and in the Atlantic provinces. These would be established in the Vancouver, Winnipeg and Halifax areas. Thus, in addition to the stations at Montreal and Toronto, and that to be built at Ottawa, there would be publicly-owned stations with some production facilities at least in each of the main regions of the country.
We announced at that time that the government would be in a position to receive applications for licences for private stations to serve areas not now served-and this is very important-to serve areas not now served or to be served by publicly-owned facilities already announced. The government then, at that time, indicated to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that it was prepared to consider applications for such licences as may be recommended by the corporation, after having cleared, of course, with the Department of Transport. At that time I said:
The objective will be to make national television service available to as many Canadians as possible through co-operation between private and public
Committee on Broadcasting enterprise. Under this plan the private stations licensed will carry national program service, besides having time for programming of their own. There will be plenty of opportunity for enterprise by private interests in television broadcasting, and at the same time provision for wide extension of the national service. Since the objective will be to extend services as widely throughout Canada as is practicable, no two stations will be licensed at the present to serve the same area. A television station can serve only a comparatively small area. Canada is very large and it will require a good many stations before television can be brought to the people in most parts of our country.
That works both ways, of course.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Would the minister permit a question arising out of the statement he has just made?


James Joseph McCann: Perhaps the hon. member
would permit me to complete this part of my observations. That works both ways. If the C.B.C. sets up a television station in, we will say, the city of Toronto, and will not allow a licence there for a private station at the same time, that, of course, gives protection to the C.B.C. But if a licence were given in the city of Kitchener, serving a community of perhaps half a million people, a similar protection would be given in that no other licence would be given in that area at this time.
So that, as I say, in my judgment it works both ways, in that it protects the C.B.C. on the one hand and the private stations on the other. I have mentioned Kitchener. The C.B.C. has not designated that as an area to be served by them, so that it will be one available for private stations.


John George Diefenbaker: From the last few words of the minister's observations it would appear that the Kitchener area is not one designated as an area to be served by the C.B.C. The question I wish to ask is this:	In view of
the fact that that designation covers not only stations now being erected or shortly to be erected, but also those to be erected in the future, what about the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta? Has it yet been decided whether they are to be C.B.C. areas, or whether private enterprise may enter in those provinces.


James Joseph McCann: In Manitoba we propose to
erect a C.B.C. station in the city of Winnipeg, as has already been announced. Determination has not been made, for instance, with respect to Alberta. But, supposing we did erect a station in Alberta, I presume it would be, perhaps, in the city of Calgary. That leaves a splendid area in the Edmonton community for private broadcasters. They could serve that large area through some origination of programs and by programs

Committee on Broadcasting which are prepared by the C.B.C. and offered to them by means of kinescope recordings. It would serve also as an outlet for C.B.C. programs in the event that technological advances make it possible to bring those programs to that particular city either by means of microwave relay, or by cable.


John George Diefenbaker: What about Saskatchewan and British Columbia?


James Joseph McCann: We might hope that probably Saskatchewan could be supplied with programs, on the one side from Manitoba or on the other from Calgary, if there are certain advances made. If not, we would have to give consideration to the establishment of a C.B.C. transmitter in the province of Saskatchewan.
However, those are matters under consideration. I might point out that television is terribly expensive, and it will be hard to get public opinion to support a development at this time to the extent that we would wish. My own policy would be, so far as any advice that I might give is concerned, that we have got to go slowly on this, and take advantage of such technological advances as come along.


Mr. Graydon:: Does that not mean that Saskatchewan would be a no-man's-land?


James Joseph McCann: No, you cannot put it that way. Saskatchewan has never been neglected, so far as this government is concerned.


Mr. Cruickshank:: What about British
Columbia?


James Joseph McCann: I have made the announcement that we are building-we have already acquired the land-a television station in the city of Vancouver.


George Alexander Cruickshank: To be built when?


James Joseph McCann: To be built just as soon as plans can be drawn for it, and the transmitter can be supplied.


George Alexander Cruickshank: 1970?


James Joseph McCann: No, not 1970. We believe that by the end of 1953, or perhaps before that-in the early fall-we will be operating in the city of Vancouver.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Would the minister permit a question?


James Joseph McCann: Would the hon. member let me finish my statement, first.


John George Diefenbaker: On the basis of what the minister has said, it is planned to do something in British Columbia by the end of 1953. Is it right to say that, so far as Saskatchewan and Alberta are concerned, there are no plans for 1953, or the immediate future?


James Joseph McCann: Plans are not yet finalized with respect to Alberta and Saskatchewan. But they have been considered, and as soon as policy is determined with respect to those two provinces in the matter of the erection of television stations, it will be announced.


Mr. Brooks:: What is the situation in New Brunswick?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, I should prefer to have the questions after I have finished what I have to say. I can quite understand that hon. members are inquisitive; and sometimes, too, they may feel that if they can break up what one has to say it will be to their own advantage. I am just as familiar with those tricks as is the hon. member for Lake Centre. However, under the circumstances I think we will just let that go by the board.


Gordon Graydon: I think you had better.


James Joseph McCann: May I now return to the matter about which I wish to speak. I have given the policy of the government regarding the licensing of television stations. I should like now to review briefly the development of television broadcasting in this country, and refer to some facts in connection with it.
As hon. members will recall, television was one of the subjects the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences was asked to study. The government, however, did not wish to delay all action until the commission could make its examination, and report its findings. Therefore at the time the commission was set up the government authorized the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to proceed with plans for production centres and transmitting stations at Montreal and Toronto, as the first steps in the Canadian system.
Loans were authorized to finance these projects. The C.B.C. was able to go ahead, starting in 1950. Shortage of steel and all other materials and equipment following the outbreak of the Korean war held up these projects considerably and, in fact, delayed their completion for about a year. These centres went into regular operation in September of 1952. I, personally, have visited them and have seen the production of programs taking place. I would hope that other members of the House of Commons who are interested in this subject would do the same. It is only by seeing, at first hand, that anyone can grasp the immense effort and the complicated organization that is necessary to produce a live program. Early in 1951, in the light of the steel situation, the government decided to stop authorizing any new broadcasting stations for sound or television at a time when steel was being

withheld from so many other purposes. Those restrictions were lifted at the end of December, 1952. In recent months, due to the improvement of the steel situation, the government has given consideration to the question of television development.
I have already said that it was decided to ask parliament for a loan to enable the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to establish further stations at the capital and also one each in the Pacific, prairie and Atlantic regions. We also gave careful consideration to the part which private stations should play in the development. In this connection I should like to remind the house of some of the things which the royal commission said in dealing with television, and I should like to quote from the report where it deals with television at page 301 as follows:
1.	We were given the grave responsibility of making recommendations on the principles upon which the policy of Canada should be based in the field of television, this new and unpredictable force in our society. Our recommendations, however, as well as the evidence we bring forward in support of them, can be short and simple. They follow from the fact that the considerations leading us to recommend the continuation of a national system of radio broadcasting seem to us to dictate much more strongly and urgently a similar system in television. Television, like radio, is akin to a monopoly, but its much more limited channels give added importance to a system of co-ordination and control. Like radio it is a valuable instrument of national unity, of education, and of entertainment; how much more valuable it is difficult to say at present, but it promises to be a more popular as well as a more persuasive medium.
2.	The position of private stations in Canadian television broadcasting requires special consideration. In radio broadcasting Canada has achieved maximum coverage for national programs at minimum cost by using some commercial programs, and by co-ordinating private stations within the national system under the control of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We think the same principles of national control should be applied to television broadcasting but with certain special precautions. It seems apparent that the most difficult problem of television in Canada will be to provide programs in our remote and thinly populated areas; and television advertising will raise difficult questions. Even in radio broadcasting the programs of all private stations are likely to suffer from excessive control by the advertising sponsor. Only to a limited degree can the private station operator determine the character of his own programs. Because of greater capital investment and greater operating costs the unfortunate tendencies of radio broadcasting will be intensified in television. The pressure on uncontrolled private television operators to become mere channels for American commercial material will be almost irresistible. In radio broadcasting, Canadians experimented with a purely commercial system before changing to a national system.
That is away back of the Aird report.
Such an experiment with the more costly and powerful television would be dangerous. Once television were established in commercial north-south channels it would be almost impossible to make the expensive changes necessary to link the country
68108-87J
Committee on Broadcasting by national programs on east-west lines of communication. Canadians will welcome good American programs in television as they now do in radio, but as we have been informed, they do not want them at the cost of a Canadian national system, provided that the C.B.C. can make attractive programs available in the not too distant future. It seems desirable to use appropriate American television programs, and to make suitable agreements with Canadian private stations.
That has been accomplished already.
These arrangements, however, should follow and should depend on the organization of a national system of television production and control.
The recommendations were:
We therefore recommend:
a.	That direction and control of television broadcasting in Canada continue to be vested in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
b.	That the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation proceed with plans for the production of television programs in French and English and for national coverage by kinescope recordings or by any other practicable means.
c.	That no private television broadcasting stations be licensed until the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has available national television programs and that all private stations be required to serve as outlets for national programs.
The policy of the government is designed to carry out the findings of the commission which we believe are of great importance. I suggest that there is no purpose in having investigations such as the Aird commission, committees of the House of Commons or the Massey commission, unless we are prepared to give the recommendations most serious consideration and, I suggest further, to see that they are implemented. I believe that a commission such as the Massey commission represented the best talent available in this country to examine into all phases of the development of broadcasting in Canada. When we got their recommendations, which, after consideration and examination, appeared to be logical and practical to the government, I submit it would be ill-advised if we did not attempt to follow them and give them implementation.
There will be provision for the production of Canadian programs by the C.B.C. over the national service. The C.B.C., of course, will also be able to bring in some suitable programs from outside Canada, as the commission suggests. Just to bring you up to date: We have already made arrangements with the Bell Telephone Company to use their facilities at a rental of $225,000 a year in what is known as the microwave system whereby programs will be brought from Buffalo to-Toronto and, when it is completed, from Buffalo to Montreal and from Montreal to Toronto.
That was not built particularly for us; it was built as one of the commercial projects of the Bell Telephone Company whereby
1360	HOUSE OF
Committee on Broadcasting they are able to carry hundreds of long distance lines and give better service to their telephone subscribers and the general public. However, it is available and can be used as a microwave relay length for the carrying of television programs.
There will be facilities for the production of at least some programs in each of the main regions. That means that in those places that I have designated programs will originate. At the C.B.C. centres in the main areas of Canada there will be the foundation of a nation-wide system and production facilities located there so as to be able to use Canadian talent effectively for programs that will be available across the country.
No single factor in our life in the development of art has been so important as the C.B.C. in giving opportunity to Canadian talent to find employment at good wages and good fees through the development of radio. That will be intensified and increased with the development of television. Under the policy there will be a means of bringing national programs to a wider number of Canadians, through both publicly and privately-owned stations. Of course, it will not be possible for all these stations of the system, public or private, to be joined by direct network connections, that is, by coaxial cables or microwave relays, at least for a few years. But in the meantime national service programs will be supplied by means of kine-.scopic recordings to all stations. Under this policy there will be many opportunities for private enterprise to take part in television broadcasting. That I think is important because a lot of people have the impression that government policy is to shut out private enterprise. That is not so. There is going to be an awful lot of opportunity for private enterprise to take part.
The private stations will be established in such a way that they will all be able to carry programs of the national television service in addition to programs of their own. Thus they will be assisted in their operations, and at the same time will serve the national interest by helping to extend national coverage and to link the country together by means of television. It has been suggested that under this policy taxpayers in other parts of the country would be paying for television operations serving only the areas where there will be C.B.C. stations. That is not so.
In the first place it is proposed that the money advanced to the C.B.C. will be in the form of loans to be repaid later out of revenues. Programs produced in C.B.C. production centres will be available under this


policy to Canadians in many parts of the country through both publicly and privately owned stations.
It is the view of the government that television service should become available to as many Canadians as possible in as many parts of the country as possible rather than that those happening to live in places such as Toronto and Vancouver should have several services available to them before other important areas have any. Under the policy adopted we can look forward to a wide extension of television service and to a service that includes a good proportion of Canadian programs.
Because of the great size of this country and our relatively small population, television service to cover the majority of Canadians is bound to be expensive. Television programs are costly to produce and the cost per head in Canada, however that cost is distributed, is bound to be high; yet most people in this country would agree, we believe, that this important medium should develop a good measure of Canadian programs. From our national income there can be drawn only a certain amount from both public and commercial channels for television broadcasting. We believe that the system should be so developed that this potential support for television broadcasting should be directed as much as possible towards extending the television service throughout the country rather than doubling or trebling it in ' certain favoured areas. We believe the system should be developed as we plan so that a fair proportion of the total goes into the support of Canadian programs.
The policy will make possible the development of a Canadian-wide system of television stations, operating as a network, much as do the great networks in the United States. Here the stations of the network organization set-up will be publicly owned, and network programs of the whole system will be supported in part through contributions from the viewing public.
Some members appear particularly anxious to see private interests licensed in large centres which would also be served by the C.B.C. I think no doubt that from a business point of view such licences would be very attractive to any who could get them. Under such licences for big cities very profitable ventures could be operated by the fortunate licensees provided they were free to get most of their programs from outside Canada. The royal commission emphasized the almost irresistible pressure on uncontrolled private television operators to become mere channels for non-Canadian commercial material. It recommended particularly that

all private stations established should serve as outlets for national service. Of course, for some time at least, the C.B.C. will not be able to supply national service to two stations in one area. That would leave any second station under the almost irresistible pressure to carry largely non-Canadian material.
There may be some people in favour of allowing Canadian television channels to be used mostly, perhaps almost entirely, for broadcasting non-Canadian material. I should like to say that is not the view of this government. Together with the royal commission we believe that television should develop in this country so that it does broadcast a good proportion of Canadian programs for Canadians, while at the same time using some good material from outside the country.
We also feel that the benefits of such television should be extended as widely as possible and as quickly as possible through co-operation between private and public enterprise. That, we believe, will come about through this national policy.
Now, it is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to dwell further on this subject. The very purpose for which we are setting up a committee at this time is that members of the committee will have an opportunity of calling before them the officials of the C.B.C. who can be interrogated with reference to their past performance, and on the matter of policy with reference to the future development of radio and television. The public also have an opportunity to come before the committee and make such recommendations as they see fit.
I think most hon. members know that right in this building last week there was a meeting of the board of governors of the C.B.C. at which there were applications for new licences and the matter of proposed regulations was also discussed. The C.B.C., I am informed, would like to see the regulations stay as they are until such time as there is opportunity for discussion before the radio committee.
Now, perhaps you are familiar too with what happened just last week in the matter of applications. There was an application from this area, from the town of Eastview. What happened? That application was opposed by the other two stations here because of the fact that it is going to limit their field of commercial activity. They quarrel among themselves.
Up in Toronto Foster Hewitt has a station, I think at Mimico. He made a broadcast by wire from Boston of a hockey match and
Committee on Broadcasting it was a "fixed" broadcast in which he described things that never occurred. Another owner of a station in Toronto rebroadcast that on his station in exactly the same words and one man accuses the other of stealing his thunder and his broadcast.


An hon. Member:: Maybe that was television mentally.


James Joseph McCann: I suggest to you that, both in sound broadcasting and in television broadcasting, if there were not a firm regulatory body to control this natural monopoly, within months the whole thing would be in a chaotic condition.
I submit further that we have in this country one of the best systems of broadcasting to be found in the world. In the United States all stations are commercial stations. In Great Britain there are no commercial stations and the system is operated, owned and controlled by a commission which has been set up, the British Broadcasting Corporation. Here we have a combination of the two. We have the main system which is owned, operated and controlled by a commission responsible to parliament; and. we have 134 private stations which are supposed to act along with the nationally owned system in order to give coverage to all of the people of the country.
These private stations serve a good purpose. They serve a local purpose and they are outlets for splendid programs that are given to them at no particular cost.
I am very happy that this whole matter is going to be referred to a committee where there can be the freest and fullest investigation of all parties concerned.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the minister a question? I did not want to interrupt him when he was asked a question or two a little while ago. It would have seemed to be too much of a discussion. He intimated or put forward the supposition that if television was introduced in the province of Alberta he supposed that there might be one outlet in Calgary and that would leave Edmonton open to independent television broadcasters. I want to protect the minister on this because somebody is going to draw an inference there. I want to ask him if that was purely supposition or can they infer that Calgary will be chosen for the next television station under the C.B.C.-because I do not want rivalry between Edmonton and Calgary.


James Joseph McCann: It does not, I think, leave itself open to that inference. What I thought I said or intended to say was that the C.B.C.-this is an inference that you
1362	HOUSE OF
Committee on Broadcasting could draw from it-is not going to put main stations in both of those cities. Whichever city is chosen, the other city will be open to private broadcasting.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I believe there can be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the house should proceed to set up a select committee on broadcasting to undertake the studies mentioned in the resolution now under discussion. Having asked the government on December' 17 if it would take steps to have such a committee appointed at this session, I am glad that, after some delay occasioned by the government's failure until now to name the government supporters to sit on this committee, the resolution is now on the order paper and we may hope to see the committee set up shortly.
Sir, it is time indeed that a committee of this house did undertake such a review of the affairs and the administration of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The last time a committee of the house sat on this subject was in the fall session of 1951. In the intervening fourteen months there have been some major developments in the policy of the government and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, with reference to both sound broadcasting and television. This resolution, with the debate that it offers, let it be remembered, is one of the few opportunities we have under present circumstances for a review in general and debate on the policies of the government and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with reference to the broadcasting of sound and television. When parliament in a shortsighted move in December 1951 proceeded to vote sums of $6.25 million each for a period of five years as annual grants to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, it precluded any debate on these items year by year in the estimates. It would have been much better, and would have ensured the maintenance of some proper degree of parliamentary control over the policies of the corporation, if, as we in the official opposition argued at that time, there had been simply an annual grant and it had been left to parliament, year by year, to vote whatever sum of money it thought appropriate for that year. Instead, the government insisted that there should be this very large cheque written for a period of five years in advance. Therefore, sir, it behooves the house to embrace opportunities like that offered by the resolution now under debate to discuss the policies of the government and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
This discussion is all the more timely, because the policies of the government and the corporation are probably more unpopular


than they have been at any time since the corporation was established in its present form. It is not too much to say, sir, that the policies that have been enunciated within recent months by the government have occasioned a veritable outcry in the press on the part of the public, and even within the councils of the Liberal party.


Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: What is that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Don't you know what the Liberal party is? We will soon be able to speak of government by that party in the past tense.


Sarto Fournier: Councils; what is that? That is new to me; name them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My friend will have occasion to be apprised in greater detail, before I have concluded my remarks, as to what was the counsel tendered by a certain important Liberal organization to this government which my hon. friend has consistently supported.
It was evident in the speech of the minister this afternoon, particularly in his closing remarks, that the government does welcome any kind of diversion to distract the attention of the public from the policies which have occasioned this strong outcry on the part of the public. In what I have to say this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I propose to lay responsibility for those policies exactly where it belongs, namely, on the shoulders of the government. It will not suffice for the minister or the government to seek to hide themselves behind the coat-tails of the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Mr. Murphy:: Are you sure it is not horses' tails?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the course of his speech the minister struck a keynote when he spoke of broadcasting as "a natural monopoly". Indeed, that theme ran throughout his speech, as applied to both sound broadcasting and television. It was used to cover up a multitude of inconsistencies and fallacies in the contentions of the hon. gentleman. If broadcasting is a natural monopoly, will the minister please tell the house why it was that competition was permitted to exist between private stations in certain localities and stations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? Going further, will the minister tell the house why it was that, speaking of that degree of competition before a special committee on radio broadcasting in the session of 1946, Mr. Dunton, the chairman of the broadcasting corporation, in reply to a question, said that the kind of competition offered

to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by the private stations had been a good thing for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? He went further and said that competition had helped to keep the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on its toes.


Sarto Fournier: Just as the opposition does for a good government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In reply to my voluble friend from Maisonneuve-Rosemont, may I say that it would take more than a passing reference such as that with which the minister sought to dismiss this matter this afternoon to justify what the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is doing in fulfilling government policies by pursuing its monopolistic bent. Competition has been a good thing for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation where it has been permitted to exist. Who in this house is to say that competition now suddenly ceases to be a good thing for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? Who is to say now that in the development of the field of television there should be no opportunity whatever for competition with the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? I shall have more to say about television later.
I wish to make one thing crystal clear, sir, because the minister sought in his concluding remarks this afternoon to confuse the issue. No one, so far as I know, has ever said that there should not be a licensing body. No one in this house, so far as I know, has ever said that there should be no regulation whatever. But, Mr. Speaker, many of us have contended that it should not be left to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, enjoying the advantages that it enjoys under legislation today, to be regulating its own competitors. The proper course that should be followed is to leave the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to operate the national broadcasting, to carry out the function that was conceived for it when it was established, and to vest in an independent regulatory and licensing body the function of exercising the necessary licensing and regulatory powers with respect to all forms of broadcasting in Canada, whether they be carried on by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or by private stations.
It will interest hon. members of this house to know that that extremely sound proposal has not commended itself merely to Progressive Conservatives. It has found, if you please, an echo within the Liberal party itself. I have before me a press clipping of November 12, 1951, containing a Canadian press dispatch from the city of Vancouver reporting on certain resolutions passed by the national convention of the Young Liberal
Committee on Broadcasting Federation of Canada, and in which, if you please, among other resolutions, there was this one favouring "an independent administration to control radio and television, including the C.B.C."
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) and the cabinet are not in tune with the thinking of the young Liberals of this country.


Sarto Fournier: That is a laugh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My voluble friend the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont is a young man, but there is little indication that he, with his youth, has retained sympathy with the ideas of the young Liberals. While he has remained youthful and vigorous himself, nevertheless his ideas seem to have grown old and hidebound, like those of the government he has supported for too long.


Sarto Fournier: Following the example of my hon. friend who supports the Leader of the Opposition.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The inherent weakness of the whole system is that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the government are absolute in the field of control. We need not waste any time in talking about the amendments that were introduced in this house in 1951, because the form of appeal that was provided by that legislation from decisions of the board of governors to the exchequer court by leave of a judge of the exchequer court, on questions of law in cases where the board of governors had suspended a licence, covers so narrow and tiny a field that it does not make any effective invasion at all of the system of absolute control by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the government over all forms of broadcasting in Canada.
The control of this extremely important means of communication is a matter fraught with great danger. When we look at what has happened in some other countries of the world and have seen the means exercised by totalitarian governments to control the means by which ideas may be expressed and communicated, I think it is the duty of parliament in matters of this kind to be ever vigilant in restraining inroads and attempts to exercise sweeping control over these means of communication.
With reference to sound broadcasting, I wish to mention some features of the administration of the corporation and the government in recent times, though time does not permit reference to more than a few. First of all I have something to say about programs.

Committee on Broadcasting When we are talking about maintaining freedom of expression, let us remember that freedom of expression calls for some balance in the expression of points of view, so far as the national broadcasting system is concerned; and I think it calls for the exercise of some wisdom on the part of the governing body with respect to expressions which cannot fail to give comfort to the enemies of Christian democracy.
It is in the light of that view that I have chosen for reference only three or four excerpts from broadcasts which have gone out over the national network. In each case I have chosen programs which were sponsored by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation itself and, so far as I am aware, were paid for by the corporation, I have here the script of an address entitled "Oh Brave New World"-which went over the national Sunday evening hour from Ottawa on April 8, 1951-by Professor Arthur Phelps of McGill university; and I choose from that script some expressions, one of which is as follows: Canada got fat out of the last two wars and she has a good chance of getting fatter out of this one. The crusade against the enemy on the other side of the world is at the same time the crusade for good business. It is a brave new world. An American leader says "We've got the rattle-snake by the tail; let's bash its brains out". In Korea we have "Operation Killer". We are getting things done.
Then further on I see that he makes reference to what he calls "the disastrous hypocrisy of the United Nations Chinese aggression resolution". It is quite obvious that this gentleman did not approve the resolution that was passed by the assembly of the United Nations condemning communist China for her aggression in Korea. Nevertheless hon. gentlemen opposite will be able to take what comfort they can out of having voted large sums of money in advance for a five-year period to permit the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to pay men to make, over the national network, broadcasts like the one I have just read.
Then I choose another excerpt from the broadcast of "Stage 52" of February 24, 1952. This was an extremely amusing broadcast, Mr. Speaker. I am the last one who would wish to put any restraint on amusement or satire; but I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that the selections I am going to quote to you now go far beyond any proper satire: This purports to be a dialogue between an Eskimo and one McGatt. The Eskimo is quoted as follows:
Uluksuk: "Missionary he teach me ten commandments. 'Thou shalt not steal'. Me say. 'What is steal?' "
"Uluksuk, you don't know what stealing is?" 

"Me say, 'No'. He say, 'Then I teach you'. So me learn".
McGatt: "So now you're a rich Christian".
Then three pages later I find this in the script:
Uluksuk: "Ah, stealing, good Christian custom".
I suppose that commends itself to communists in this country and abroad, Mr. Speaker; but I greatly doubt whether the people of this country will relish the idea of having parliament vote substantial sums of money, for a period of five years in advance, to pay people to broadcast that kind of dialogue over the air.
I have here another script from "Week-End Review" over the trans-Canada system Sunday, February 3, 1952. It is a broadcast by Professor Keirstead. Speaking of the East, and troubled conditions in Asia and Africa, he says:
In all these lands, the British and, more recently, the Americans, have a bad past, a sorry heritage of exploitation and of alliance with subservient feudal lords who have, in the end, incurred the just hatred of their people. Discredited as they are, these members of a corrupt class can no longer help us. Yet our policy continues in the traditional path. The United States, taking over where Britain left off, tries to bribe its way into the confidence of men who can no longer command the loyalty of their subjects. That was the American policy in China, and it cost us China. The pragmatic test is the only one which history acknowledges. Today, this same policy may cost us more than China. It is nonsense to suppose that the communists have infiltrated into a position to command the Moslem church. They haven't. But Moslem fanaticism supports everywhere the nationalist rebellions of the Arab lands. And these people, with their aspirations for freedom, look for support to the only great power which is not committed against them. Can one really blame them-or for that matter, blame the Soviet union for taking quick advantage of this unexpected and unsought political bonanza?
I wonder how many people in this country, apart from communists, Mr. Speaker, will relish the idea that parliament has been called upon by the government to vote funds again for a period of five years in advance so that broadcasts of that kind, which acclaim the attempt of the Soviet union to capitalize on the troubles that it is stirring up in Asia and Africa today, can be broadcast on a national network.


Mr. Laing:: What kind of programs should parliament direct in place of that one?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, I would trust, Mr. Speaker, that any hon. gentleman who has enjoyed sufficient confidence on the part of his electorate, albeit four long years ago, to be elected to this house, would be able, with a little imagination, to think of something better than communist propaganda to be fed to the people of Canada over the national network of the C.B.C.


Arthur Laing: You want parliament to direct-


Mr. Knowles:: May I be permitted to ask a question? Does the hon. member think it is fair to say that Professor Keirstead acclaimed the situation to which he was drawing attention?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, Mr. Speaker, in answer I can only quote to the hon. gentleman again the concluding words of Professor Keirstead. If the word "acclaim" is too strong then I shall be glad to leave the matter on the record for fair-minded people to draw their own conclusions, and I quote again these concluding words:
Can one really blame them-or for that matter blame the Soviet union for taking quick advantage of this unexpected and unsought political bonanza.
If these are not words of acclaim they are certainly words which very carefully withdraw any element of censure from the action of the Soviet government in trying to infiltrate into the East and make trouble there, as they are doing in Asia and Africa, trouble that is costing the lives of men from the free nations of the world serving in these troubled areas.


Sarto Fournier: May
I be permitted to ask a question of the hon. gentleman-


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is always a pleasure to answer questions from my hon. friend.


Sarto Fournier: -for whom I have great respect, and Who is one of my good personal friends. Where is the Canadian government concerned with that?


An hon. Member:: They are not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend has had a shaft of illumination, Mr. Speaker, that I had despaired of his ever gaining. He has put his finger at last on the nub of the whole problem. The whole point is that this government apparently has no concern over matters of this kind. It is so filled with thoughts of pursuing policies of the kind of which I shall have something more to say later that it invites parliament to vote money, hard-earned money of the Canadian taxpayers, to be paid out to people to make, over the national network, broadcasts of the kind I have just mentioned.


Sarto Fournier: That
is an answer?


An hon. Member:: That is very subtle.


Sarto Fournier: That is not the answer that I was looking for.


An hon. Member:: That is very, very subtle indeed, Mr. Speaker.
1365
Committee on Broadcasting


Sarto Fournier: Where is the responsibility of the Canadian government?


Arthur Laing: To direct the programs.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is obvious that the Cana dian government has shirked responsibility here. It is going to be called upon to answei on its responsibility because it has continued to apply policies which have made it possible for this sort of anti-democratic propaganda to be broadcast at the taxpayers' expense, and has continued to ask the parliament of this country to make that money available. I did not receive any help from my hon. friend when I urged in December, 1951, that parliament should not make a five-year grant in advance, but should attempt to retain control. I said, let us vote money annually according to the views that parliament holds at the time, but my hon. friend did not give me any support then, Mr. Speaker. He was in favour of handing out a five-year cheque in advance. I pleaded with him and with other hon. members in the house at that time not to part with the opportunity of exercising parliamentary control over these matters; but my hon. friend would hear nothing. So far as his views went the C.B.C. must have this money voted five years in advance.


Arthur Laing: Would my hon. friend permit a question?


James Joseph McCann: They have to plan a little further ahead than you want them to go.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the suggestion that the government is going on planning broadcasts of this kind? That I am sure must give great encouragement to the communist propagandists of this country.


Arthur Laing: Will the hon. member permit a question? May I return to the first statement that he made a moment ago, namely, that the government was responsible for permitting a certain type of program. I ask him again, what type of program should the government direct the C.B.C. to broadcast?


Mr. Wylie:: You know the kind that they have been broadcasting.


James Joseph McCann: The government does not
direct any of the programs.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have tried to say to the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that the responsibility in this matter fundamentally rests upon the government, because these programs are being broadcast. The government is asking parliament to make it possible to continue the same policy and to continue the provision of money that makes these broadcasts possible. If my hon. friend cannot see

Committee on Broadcasting that responsibility resting upon the government, then, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid nobody is going to succeed in making him see it.


Arthur Laing: I think you are out on a limb.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, the hon. gentleman should be a very good judge of being out on a limb because he is so far out that he will never crawl back when another election comes.
Now, sir, I have one other reference to make on the subject of programs, and it is a very recent one; in fact, it is a program in the "Capital Report" series that was broadcast from Ottawa the day before yesterday. The gentleman who was retained by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to make this broadcast was Michael Barkway who, I think I can say, is a good personal friend of mine. It is distressing to me to find him indulging in the kind of broadcast that he made on Sunday, which was straight government propaganda. I do not think any hon. member dared, in the debates in recent days, to go so far as Mr. Barkway did in this broadcast on Sunday in trying to put a decent complexion upon the behaviour and failures of the government in the matter of the Currie report, and the scandals which it has disclosed in the Department of National Defence.


James Joseph McCann: On a point of privilege, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether this discussion is any reason why we should or should not set up a committee. I submit that this argument is entirely irrelevant.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You covered a very wide field.


Mr. Speaker:: On motions to set up committees in the past very wide latitude has been allowed. Last week there was a motion to set up a committee on expenditures of the Department of National Defence. At that time very wide scope was allowed. I do not know where we should stop. In the past, when motions have been made to set up committees on radio broadcasting considerable latitude has been given to hon. members to discuss the policies and the programs of the corporation. The motion is:
That a select committee be appointed on broadcasting to consider the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-
I suppose that includes expenditures of the corporation.
-and to review the policies and aims of the corporation and its regulations, revenues, expenditures and development.
The committee can consider almost every aspect of broadcasting. I doubt if I should be asked to stop the hon. member at this time. I am at a loss to know just at what point I would stop hon. members in discussing problems with which the Canadian


Broadcasting Corporation is faced, or with which it could be faced, or problems with which the government is or may in the future be faced in this connection. May I leave it to hon. members to try to discuss matters relevant to the setting up of the committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the remarks I was making indicated the necessity and desirability of having the house set up a committee to review the operations and administration of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I was making special reference to the broadcast two days ago by Mr. Michael Barkway, who spoke at public expense on the "Capital Report" series of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Certain paragraphs of the text are to be found at page 1305 of Hansard. I draw attention to the fact that the government must be very grateful to him for saying, first of all, that the copy of the report, which has received a certain amount of publicity, was stolen. I do not know that any hon. member in the House of Commons has gone so far as to say that the report was stolen. I have heard hon. members go so far as to say that it appeared that the report was stolen.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt whether the statement the hon. member has just made is relevant to the setting up of this committee. I do not think the house can decide upon that question now. I must say I have some doubt as to the relevancy of what the hon. member is saying.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not discussing a former debate. I am discussing what was said on Sunday by a man who was paid to do it by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I am saying that that was a coloured broadcast, that it is an example of the sort of propaganda the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is issuing, and that it is a very good reason why there should be an investigation by a special committee into the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


George Alexander Cruickshank: There is a committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I pointed out, with respect to this particular broadcast, that it goes far beyond anything that any government member dared to say in the House of Commons. And I am sure the government must have been very grateful to have propaganda of this kind going out over a national network.


An hon. Member:: Truth.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Truth? Why did not some hon. member in the debate in the house say so, then? Here is Mr. Barkway undertaking to make statements which, Mr. Speaker, no member in the House of Commons dared to make in that debate because they were not statements of fact.

He proceeds to say that certain things in the report are false. No member in the House of Commons, not even the most rabid government supporter, has dared to say that any statement in the Currie report was false.
And then he proceeds to say that the reason a motion was passed to refer the report to a committee, and to direct the committee to take up that report as its first item of business, was that false accusations had been made in the report-that the report itself contained false accusations.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that that propaganda has served the purposes of this government admirably, and at a time when the government was feeling the need of such assistance. It was indeed fortunate for the government that there should have been a national broadcast on Sunday afternoon, and at the public expense, containing statements of that kind which cannot be supported by the facts, statements the like of which no government supporter in the House of Commons dared to make on the floor of the house in the recent debate.
I have spoken about programs. I wish to say a word now on the subject of advertising content. The whole basis upon which the Massey commission recommended an annual statutory grant to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was that it should enable the corporation to eliminate all commercial content from its programs. I say now that we have not any evidence that the corporation, although accepting the statutory grant, has done anything tangible to reduce or to eliminate advertising or commercial content from its programs. Some of us will be very interested to learn why it is that the corporation has not carried out the intent of the Massey commission report and of parliament, and has not eliminated that advertising and commercial content.
The next matter has to do with the content of programs. The minister this afternoon has used an expression that I am sure warmed the hearts of us all, when he talked about the Canadian content of programs. I am not going to yield to the minister or to anyone else in the House of Commons in my desire to see the utmost possible Canadian content in Canadian broadcasting, whether it be by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or by private stations.
I would like to say this, though, that one thing that has impeded the use of Canadian talent on private stations has been this rigid denial on the part of the C.B.C. of any opportunity whatsoever to the private stations to have networks, even on a small scale. The talent in local stations is restricted because they are denied networks.
68108-88i
Committee on Broadcasting


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have been all across Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was referring to talent.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have been all across Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the corporation wishes to achieve some mathematical increase in Canadian content by eliminating certain programs and inviting private stations in their place to put on talks which will build up Canadian content, in terms of time, I doubt if they are going to make much of a contribution to the development of Canadian talent in that way. If they wish to do something for Canadian talent, I have indicated one way in which they can greatly assist in the development of that talent.
I come now to the not unfamiliar subject of the $2.50 licence fee for radio receiving sets.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I hear the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) say "hear, hear", and I am glad to find him in support of the elimination of this nuisance tax.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear; I introduced it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I know the hon. member is not alone among government supporters in the house who view with disgust the continued imposition of this $2.50 nuisance charge. Let me say that the government will hear about this nuisance tax until it is abolished. Can there be any sense in continuing a nuisance tax which yields $5,800,000 in a year and costs $700,000 to collect?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is the most costly of all taxes to collect. The cost of collecting it runs at about 12-2 per cent. The net yield from the tax is about 87 [DOT] 8 per cent. If we had to face expense at that rate in collecting other taxes, the house would throw up its hands in horror. Nevertheless the collection of this tax goes on. The government continues to impose it. Then the Department of Transport a little over a year ago came up with a new idea. They were going to eliminate the house to house canvass and substitute a staff of fifty full-time people who were going to be responsible for collecting this tax. It is about time that the government followed the only sensible course that could be followed with respect to this nuisance tax, and eliminated it.
I said that to my knowledge a number of silent Liberal members in this house disapprove very strongly the imposition of this nuisance tax. They are not alone in their

Committee on Broadcasting party in that respect because at the meeting of the National Liberal Federation in this city on October 27-I wish the hon. and voluble member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Fournier) had remained here because this is a subject that I wished to bring to his attention-we find that that largely attended meeting passed a resolution, which I quote from the Canadian Press dispatch of October 27, as follows:
Recognizing that the use of radio has become universal in Canada and a necessity of modern life, the advisory council recommends that the government give consideration to the immediate abolition of the radio licence fee.
I do not pretend that that resolution gave any comfort to the Minister of National Revenue, nor do I pretend that it brought any comfort to the heart of the minister when, as we read in the press,- he had a stormy and rough ride before that federation when he sought to justify government policy in continuing to impose this $2.50 nuisance tax and to continue monopolistic conditions with respect to television in Canada.


James Joseph McCann: I was not there at all when that was discussed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then the press reports must be wrong. It was the policies which the minister had defended so vigorously elsewhere that came under the condemnation of the Liberal federation, just as they would have if the minister had been present.
There is one other matter that I should like to mention before leaving the subject of sound broadcasting.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a good time to be away at a time like that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was just as well that the minister was not there.
In the recently issued report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1952, we find him dealing with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at page 53 as follows:
The operating surplus of $3,691,779 from sound broadcasting and the $369,225 deficit from television broadcasting may not be regarded as strictly correct, because
(a)	the $14,813,598 income of the corporation and
(b)	the disbursement of $243,353 for loan interest are related in the statement to sound broadcasting only, although pertaining to both sound broadcasting and television.
The correctness of the corporation's liability under the pension plan for past service of employees, reflected in the books by a final payment of $109,255, has yet to be established.
Included as an expense of the year is a charge of $12,000 for the estimated full cost of a deferred pension in favour of the chairman, in respect of the period November, 1945, to December 31, 1951. It was indicated that the matter was still under review, but as the records now are, doubt must necessarily be entertained as to the power of the corporation


(a)	to absorb the cost without cor. :ribution by the chairman:
(b)	to vary the approved pension plan without the concurrence of the governor in council.
Should it be that the action taken is in conflict with section 3(7) of the act, a situation would result which would be unsatisfactory alike to the corporation and the chairman. The matter is accordingly drawn to the notice of the board of governors.
I am sure that this is the first time that it has come to the attention of the house that the C.B.C. took upon itself the power to vote this substantial sum of money to cover the past due liability of the chairman to the pension fund and to do it apparently on a basis that involved a departure from the pension plan applicable to employees and without contribution on the part of the chairman. I suggest that when the committee is set up it should make it its business to inquire into that comment by the Auditor General.
I wish to come now to the subject of television. The minister has said something this afternoon about the importance of television. I am sure that in the world in which we live there are few influences of greater or more growing importance than television, along with radio broadcasting, in the influence they exert on the minds of the people, and particularly on the minds of the young. It is for that reason that I do not think that the house could spend time to better advantage than in carefully considering policies with respect to television.
A release by the dominion bureau of statistics on November 15, 1952, points out that between September 1949 and July 1952, 106,607 television sets were sold in Canada. I suppose that in the light of those figures it is not unfair to estimate that today in Canada there must be at least 150,000 television receiving sets, and the number is growing daily.
The development of television in Canada is years behind the stage of development attained in the United Kingdom and the United States. The reason is that the government has prevented the development of television in Canada. That is the complete reason. The government did it deliberately. We well know that applications for television channels by private applicants have been pending before the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for at least seven years. During all those years the government refused to entertain the applications. It was the policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as it was the policy of the government, to prevent anyone entering the field of television.


John George Diefenbaker: Dog in the manger.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was a dog-in-the-manger attitude. They would not do it themselves in

those days, and they would not let anybody else do it. It was sheer paternalism on the part of the corporation which led them to say to those who were quite prepared to take all the risks of investing their capital in the development of television in Canada, "Oh, no, we won't let you do it; we know better than you what is good for you; we won't let you do it because you may lose some money even though you might develop television."
So those precious years have passed, and it is only in recent times that the corporation has begun to develop television on its own account. The government deliberately retarded progress. Then along came the Massey report. The fact that the Massey commission was sitting for a year and a half prior to the writing of its report gave the government another excuse for delaying action.
Then the Massey commission made its report and I should like to make an observation about that report. I am sure that all members of the house have read the report with respect. In times past we have debated some of the recommendations made in that report, and some of us expressed and continue to hold a preference for the views expressed on many matters, including radio broadcasting and television, by Dr. Surveyer in his minority report. We accepted those as being the views of a man who by technical experience was better qualified to make recommendations with respect to the technique and system of broadcasting and television in Canada than the other distinguished members of the royal commission.
I wish also to make a general observation about the Massey report. No matter how much respect we may have for the members of the commission or for the views they express on subjects pertaining to Canadian culture, there is nothing in this royal commission report that is sacrosanct. It seems to be the view of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) that, if he breathes the words "royal commission", debate ceases to have any effect and whatever is found in the majority report of the Massey commission must be accepted as final. Well, Mr. Speaker, I for one am not prepared to accept it as final. I am prepared to approach such recommendations with a measure of respect, but I still reserve the right to consider those recommendations; and in this particular case I very much prefer the recommendations of the minority report by Dr. Arthur Surveyer.
Let us have a word about the cost of television in Canada, the cost of development by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. To date it has had these sums placed at its disposal: First of all, $4J million; then another
Committee on Broadcasting $1J million, in 1950, and another $2 million in 1952, or a total so far of $8 million. In the face of all that we have two stations in Canada giving television service to the people of their communities. The only people who are receiving any service in Canada today from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are people who live in Montreal and its immediate vicinity and in Toronto and its immediate vicinity. Those are the only people who so far have enjoyed any of the benefits the minister has proclaimed this afternoon.
Now, the minister has again trotted out that phrase of his, "natural monopoly", to justify the arid, sterile policy the government has been following with respect to television. I say to him that while sound broadcasting, as I indicated earlier, is far from being a natural monopoly, television broadcasting is very much farther removed from being a natural monopoly because of the effective horizon. Any television station has a very limited effective range. That range is normally about 60 miles and in some cases as far as 80 miles. How can it be said that television is a natural monopoly in Canada? It is absurd on the face of it to suggest that.
Mr; McCann: Because of limited channels.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Limited channels, Mr. Speaker? We have great numbers of channels available for television broadcasting in Canada today, channels which are not being used. There are great numbers of them. The fact of the matter is that one channel does not preclude, as it does in the field of sound broadcasting, the enjoyment of the same channel by other television stations as long as they are removed from the effective horizons of each other. It is utter nonsense, Mr. Speaker, for the minister to suggest that we are restricted by a limitation on the number or use of channels. There are many, many channels available today for television in Canada but it is government policy to deny the present use of those channels. I am sure that United States companies operating along the border are going to feel quite at liberty to set up television stations along the border to serve Canadian communities just over the border, even though those same channels are assigned to Canada, because they are not being used today. There are, I am told, many situations of that kind.
Yes, this continued sterilization by the government of the development of television in Canada is fraught with very grave dangers for the whole future of the development of television in Canada.
Now, sir, I have said something about the government's old excuse for its wretched,
1370	HOUSE OF
Committee on Broadcasting dog-in-the-manger attitude, and I have spoken of the delays in the development of the C.B.C.'s television operations. When it finally made up its mind after the Massey commission wrote its report it did run into some difficulties in procuring equipment due to shortages of steel, but let us remember that those long delays occurred and the corporation was obliged to postpone its estimated date for the commencement of operations in Montreal and Toronto not once but a number of times, and for long periods. When the government is building up rosy hopes in the minds of residents of Vancouver, Winnipeg and Halifax, I would suggest to the residents of those very estimable cities-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -that they be not too quick to infer from these government blandishments that they are going to have television service very soon. Because if their experience is anything like the experience of the other two cities which have that service, they are likely to wait a disappointingly long time for the inauguration of the service.
Now, what of government policy today? After this long period of complete sterilization of the development of television, now the government comes forward with what was dressed up to be a new television policy. Oh, the whole country was agog while waiting Tor the enunciation of the new television policy! How we crowded into the Senate [DOT]chamber last November 20 when the speech .from the throne was read, with great expectations, Mr. Speaker, of hearing the announcement of this great, brave new television policy; and this was the dud we had to listen to:
At the time television broadcasting was started in Toronto and Montreal in September, the Prime Minister announced that parliament would be asked to provide for the establishment of three additional public television stations, one in the maritimes, one on the prairies and one on the Pacific coast and that active consideration was being given to the role of private enterprise in television broadcasting.
You will accordingly be asked to make provision to enable the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to establish television stations in the Halifax, Winnipeg and Vancouver areas. My ministers have indicated to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that they are now prepared to consider applications for licenses of private television broadcasting stations which may be recommended by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-
Note that, if you please, Mr. Speaker, in the face of what the minister had to say this afternoon about the hands-off attitude followed by the government.
-to serve areas which could not be served at this time by public stations, with the objective of making television as widely available throughout


the country as may be feasible through appropriate co-operation between the corporation and private agencies.
I give that quotation from a lamentable passage in the speech from the throne.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if the objective is to make television as widely available throughout the country as may be feasible, this policy enunciated in the terms of the paragraph I have just read is most certainly above all other policies calculated to defeat that objective. The policy of the government today, with the further outline given to the house by the minister on December 8, is just this: that the government will take unto the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the choicest of all cities so far as revenues are concerned and size of population, and will then, in a grandiose gesture of generosity, permit private enterprise to operate in the smaller localities where there is the least chance of those communities being able to sustain the expense of television broadcasting. They follow that up, if you please, by saying that they will not allow two stations in any one place. That is a further development, Mr. Speaker, of the policy of the C.B.C. denying service to smaller communities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There might be a great deal to be said, Mr. Speaker, for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation extending television service to areas where, if these absurd government controls were removed, service would still not be available. Does the government need to inaugurate costly service in communities where, if the government would remove the fetters it has imposed on private enterprise, there would be plenty of broadcasting available today? No, the government is not satisfied, and is so dominated by this monopolistic mania that has directed its policies from the beginning with regard to television, that it is going to use the money of the taxpayers of this country- be it a grant or be it a loan, for this purpose it is the money of the taxpayers of this country and they must pay it-to provide broadcasting under C.B.C. auspices in communities where, if the government would remove the fetters, there would be television service under private auspices and at private risk.
There is another aspect of this arrogant and obtuse policy, and it is this. Even in those areas into which the C.B.C. has entered, they will allow no other station. In Montreal and Toronto, the government says that these areas will be permitted only one television outlet. It is absurd, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the way television has developed in cities of the United States of comparable

size. But, sir, it suits the policy of this government that, because it has established one station in Montreal, it will allow nobody else to establish a station in Montreal; because it has established a C.B.C. station in Toronto, it will allow nobody else to establish a station in Toronto.


Mr. Ferries  Good.Mr. Fleming@: Well, here is the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Ferrie), who apparently is quite content to apply that policy of monopoly-


Mr. Ferrie:: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and I tell him that policy of monopoly is the policy that breeds regimentation, that breeds restriction in the exercise by our people of their rights as free men.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: It breeds co-operation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend's idea may be to extend the size and power of government monopoly, but I can assure him that in that respect his ideas and mine are poles apart. I see no vindication of freedom in the assertion of government monopoly, and stupid government policy at that.
I have spoken of the way in which the government has thrown to private enterprise, in these smaller communities, a bone from which the C.B.C. has stripped all nourishment and meat. The people are going to be allowed to wait for television. What does it matter to this arrogant government if the people are made to wait for television service? A government that can say, "If we want to get away with it, who will stop us?" is obviously one that would say, "If we want to get away with sterilizing the development of television in this country, who will stop us?" It may be that we in the opposition are not numerically strong enough to stop them in this obtuse and wicked policy which they are following today. However, there is a day of reckoning ahead, and there is one sovereign force that can stop this government that thinks it can get away with anything it chooses. That sovereign force is the public at the ballot box. There is a day of reckoning ahead, Mr. Speaker.
I have one or two observations to make on two immediate aspects of this matter of television, Mr. Speaker. I did note that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), in the tour he made of the west last September, was quick to speak of the way in which a new station was going to be set up in Vancouver. But it is worth recalling the following further report from Vancouver on September 3 as follows:
Mr. St. Laurent would not say how big a licence fee would be charged television set owners or
Committee on Broadcasting even, in fact, whether the operation will be financed on a licence fee basis. But he made it clear that nothing would be payable until after the end of the government's budget year on March 31.
"How the payment for these services should be made Is a question which is still under consideration", he said. "The government is, however, of the view that the remaining months of this fiscal year should be regarded as an experimental period in which experience will be gained in the handling of this new national service."
I do not profess to be a prophet, but I observe with some interest the date that the Prime Minister selected as the date before which there would be no licence fee imposed on television sets. I am just sufficiently familiar with the tactics of this government in previous years and in previous elections to be willing to hazard a guess that unless the government is driven by fear into postponing the election for a very long time-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Sit down.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -a licence fee for television receiving sets will not be established in the lifetime of the present parliament. It will be left until after the election, and it will be one of the many problems left on the doorstep of the incoming Progressive Conservative administration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let us look a little more closely into this subject, because the following day in Ottawa the chairman of the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was interrogated on this subject. Reference was made during the interrogation to the statement made by the Prime Minister in Vancouver the previous day, that parliament would be asked at the next session to authorize a loan to the C.B.C. for the construction of television stations on both coasts and the prairies. Let us bear this in mind when the government seeks to spur the appetites of those communities that do hope to receive television.
Today, A. D. Dunton, C.B.C. chairman, said it is difficult to forecast how long it will take to bring the stations into operation. It may be one year or two years from this fall.
When we hear the Minister of National Revenue today conjuring up hopes that the people of Vancouver are going to have television service before the end of 1953, and bearing in mind that in all likelihood we are going to have a general election in 1953, for my part I prefer to accept the informed prediction of the chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as to when this service will be available in these communities, Vancouver, Halifax and Winnipeg. I note that he says it will be a year or two from the fall of 1952.
Then, sir, on this subject of development, I wish to mention what was said by the
1372	HOUSE OF
Committee on Broadcasting National Liberal Federation at its meeting three months ago. In a report by the Canadian Press from Ottawa on October 28, we read this:
On the heels erf its request yesterday for the abolition of radio licence fees, the 235-member council today asked for "the development of television in Canada by private enterprise along with the C.B.C."
The report also proceeds to say that "this resolution was adopted, according to delegates in the closed meeting, over the objections of revenue minister McCann". If the minister was not there in person, certainly his views were well understood. There you have a clear expression of opinion that is more closely related to the feelings of the people of this country than is the government today.
Now, sir, how good and how popular is the television service that the C.B.C. is providing in the two centres in which it is operating today at public expense? I have before me, sir, the reports of the Elliott-Haynes survey, a recognized survey which gives in parallel columns the degree of listener interest shown in the Toronto area by those listening to television programs over the C.B.C. as well as those over the private station which is available to Torontonians, WBEN-TV, from Buffalo. These are the results of listener interest according to this survey in September:



CBLT WBEN-TV

[Stage Direction]
September 	
26-0	640October 	
22-2	77-8November 	
25-9	741December 	
22-9	771
You will observe, Mr. Speaker, that the people who have television receiving sets in the Toronto area prefer, in the proportion of seven to two, the programs they receive over the Buffalo stations to those available over the C.B.C. television station in Toronto. Will you also observe, Mr. Speaker, that the popularity of the C.B.C. station is not rising. It started out in September at 36 per cent; by December it had gone down to 22-9 per cent.
George Alexander Cruickshank: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, and I want to be corrected if I am wrong. When discussing this new item of television, are you allowed to speak for an hour and twenty minutes?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) is not allowed to do so but the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) is.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want a ruling, Mr. Speaker. Are you or are you not allowed to speak for an hour and twenty minutes?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: I think the hon. member will find that, under standing order 37, the hon. member who has the floor is not limited to the usual forty minutes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Fraser Valley is not enjoying what I have to say, I do not insist that he stay in the house. I will say this to him, however, since he is speaking about the length of speeches. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) confided in me this morning that he was going to speak about ten minutes; then he talked for about fifty-four minutes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: But he is a minister; the hon. member is not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, I see. Isn't that lovely? This totalitarian complex has affected even the hon. member for Fraser Valley.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want an answer to my question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: However, I shall press on.


James Joseph McCann: Why does the hon. member not be fair? I said that I would be ten minutes and I spoke for forty minutes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Fifty-four by my count. I have another interesting report to which I wish to refer. It is the Gallup poll of public opinion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not sorry to see that the hon. member for Fraser Valley has taken his stormy departure from the chamber.


Arthur Laing: If two more leave, we shall have to adjourn.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish to refer to this Gallup poll. I may say that I do not repose any unquestioning faith in Gallup polls; I do not say that they are infallible or that they are always right by any means, but I am interested in this particular one. It was issued on November 22, 1952, and it polls public opinion on this question:
As you probably know, at the present time, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (C.B.C.) has complete control of television programs and broadcasting in Canada. Do you think private stations should be allowed to broadcast television programs, or should it be left to the C.B.C.
Here is the vote:
Per cent
Private stations should	be allowed	 57
Should be left with C.B.C	 24
Qualified opinion	 3
No opinion	 16
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you clearly see that on the part of those who were prepared to

express a clear-cut opinion on this subject, 57 out of every 81 said they wanted private development of television.


An hon. Member:: Is that in Ontario?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, that is a national poll.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make reference to a point which has been made by the minister about what has been done by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the development of Canadian talent; and so far as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are developing Canadian talent they will certainly have my support in so doing. But I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is not encouraging the development of Canadian talent when it stifles the development of television in the way it has been doing. Lest anyone should think that the minister could by any chance be right in pretending that radio artists support this exclusive and monopolistic policy of the C.B.C. and the government, I read this press release of a statement issued by the agent of the American federation of radio artists, A.F.L., at Windsor on July 6. It states:
Canadian radio artists cannot tail to be concerned by the statement attributed to revenue minister McCann on Friday, in which he was reported to have told the House of Commons that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will not license privately-owned television stations until it has stations of its own operating in every province of Canada.
This will have the effect of depriving Canadian talent in most regions of all opportunities of gaining experience and a livelihood in this new medium.
It means, furthermore, that for years to come, any Canadian performer will be entirely at the mercy of the C.B.C. as to whether he appears in television at all, for if the C.B.C. is unable to employ him, or worse still, if he incurs its disapprobation, he will be deprived of any other outlet for his talents. Should this view appear too pessimistic, it must be regarded in the light of experience with Canadian radio and the C.B.C.
Since the establishment of publicly-owned radio in Canada in 1932 under the C.B.C.'s predecessor, the Canadian Radio Commission, it has taken twenty years for the system to achieve relatively complete coverage of the country as a whole, with the means at its disposal.
If the extension of television service is to be similarly delayed, and private stations afforded no opportunity of entering the field, it may be assumed that many of today's radio performers will be lucky if their grandchildren see them on television.
Since it has been indicated that the C.B.C. will afford the advertising agencies less latitude than exists in radio in producing and presumably in casting their sponsors' programs, the preservation of a monopoly in the hands of one body for perhaps twenty years will further deprive the art of the benefits of healthy competition.
When we are forced to rely on distilleries for the encouragement of Canadian theatre, it appears strange that the enormously greater costs of television are expected to be met from the public
Fair Employment Practices purse when there are others willing and ready to assume the burden. We are already six years behind on this continent, and twelve years behind Great Britain where, it is interesting to note, parliament has approved the eventual entry into television of private enterprise, after thirty years of state monopoly in sound and television broadcasting.
This is my final observation, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Notwithstanding what the Massey commission said, we now know that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has entered into contracts and arrangements by microwave relay to put United States programs of both the National Broadcasting Company and the Columbia Broadcasting System over the facilities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The Massey royal commission recommended that we have our own development of Canadian talent on Canadian programs. What has become of the Massey report now?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Order. It being five o'clock, the house will proceed to the consideration of public and private bills.



FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 4, an act to promote fair employment practices in Canada.-Mrs. Fair-clough.
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, this bill in substantially the same form has been on the order paper for several sessions and unfortunately has not, until this session, reached the stage of second reading at an opportune time.
I might say that at the beginning of the present session I was both surprised and pleased to hear, in the speech from the throne, that it was the intention of the government to introduce a similar piece of legislation. That bill now appears on the order paper as Bill No. 100. I have examined Bill No. 100; and since it covers substantially the same ground as that covered by Bill No. 4, in so far as I was able to discover, it is my opinion that no good purpose would be served by proceeding at the present time with Bill No. 4. I therefore beg leave to withdraw Bill No. 4.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: May I acknowledge the graceful withdrawal on the part of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) of Bill No. 4, to make way for Bill No. 100 now on the order paper in my name. I would also like to express

Industrial Relations
the hope that Bill No. 100 either does or can be made to meet her wishes in this matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Has
the hon. member leave to withdraw the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles for the second reading of Bill No. 2, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off).
Mr. J. H. Dickey (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, when the consideration of this bill was last before the house I had begun a few remarks in relation to it. When the debate adjourned I had been referring to this legislation and to the history of the consideration of similar bills in this house. I had pointed out that it was my view, and a view shared by many hon. members, that a subject matter of this kind was something that should be left to the process of collective bargaining. I had pointed out that my main concern with regard to this matter was as it affected the employees of our two great national railway systems, and the steps I had taken in an attempt to do what I could to see that both parties concerned, management and labour in this particular industry, considered their positions with respect to the check-off from that point of view rather than to await or expect any legislative action on the part of this parliament to deal with it.
In his very complete and excellent speech on this matter the last day the house considered it, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cote) referred to the recent settlement of differences between the railway management and the non-operating employees, and the new contract which had been entered into between the railways and the unions representing those classifications of their employees; and he pointed out that as one of the terms of this recent agreement the employees had been granted a form of union security, the check-off, on what I believe to be a very much more favourable and more satisfactory basis than would be provided under the provisions of the enactment which

is before the house this afternoon and which in virtually identical form has been before this house in previous sessions.
I believe that the conclusion of this agreement between the railways and the unions representing their non-operating employees is a vindication of the position that has been taken in this matter by the Minister of Labour and by hon. members who have indicated views similar to those expressed by him and by the parliamentary assistant. It is certainly a vindication of the position of a former minister of labour, the late Humphrey Mitchell. I remember very well the excellent way in which the late Mr. Mitchell, when he was responsible for the Department of Labour, dealt with matters of this kind, not only in this house but in the committee which during 1947 and 1948 considered with such care the provisions of the national labour code which was enacted into law by this house in 1948. I know we all enjoyed the rather rare but always interesting contributions that Humphrey Mitchell used to make to the debates in this house. He spoke very forcefully indeed on a measure similar to this one on several occasions during my time here in parliament.
It must be obvious to all who are interested in and understand the labour movement that the position he took in those days has certainly been vindicated by the events of this year which were referred to in his speech the other evening by the parliamentary assistant. It is a vindication also, I believe, of the attitude that has been taken in this house and expressed on a number of occasions by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald), who I think has as much personal experience in labour matters as any hon. member.
The hon. member for Edmonton East has expressed his views on this particular proposal on several occasions. I was delighted to know that when speaking earlier in this debate he was able to point out how satisfied he was with the kind of union security which he had hoped for, and for which he had worked, and which he urged had been brought about by the process of collective bargaining. He expressed his satisfaction that this house had never fallen into what he considered would have been the error and which I consider would be the error of legislating into effect a form of union check-off which would not give the kind of security desired by him, by other hon. members and by other people who believe in the value and the strength and the service of labour unions, the kind of union security to which they are entitled and for which they should work.

I think that position, the position of the hon. member for Edmonton East, the position of the late Humphrey Mitchell, the position of the present Minister of Labour, the position of the parliamentary assistant and others, which has been so clearly stated in the house, is the correct one, and it is the position which I believe receives the support of a very large majority of the members of unions who will be affected by legislation of this kind.
The late Humphrey Mitchell always used to say that what governments can give governments can take away, and he did not want to see essential elements of working conditions, conditions of labour and all that sort of thing, which he regarded as matters for collective bargaining, brought into the realm of the kind of thing about which we legislate in parliament.
I support that view. That is the reason for the stand I have expressed on many occasions in the house, and which I repeat today. I think the probabilities are-and I would hope this would occur-that the step taken to establish the Rand formula check-off for the non-operating unions of the railways will gradually be extended and adopted in respect of other employees who would be affected by this legislation. I should think that, in that event, the end result would be much more favourable, both from the point of view of labour and of management, in all the industries which come under the provisions of our national labour code.
In referring to the national labour code I think I should draw attention to the interesting and, I think, valuable suggestion made by the parliamentary assistant in his speech on this bill, to which I have already referred. He suggested that as the labour code was enacted into law by parliament in 1948, and a period of five years from that time will have elapsed shortly, consideration should be given to having the legislation referred to the committee on industrial relations at some early date so the committee could study the legislation in the light of the five years of experience we have had and management and labour have had in the working of that labour code.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would that be before or after the election?


John Horace Dickey: Perhaps the hon. member has more information than I have about future events of that kind. However, I do not think our views on whether or not this is a valuable suggestion would depend upon the intervention of an election. I should think most members would be prepared to consider that proposal as one which could be brought into effect at an appropriate time, whether or not there should be an election in the meantime.
Industrial Relations
My only purpose in calling it to the attention of the house is to record my support of that suggestion, and I would hope that other hon. members who may take part in the debate would indicate whether they think this suggestion merits consideration or otherwise. It appears to me that the committee on industrial relations is the proper one to deal with matters of this kind; and a reference of the labour code to the committee, with proper publicity and some warning, would give all interested parties an opportunity to prepare submissions which could be placed before the committee. In this way a thorough and complete study could be made of the legislation as it stands on the statute books, and an investigation could be made as to the way in which it has operated. I am sure we would receive very valuable suggestions which we could use as an indication of amendments which might be made to improve or to expand the present provisions.
The proposal of the hon. member who sponsors the bill is, as has been pointed out, one which amounts to an ad hoc amendment of the labour code, in a way which obviously would not be in accord with the general scheme and principle of the legislation.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), who immediately preceded me in the debate, as I understood him attempted to make the point that the opening sections of the labour code do, in fact, dictate to both management and labour what must be done and that, in effect, these sections are achieving the same kind of imposition of procedures on both management and labour as would flow from our putting into legislative form a proposal for the check-off, or some other form of union security.
I would point out to the hon. member that in my view there is a very wide difference between the provisions of legislation which creates the necessary machinery for two parties to come together to bargain on matters of common interest, and any attempt by a legislature or any other authority to dictate the terms of an agreement which would be entered into between those parties, using that particular mechanism. It is just as if our general law, which provides for the enforceability of contracts, were to be amended to require that a certain provision be a part of every contract in order that it might be enforceable.
There is a great difference between the setting up of machinery by the appropriate government authority to do certain things, and the imposition by a government authority of certain things that must be done through that machinery. It is for that reason that I think this proposal is contrary to the underlying principle of our labour code, and that we

Industrial Relations
should not amend the labour code in this regard without considering the whole basis of our legislation and, if necessary, making appropriate changes in its principle to permit us properly to adopt suggestions of this kind.
That is the sort of study that I think the committee could give to this legislation. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will be a member of that committee, and that his advice and arguments will be of great assistance to the committee in coming to a conclusion. I see that the hon. member wishes to ask a question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, if the hon. member will permit me to do so. I was going to ask the question which I think 1 usually ask at this point in this speech, but there is a little variation in the hon. member's remarks, so I shall change my question. In view of the hon. member's suggestion that this is a matter that might well be considered by the industrial relations committee, why not let that committee give consideration to this measure at this session? After all, it is a standing committee. The hon. member has said that I may be a member of that committee; I am a member of it, and I know it has not met for quite a while. Why not give this bill second reading and let it be referred to that committee so it can be considered at this session?


John Horace Dickey: The suggestion made by the parliamentary assistant was that this course be considered, and I am sure it will be considered. It is not my responsibility nor that of the hon. member to decide whether or not it is possible to do it at this session or whether it should be left over for another session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What stands in the way?


John Horace Dickey: As I pointed out to the hon. member, that is not our decision. I know, as he knows, that there is a pretty heavy program of work for both standing and special committees at this session. I would think it would be a matter of some difficulty to fit in another important committee. I think this is a matter of great importance. If it is to be considered at all, it should be done in such a way that everyone who wishes to make representations to the committee will have the opportunity to do so. I think it would be somewhat difficult to expect that members of the general public or interested bodies would be in position, without having more warning than could be given at this stage, to make the kind of representation they would like to make, not just on this small matter, but on the whole working of our labour code

and its record of performance from the experience that we have had. Another point is that perhaps we are a little premature. The five years will not be up until September. When that five-year period has run its course I think could be the proper time to consider this matter in some detail.
I might point out that that was one of the recommendations made by the late Humphrey Mitchell when speaking either on a similar bill at a previous session or on some other proposed amendment to the labour code. He said he hoped that after we had five years' experience with this legislation there would be an opportunity for a thorough consideration by the committee.
The purpose I had in mind in rising was, first of all, to express my great satisfaction at the outcome of the negotiations which resulted in the establishment of the Rand formula check-off in connection with the nonoperating employees of the railroads by means of collective bargaining rather than by legislation, and to reiterate what I think are the specific reasons why we should not at this time approve of the bill presented by the hon. member. That is why I for one will once again express my opposition to it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the hon. member would permit one more question before he sits down. Before he points it out himself, may I say it is the same question I have asked him in previous sessions, only at a different place in his speech. If this is a principle which he cannot accept in connection with the federal labour code, why is it that it seems to be a perfectly proper principle for a number of provincial labour codes, including the labour code of his own province of Nova Scotia?


John Horace Dickey: As I have pointed out to the hon. member, I think some of the provincial labour codes proceed on quite a different principle than that adopted in the national labour code. I think the argument suggested by the hon. member's question is the kind of argument that should be presented to the industrial relations committee, if and when we get a chance to reconsider this whole matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you not going in a circle now?


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to prolong the debate on this matter because I have spoken on this question several times. This is not the first time this bill has come before the house. I should say that on each occasion it has come before us we have supported it for a number of obvious reasons which I shall give in a few minutes.

It has been said by speakers on the government side of the house that the proper way to deal with a bill of this kind is to refer it to the industrial relations committee. I recall back in 1948 that this very question came up before the committee. Of course I realize that the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) was not minister at that time, the minister then being the late Hon. Humphrey Mitchell.
This question has been given lengthy consideration in the committee on a number of occasions. I remember it was given a thorough going over in the industrial relations committee in 1948, and the committee voted in favour of having a voluntary revocable checkoff provision included in the legislation. When the bill was reported back to the house it was the then minister of labour who caused that provision to be rescinded. If the same attitude is to be taken when the committee is next set up as was taken at that time, no good purpose can be served in even having it referred to the committee. The attitude of the government, as it has been presented to us during this debate, does not seem to have changed from what it was at that time.
I cannot understand why there should be so much government objection to having a voluntary revocable check-off provision in our labour code. The compulsory check-off is included in the legislation in Alberta having to do with our teachers. To my knowledge there has never been any objection either from teachers' organizations, from school boards or from anyone else about that legislation. I understand that similar legislation has worked quite satisfactorily in Saskatchewan.
I think I am safe in saying that all of the mining contracts in Alberta contain a voluntary revocable check-off provision. It is true that that is not by legislation but by negotiation, but the provision is there just the same and there has been no complaint in that regard. I feel quite sure there would be no complaint in connection with the mining contracts if that provision were in the legislation. Both types, the compulsory check-off and the voluntary check-off, are working there, and certainly no objection has ever been raised.
It is all very well to say that this should be done by negotiation. The government has pointed to the new contract which was entered into on December 19 between the nonoperating employees and the railroads as indicating the method that should be followed. Mr. Speaker, as I well remember when I was teaching in the province of Alberta, there were a very small number of us who continued to pay our fees to the Alberta teachers'
Industrial Relations
organization. A great many of those people who were teaching-and this applies to all types of labour-would only pay their dues when they found themselves in need of assistance from the association. That point should be remembered.
Anyone who has had anything to do with labour organizations, be they teachers or miners, knows that you just cannot carry on an organization without proper financial assistance. The railways say: Well, it should be a matter of negotiation and the unions should collect their own fees; but, mind you, the railways themselves are in a very preferred position when it comes to getting their financial revenue. They even have the interest on their investment guaranteed by legislation. They should be the last people in the world to object to the voluntary revocable check-off. Their profits are guaranteed by legislation. Every time there comes a raise in pay they just come back to the government and say, "Well, this is it. You will have to give us higher freight rates in order to meet these obligations."
It is most difficult indeed for any workers' organizations to carry on unless they have a very definite means of getting financial assistance. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the labour organizations have given in the past and are now giving a service to their members which has resulted in raising their standard of living very materially. It is they who have improved the working conditions of working people in this country more than any other type of organization. Everyone acknowledges that, and these unions can only function if they have some means of raising the necessary funds to carry on, They have found by experience that it is most difficult to carry on in the manner in which the government would have them carry on.
As I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to talk this thing out. I have no objection whatever to its being referred to a committee, though I am a little bit dubious about what action will be taken on it there, when I well know that a majority of members on the committee will be Liberal members who favour the government's stand on this question. However, I suppose it is the proper place for it to be referred; therefore I am not taking any more time except to say that I am in favour of it, and if it should come to a vote, I shall vote in favour of the bill.
(Translation):


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of making my maiden speech tonight, and I hope that you will not consider the few opinions I am

Industrial Relations
about to express as being my maiden speech in this house.
(Text):
I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that I hope no one will take these few remarks as being my maiden speech. However, industrial relations is a question that does interest me particularly. I think it is a rather important subject, and I would like to voice a few of my opinions.
I do not believe that anyone has really been opposed to the voluntary revocable check-off proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). There is nothing radically wrong with the principle, and no one on this side of the house objects to it. However, there can be some question about its efficiency. As the hon. member himself has stated, this particular principle of the voluntary revocable check-off does exist in most of the provinces. As it is applied in practically all industries where unions are authorized by their respective labour commissioners, I do not believe that anything would be added by having federal legislation on the subject. As the hon. member says, the motion can do no more than give a minimum amount of union security, so the purpose of the motion itself would not avail a great deal for union security of which everyone is in favour. The particular principle already exists in the different provinces and is applied in practically all the large industries of the provinces.
There is one other question which to my mind is rather important, and it is a question of policy. I have not been here sufficiently long to know what the exact policy of the government is on this subject but I personally feel that the federal legislature, as a matter of principle, should keep out of business and industry as much as it possibly can. I am not alone in saying this. If you will permit me, I would like to read some pertinent remarks that I have taken from the Montreal Gazette of January 21, 1953, entitled "Hands off Industry-Chamber".
Canada's businessmen today asked the federal government to keep its fingers out of industry as much as possible.
Further down it says that:
-in Canada the relationship between business and government is something unique in the world, valuable and worth keeping.
To maintain this relationship business should refrain from looking to the government for solution of its problems and difficulties-
I believe there is much in that statement. I believe it is a fundamental principle, and that we could condense it by saying that when trouble arises between unions and employers it should be settled between themselves if at all possible. Afterward, if the parties cannot
JMr. Cardin.]
come to any agreement, the most natural person or organization that should be consulted or that should intervene is the provincial government. That has been done. In most labour codes they have the subject matter of today's discussion, a section regarding the voluntary revocable check-off. It is the parties I have mentioned, to my mind, whose duty it should be to solve the problems of industry in the different provinces. There they know more of the problems of the particular industry than the federal government knows.
That is what I have to offer by way of comment on this motion. I believe that, as a matter of policy, the federal government should only in case of absolute necessity, but not as a general practice or policy, invade the field of industry, which to my mind should be left under the control of the provincial governments. May I say that since the voluntary revocable check-off exists in the provinces; since it applies to most industries throughout Canada; since it can give only a minimum amount of union security, then I do not see any point in passing this bill. I feel that I should vote against such a measure.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), who has just taken his seat, put his finger on the crux of this situation. He has pointed out that many of the provinces have provided for the voluntary revocable check-off in industries over which the provinces have jurisdiction. The federal labour code applies to those industries which are interprovincial in character, and therefore do not come within the legislative competence of the provincial governments. The people who are employed in those industries, such as communications and so forth, are therefore a group of people who might be termed second-class citizens, because of the fact that they do not come under provincial jurisdiction, and because of the fact that their unions have to deal on a national basis for many of their benefits.
Now, I believe the most important reason for the voluntary revocable check-off is that it does bring the employer and employee together on a basis of recognition. While forcing the employer to give recognition to the union, after a time it removes the feeling of animosity that existed before this measure of security was obtained. When an employee makes an assignment of his wages for any other purpose, it has been honoured by the employer. In the case of income tax collections for the federal government it is not even necessary to make a written assignment of your wages. The assignment of a portion

of an employee's wages each month for the payment of bonds has been accepted as a good policy. Deductions are made for other purposes, such as housing loans and welfare societies; and in cases where employees band together for the purpose of insuring their health, they may have the premiums deducted from their wages. When an employer refuses to honour a written assignment for another body, an organization just as important as the employer organization, then it necessarily causes a feeling of resentment and does not act in the best interests of labour relations. Some employers refuse to accept this principle, yet in the provinces where the principle has been accepted we find the very best of labour relations and the unions enjoy some measure of security.
I would say to the house that there is a very limited amount of compulsion in the voluntary revocable check-off. I should like to read into the record a section of an agreement which is in force between the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company and local 651 of the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers. I should like to quote section B of article 21, but before doing so perhaps I should quote section A:
The company shall honour a written assignment of wages to the union.
As I pointed out before, that gives a measure of recognition and leads to harmony between the company and the employees. The company honours other assignments, so it agrees to honour an assignment of wages for union purposes.
Section B reads as follows:
An assignment pursuant to section A shall be substantially in the following form:
To The Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada Limited.
Until this authority is revoked by me in writing, I hereby authorize you to deduct from my wages and pay to local 651 of the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers fees in the amounts following.
That is the assignment which, under this legislation, would require an employer to deduct union dues. For those who maintain that there would be less compulsion if this matter were left entirely to negotiation between the company and the employees, I should like to read a quotation concerning union security by Chief Justice Sloan. I understand that the union had asked for a union shop, and the matter was referred to a mediation committee headed by Gordon Sloan, Chief Justice of British Columbia. As a consequence of the decision of that committee, the following article now appears in this agreement from which I have quoted:
The company shall during the life of this agreement deduct, as a condition of each employee's
Committee on Broadcasting continued employment, the sum of $2 from the first pay cheque due in each calendar month to each such employee and remit the same prior to the tenth day of the month following the month in which such deduction is made, to the financial secretary of the union. The company will, at the time of making each such payment to the financial secretary of the union, name the employees from whose pay such payment has been deducted.
This has become known as the Sloan formula, and is very similar to the Rand formula which has been adopted in some industries in Ontario. I simply wanted to point out the difference between this voluntary revocable check-off and other forms of union security. In common with many other Liberal members, perhaps all the Liberal members from British Columbia, I believe that this legislation will be a benefit to those in industries affected by it, and that it should pass at this time.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say a few words on this matter but I do not think I could complete what I have to say by six o'clock. May we call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time for private and public bills having expired, the house will resume, at eight o'clock, consideration of the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McCann that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That a select committee be appointed on 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. Beaudry, Boisvert,
Breton, Carter, Courtemanche, Decore, Diefen-baker, Dinsdale, Fleming, Fulton, Gauthier (Port-neuf), Gauthier (Sudbury), Hansell, Henry, Jones,
[Stage Direction]
Committee on Broadcasting Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth), Knight, MacLean (Queens), McCann, Murray (Cariboo), Mutch, Richard (Ottawa East), Riley, Robinson, Smith (Moose Mountain), and Whitman. That standing orders 64 and 65 be suspended in relation thereto.
Mr.   Si. Laureni@: Mr. Speaker, may I have your indulgence for a moment. Matters have arisen during the dinner recess which make it desirable that those of my colleagues and I who can be out of the house, without interfering with the business here, do give those matters consideration. I apologize to our colleagues in the house for our absenting ourselves, but I am sure there will be a full quorum.


Mr. Low:: We will take care of it.


Mr.   Ft. R. Knight@Saskatoon: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner recess the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) had been deploring the monopolistic position of the C.B.C. vis-a-vis the private radio stations in Canada. We of course cannot agree with the hon. member for Eglinton in that regard. As to the report of the royal commission, we find ourselves in agreement with it rather than opposed to it.
In the matter of the private stations I think our view would be expressed by that report at page 283, where it says:
The principal grievance of the private broadcasters is based, it seems to us, on a false assumption that broadcasting in Canada is an industry. Broadcasting in Canada, in our view, is a public service directed and controlled in the public interest by a body responsible to parliament.
I would suggest, sir, that the C.B.C. is not a competitor, in the ordinary sense in which that word is used, of the private radio stations. It is not just one rival amidst a group of rivals. At page 284 the report of the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences has this to say, which expresses our view:
The statement that the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is at once their judge and their business rival implies a view of the national system which has no foundation in law, and which has never been accepted by parliamentary committees or by the general public.
The broadcasting set-up that we have in Canada was established, as hon. members know, by the government of the late Ft. B. Bennett in the following terms as reported at page 2826 of Hansard of 1932:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the constitution of a commission to be known as the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, for the purpose of acquiring, operating, regulating and controlling radio broadcasting in Canada.
Then there is the idea of an independent regulating authority to which the private stations would appeal if they found it necessary, presumably against decisions taken in


regard to them by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation itself. I am afraid we cannot even go as far as that, because that again would do the very thing which it has been suggested in the quotations I have read should not be done, namely bring the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation down to the level of those private stations. By that action you would destroy the possibility of public radio doing a good job for the people of Canada. You would bring down to the level where it would be merely the commercial rival of the private stations, a corporation which, according to the purpose of the act passed and the resolution which I have read, was to have as one of its functions the actual control of radio broadcasting in Canada. You will notice that I did not use the term "public ownership". I said "public control" because as I see it the private stations have a very distinct and useful function in radio broadcasting in Canada, but that I shall develop in a minute or two.
The result of the setting up of such a regulatory body would change the whole function of the C.B.C. You would then have the picture of the C.B.C., which functions as a regulatory body according to the act, being in the position where it would have to compete for business with the private stations, and by so doing and by that concession to commercialism, as I see it, there would be a consequent and growing inferiority in the matter of programs.
We welcome the setting up of such a committee as is envisaged in the present resolution, in which we may review the work and activities of the C.B.C. We think it is a democratic process to have a corporation of this kind whose actions can be scrutinized year by year by the elected representatives of the people.
In the name of my party I would reiterate our position in the matter of public control of that body. As they were meant to do, and in conformity with their proper function, private stations have given good service in various places across Canada. I think there is a place for them, particularly in a country as widespread and as far-flung as Canada. But we must not forget that the privileges private stations have enjoyed have not been given to them as of right but, as it were, as an act of grace; and they must not presume upon that fact. They are not rights at all, in terms of the broadcasting set-up, but rather strength which they have accumulated by that act of grace on the part of the Canadian people.

Our friends in the private radio stations talk a good deal about freedom of speech.
I would imagine that all hon. members would favour that. But in commercial broadcasting, by the very nature of things work is done for private profit. Most of the time allotted by these stations has to do with the making of money, and that is perfectly all right for a private station. The general result, however, is-and I believe I am correct when I say "is" -certainly the general result would be, under the set-up as they see it, too great an allotment of commercial time, with a resulting disadvantage along other lines.
Surely there must be some equitable division of time allotted for political broadcasts. That is to say, there should be an allotment of time which would not be dependent upon the possession of money, or the lack of it, as might well be the case in respect of some political parties. Under a system of public control surely we would expect a situation wherein all public opinion would be represented; and we would see to it-as indeed we are seeing to it-that in broadcasts there would be represented all shades of opinion, and that these opinions might be aired with justice and equity. Both sides of any question would be heard.
I suggest that if there is a purely commercial set-up it is only natural and human that those who have the most money to buy radio time would have the greater use of radio. On the other hand those who had not the money would not be able to avail themselves of radio time. That would be the ultimate conclusion under a broadcasting system controlled completely and totally by private hands rather than in the public interest or, as we have it today, under mixed public and private control.
In the middle west programs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are very popular indeed. I can speak, of course, more particularly of that part of the west from which I come. Programs such as "Farm Forum", the Wednesday night program, and others are received with great favour. We know there is some criticism of the C.B.C. I have never known anything worth while against which there was not a good deal of criticism. This would apply not only to an organization but also to a man in public life.
I realize there is some criticism of the C.B.C. as an agency under public control. We suggest, however, that much of that criticism is the result of propaganda-very efficient propaganda-carried on by those who would profit by a lessening of that control.
I am glad the C.B.C. gives opportunity for the development of local talent in the arts of music and literature. I believe I would be
Committee on Broadcasting expected to say that in my part of Canada there is a gap in the C.B.C. service, and I refer to the area in the heart of Saskatchewan. I welcome the setting up of the committee because it provides an opportunity to question officials of the C.B.C. as to when they are going to bring to the prairies the production studio we have been promised. We have been told by those who plan such things for the C.B.C. that this matter has first priority. I shall carry my representations a little further and say that my own city of Saskatoon would be the ideal location for such a production unit. I shall not develop this point at greater length, because it was not my purpose in rising this evening to do so. Let me point out briefly, however, that geographically Saskatoon is in the centre of the province, it is the centre of culture in the province and is the seat of the provincial university.
But enough about local matters. Let us pass on for a moment to television. When compared with radio, television has even greater powers for good or evil, if I may so describe those powers. Because the television channels are much less numerous I should think that public control would be even more essential.
As one who has interested himself in educational matters, and particularly the guidance of young people, I have been interested in statistics from the United States which show the number of hours that children in that country, either with or without their parents' consent, spend watching television. Let me say at once that if our television programs are not a good deal better than some I have seen in the United States, or coming from that country, so far as the youth of our country are concerned we would be better without it.
This does not mean that we are not able to build good programs. On the contrary it seems to me that it is simply a matter of taste, and of control by people in charge who will give us the kind of programs we want. I suggest that no group of people are better qualified to give that control than are the people's representatives in the House of Commons.
Let me compare programs from the United States with those I have seen in Great Britain. Let me admit at once that I did not see many over there, but I did see some. I have in mind particularly the programs in Great Britain televised for the young people of that country. In my opinion those programs were excellent both in their educational and entertainment values. They have a wide variety and I do not suggest for one moment that they should be Sunday school classes.
1382	HOUSE OF
Committee on Broadcasting
Despite what has been said by previous speakers, I am glad that this is one publicly-owned corporation which has been given a chance. I am glad that the corporation is going into parts of Canada where television can be successful. In the past when the government has favoured public ownership of this sort at times, it has gone in and taken over where private enterprise has failed or has attempted to operate in parts of the country where it was impossible for either public or private enterprise to make good. But here is a publicly-owned corporation in which we are all interested that is being properly looked after and given a chance to be a success.
The radio licence fee has been mentioned by others, and perhaps I should say a word about it. I think the general view throughout the country is that there should be no licence fee as such. It is a costly matter to collect and is a nuisance. I believe there are still certain black-out areas in Canada, for example in central British Columbia, where the people would not be getting value for their money if they had to pay a fee. I have no doubt that through the good work of the technicians of the C.B.C. these areas are becoming fewer in number, but I believe some still exist. I would not wonder if the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) had something to say about this as he has on other occasions.
I do not think this radio fee is any longer an issue. If an election is in sight I predict that our Liberal friends will do away with this particular nuisance tax before going to the country. I will close with these words in order to let someone else take up the subject.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, we in this corner of the house are happy to support the motion for the setting up this year of a radio committee. In fact in previous times we have advocated that this should be a standing committee.
I should like to say a few words in reply to the minister who spoke this afternoon. For the most part we agree with many of the observations which the minister made. In this connection may I say that we are not opponents of the C.B.C. in the sense of opposing the corporation. We like to be fair in all things. I am not going to stand here this evening and rip the C.B.C. to pieces, and I certainly am not desirous of bringing this matter into the general political arena.
We believe that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has a very important place in radio in Caiufia. We do not oppose the C.B.C., but we do oppose certain radio policies which have been written into the laws- of


this country. We maintain that it is the law of the country affecting radio policies that needs to be changed. We believe that the C.B.C., being in a competitive radio field, should not have powers of regulation and control.
This afternoon the minister stated that many people and many powerful organizations in Canada had sent in resolutions of commendation of the present radio policy and the work of the C.B.C. As far as commendation of the corporation is concerned, perhaps that is all to the good. The minister told us also that there was some criticism, and that too is to the good. I do not think even the C.B.C. would say that criticism was not sometimes good. However, there is a difference between criticism of radio policy that might be levelled at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and what might be levelled at independent sponsors of radio.
Criticism levelled at an independent sponsor indicates to that sponsor that he must be ready to adjust his program, or else. That is not necessarily so when criticism is levelled at the government-owned and subsidized corporation. It does not necessarily have to pay a great deal of attention to such criticism because after all the life of the corporation is dependent to a large extent upon the public treasury. That difference in respect to criticism I think should be noted.
There is another thing I should like to say in respect to the minister's observations this afternoon. He had a good deal to say about the virtues of broadcasting, but I would remind him that much of what he said, which I suppose he intended to apply to the corporation, could be said about broadcasting in the independent field of radio. Those virtues can be applied to all radio; they are not confined to the publicly-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I do wish to say a word about what I consider to be the proposed tightening up of regulations affecting independent stations in respect to religious broadcasting and about any proposed changes that may be under consideration for tightening the regulations in respect to political broadcasts. I wish to say a word there because it does appear to me that this tightening of regulations seems to be aimed at religious and political broadcasting while there may not be the same regard-in fact the evidence that was pointed out this afternoon by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) would indicate that there may be a loosening of the regulations- in respect to other types of broadcasting. He referred to some of the programs that had recently been broadcast over the networks of Canada.

There is one responsibility that the publicly-owned broadcasting company has, and it is a responsibility that we must not forget. It is a responsibility toward the homes and the family life of our Canadian citizens. Let us remember that every radio program or television program goes into the homes of our citizens, and that is a very, very important thing. Let us not forget that as it is such a powerful medium for shaping public thought and public morals, radio should be guarded with the greatest of jealousy to see that the programs which go into our homes will tend to elevate and bring our Canadian nation to a place of respectability.
Now, I have had several comments by way of criticism, and although I do not want to be harsh I am passing them along. I have heard some criticism in respect of a broadcast known as "Stage 53" which was broadcast a few days ago. I think the name of it was "Lily's Story". I did not hear it, but my information is that Lily was described-I think perhaps by the commentator, I am not certain, but it does not make any difference who it was-as a "pale slut". I do not think that is a good thing, a good phrase-


An hon. Member:: It is not parliamentary.


Ernest George Hansell: No, it is not parliamentary and it certainly is not the right thing to go into the ears of boys and girls and the young people in our homes. Lily, who was supposed to be a pale slut, is involved in this story which went to the effect that a Chinese cook attempts to seduce this teen-age Canadian girl whose name is Lily-and she is a pale slut. I don't know whether the Chinese cook succeeded according to the story, as I did not listen to it, but I am told the story ended with this girl becoming a chambermaid and marrying a Winnipeg widower.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ernest George Hansell: There are a few inquiries coming in my direction. I cannot give you the address of the Winnipeg widower. These broadcasts have been made, but I think good common sense should be used with respect to the type of drama that we pour into the ears of our young people.


Solon Earl Low: Until after midnight anyway.


Ernest George Hansell: The leader of this group says until after midnight anyway, while this broadcast was at an hour when young people were liable to be listening.
We have all heard the criticism, although I am not going into the matter, of the television program "Hilda Morgan". Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am not a radio fiend and I do not seem to hear these broadcasts. Perhaps
Committee on Broadcasting other people are not as busy as I am, because I never seem to have time to tune in some of these programs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is surprising the ones you do tune in.


Ernest George Hansell: My information comes to me from people who protest these programs. I read in the paper the other day of a broadcast that was contemplated on the birth of a baby and that the commentator, I think, was expected to be in the delivery room at the time of the birth. I do not know what he would say but, frankly, I do not think that is the sort of thing that is necessary at all. As the leader of this group says it is getting pretty sordid. Why is that necessary? Just why is it necessary to broadcast a thing like that?


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


Ernest George Hansell: There is a lot wrong with it. My hon. friend interjects-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You do not mean that the birth of a baby is sordid?


Ernest George Hansell: No, not the birth of a baby, but the matter of commenting on it from the delivery room and making a public exhibition of a thing which I regard as somewhat sacred and something that should not be treated as a piece of showmanship.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: I say it appears to me that the regulatory body, which is the C.B.C., contemplates tightening regulations on religious broadcasting but continues to perhaps flout public opinion respecting dramas with a distinctly immoral tinge.
I want to have something to say about the tightening up of religious broadcasts. I understand they are tightening the regulations with respect to any suggestion from religious organizations that their broadcasts are supported by voluntary contributions, except with special permission of the C.B.C. Now, I am a preacher-


John George Diefenbaker: And a good one. I have heard you.


Ernest George Hansell: I have done a little broadcasting but I have never had a very big church, and I do not expect that I ever will. I have a small congregation, and frankly, a congregation the size of mine could not afford to put over a regular religious broadcast if it was not permitted to indicate that such broadcast was supported by voluntary contributions. I can quite understand the desire to stop any racketeering along this line, and if it is to stop racketeering, then I am with
1384	HOUSE OF
Committee on Broadcasting the C.B.C.; but I do not contemplate that that is altogether the reason for the tightening of the regulations.
A good many religious broadcasts are dependent upon voluntary contributions by the listeners. Why should that not be so? I see nothing wrong with that. I quite admit that you would not want the broadcaster to spend half the time attempting to bleed the people, but a simple announcement that this broadcast is supported by voluntary contributions would be sufficient. I see no harm in that. There is a very important and vital principle here, and it is the principle of freedom-not necessarily the freedom to suggest that the broadcast is supported by voluntary contributions. It goes deeper than that. It is denying the people of Canada the freedom of contributing to the things they want to support; that is what it denies.
I would say the same thing with regard to political broadcasts. I do not see why political broadcasters should not be able to suggest that the program is supported by voluntary contributions. I know something, too, about what it costs to run campaigns.
I think we are all aware of the fact that powerful parties have money to spend on that sort of thing, whereas new parties do not. Why should a political broadcast not be carried on on its merits? If its merits appeal to the people and they wish to support it, why not? I think that is the very element of freedom that we want in Canada.
Before dealing with that particularly, might I go back to these religious broadcasts. Imagine, if you please, the clergy of the country, the churches of our country, the bible schools of our country and those who desire to present to the people what they believe is the word of God and what they believe will strengthen the moral and Christian fibres of the country. Imagine such broadcasters having to go to the C.B.C., the regulatory body, and beg and say, "Will you please give me permission to tell the people that I am poor and my broadcast is supported by voluntary contributions?" Can you imagine a thing like that in Canada? I am glad the minister said the suggested regulations were not going to be put into effect until the radio committee had met. Nevertheless, according to the press, that is what the C.B.C. contemplates doing. Frankly I cannot imagine such a thing in a free country like this.
The leader of this party asks, what are the reasons? I do not know what the reasons are. They are beclouded, they are nebulous. If some religious organization were out plugging for money every minute of the broadcast time, it would be a different thing.
rMr. Hansell.]

I have not heard any of them do that. There is a certain amount of commercial broadcast time that can be devoted to advertising the things the broadcaster has to sell. In some of these broadcasts a great deal of time is taken in the promotion of their wares and in attempts to induce people to spend their money. Whether or not the people are getting their money's worth out of it, I do not know. In so far as religious broadcasts are concerned, the proposal is that they cannot ask for money or even mention that they are supported by voluntary contributions, without first going to the supreme high potentate of radio, the C.B.C.
I believe, too, that the regulations in respect to political broadcasts should be loosened up a little bit. I am not saying that we should necessarily go too far along that line. I do not believe that political broadcasting should be a racket, either. I believe it should be carried on within the confines and the ethics of good broadcasting. But we do find that the regulations do not permit dramatized political broadcasting. I do not know what would be regarded as dramatized political broadcasting. I do know this, if my memory serves me correctly, that in the early days when Mr. Aberhart first went on the air with our Social Credit political organization, he made some political broadcasts. All he did in those broadcasts was to open them with an alarm clock ringing, and as this alarm clock started ringing a voice would say, "People of Alberta, wake up; it is time to wake up." He had to withdraw that. He had to take the alarm clock off the air because it could be interpreted as dramatizing a political broadcast. I think that is going too far.
The regulations will not permit political broadcasts by the process of question and answer, either. I believe that the regulation is entirely too severe. There is no reason why two people cannot go on a program with one person asking the other a question for clarification, such questions as are asked by everyone. Such a method is more interesting, and it gives life to the program. It is done by the C.B.C. forum, and it is done during press conferences. Nearly all these forums and conferences have some political significance. They discuss some subject that is of interest to the people of Canada, and it has its reflection in political activities somewhere. Yet that method is not to be permitted. I believe that such a regulation is far too stringent, and certainly is an encroachment upon the liberties of the people.
I should like to say one or two things in respect to political broadcasting in the light

of the introduction into Canada of the most powerful medium of broadcasting known to modern times; that is, television. At the moment, I am not going to discuss television policy. I am in complete accord with many independent radio people who contend that the channels for television should be opened to independent broadcasters. It is certainly true that the fields of television the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have kept for themselves are unquestionably the most lucrative ones. I am well aware of the fact that those fields are also the most densely populated. I do not know what their policy is going to be as they further extend television. This afternoon the minister indicated that if there was one C.B.C. television station in the province of Alberta, perhaps the rest of the province would be free for the development of independent television stations. I do not know whether there is going to be any fight between the city of Calgary and the city of Edmonton as to who is to get the first television station; I hope there is not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe they will put it in Macleod.


Ernest George Hansell: It is not likely that they will put it in Macleod because Macleod is not a large city, and it would not likely pay there. I am, however, going to say this. Besides the city of Calgary and the city of Edmonton, there are other good-sized places. There is the city of Lethbridge with a population of 22,000 and the city of Medicine Hat with a similar population. I trust that these areas are not going to be forgotten.
What happens, of course, is this. When the C.B.C. takes the most lucrative fields, independent radio can only develop fields where they are likely to go broke. It is said: Oh, that is all right; but let us remember this. One of the great arguments for the perpetuation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is that it can give service in areas where private radio stations cannot be built, and all that sort of thing, and that argument should be applied to television.
Of course I know they cannot do it at the moment. I am not so foolish as to believe that they can erect television stations all over this country. I know that it costs a tremendous amount of money to erect those stations. I also know that it costs a tremendous amount of money for any sponsor to be able to put a program over television. When it comes to any organization, such as a religious organization or a political organization, eventually wanting to get on television, what are they going to do for funds if they are not able to tell the people of Canada that their television broadcasts are supported by voluntary contributions?
Committee on Broadcasting I do not suppose there is in Canada a religious organization that could afford to go on television and at the same time support the work that they are already obligated to support.
As for political parties, I should like to know what small party in Canada could afford to go on television in an election campaign. I am fairly sure that the party to which I belong could not afford it. Somebody behind me mentions free time. That is giving the wrong impression. There is some free time. But in political campaigns there are also paid political broadcasts, and you can get just about as many of them as your campaign funds will stand. What is going to happen when television comes along? How can a small party compete, for instance, with the Liberal party or the Conservative party? Imagine powerful political parties with, I was going to say, millions of dollars, but I will reduce it to thousands.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no; you were right the first time.


Ernest George Hansell: I think I was right the first time; but if I were called upon to prove it, of course I have not access to the necessary information. But if my judgment is correct, knowing the advertising that goes on in political campaigns I would suggest that they have millions. I was recently responsible for one political campaign; and the daily papers in that province in which the campaign was carried on were coming out every day with full pages of political advertising, particularly on behalf of the Liberal party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What good did it do them?


Ernest George Hansell: I went around getting the price of advertising for full pages, and when I was told the price I looked at the fellow who gave me the information and said, "I don't talk that language". I am a poor man. I was tempted to put a little want ad. in the personal column suggesting-


An hon. Member:: "Votes wanted".


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, "votes wanted"; "Social Crediters appeal to you for your votes. This advertisement is in correct proportion to the size of our slush funds".


An hon. Member:: You mean the agony column.


Ernest George Hansell: But I did not even do that. I did not put one advertisement in the daily newspapers in British Columbia.


Mr. Thomas:: It was not necessary, either.


Ernest George Hansell: Some political advertisements were put in by political candidates but as far as I was concerned-
1386	HOUSE OF
Committee on Broadcasting


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think hon. members should discuss the subject matter of the motion which is before the house. It is broadcasting, not newspapers.


Ernest George Hansell: Really, Mr. Speaker, I should not have made that mistake. I must be getting old and in my dotage. In my enthusiasm I had forgotten all about radio at the moment. But I was saying this. Imagine powerful political parties, with thousands or millions of dollars to spend, being the only political organizations that could use such a powerful medium as television. Imagine, if you please, a candidate in an election being the owner or manager of, or a large shareholder in, a television station. What an advantage he would have over the poor fellow who could not possibly afford a television broadcast.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You had better work out some public policy on the matter.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not know that I look forward to television in political broadcasting anyway, because after all you have to show yourself-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then you will have had it.


Ernest George Hansell: The Liberal party has some pretty handsome gentlemen as their candidates-


Stanley Howard Knowles: They used to be when they were young.


Ernest George Hansell: They have a few handsome candidates in the constituency of Macleod. What chance would I have with my puss? I would be through, that is all there is to it.


An hon. Member:: What about the Conservatives?


Ernest George Hansell: I think the Conservatives have some pretty handsome gentlemen. Look at how the handsome Conservatives, for instance, could appeal to the women's vote. What chance will the Liberals have then? Why, those two parties could put on the squeeze play and where would we small fry be then?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whom are they going to squeeze?


Ernest George Hansell: Well, Mr. Speaker, I suppose we should get through with this foolishness. However, it is not all foolishness. Some of the things I have been talking about are in reality pretty serious, and that is freedom of expression, freedom on behalf of the public to support that which they choose to support with their pocketbooks. Under the present system they are forced to support with their pocketbooks perhaps something they do not like, because we tax the people not only in


radio licences but every time we have to subsidize the C.B.C., whether the people like it or not. The one thing that we can keep free is the people's freedom to support financially the things they want to support.
I say these things are serious to me. I think they are serious to the Canadian people. They are serious if they will think them through. May I say to the minister that we shall support his resolution setting up the committee. I can also say to him that he will find us co-operative in attempting to make suggestions and bring out the truth in order to give the Canadian people the best type of broadcasting and television that is possible in Canada.


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Portneuf):: Since I will be a member of the committee that is to be set up soon, and since I have been a member of radio committees since 1945, I think I may be permitted to say a few words on this matter. In the past we have had pretty interesting sessions of radio committees, during which I have sometimes criticized the C.B.C. In that criticism I have tried to be as constructive as possible and as pleasant as possible, but at the same time I have tried to speak my mind frankly, and I have tried to help not only the C.B.C. but [DOT] the people of Canada at large.
I believe that with the good co-operation of the House of Commons and of the board of directors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-I did not mention the co-operation of the minister because we have had that for a long time-we can arrive at such an achievement as will give the people of Canada almost complete satisfaction in the operation of this publicly-owned service.
This afternoon we heard some criticism of a couple of scripts put on by the C.B.C., especially in the west. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) referred to a dialogue between a Mr. McGatt and an Eskimo. He concluded that this dialogue showed that the person who was carrying on the dialogue with the Eskimo was giving the impression that he was criticizing Christianity. I think the hon. member for Eglinton was a little lacking in a sense of humour. He did not quite catch the humour in the dialogue between the Eskimo and the other person.
He also criticized a script read by somebody who was talking about the present situation in Asia. The hon. member criticized that script because he said the speaker was putting the blame on the back and shoulders of the United States, saying that the United States was responsible for the present situation in Asia. May I tell my hon. friend that I recently read a book on the matter written

by a good Englishman from England. The whole book consisted of a series of statements having to do with the responsibility of Britain, the United States, France, and the Netherlands for the present situation in Asia. Because the writer said that, I do not believe we should be surprised if Russia takes advantage of the present situation, or think he was being vehemently critical especially of the United States. I believe the speaker on the radio was just stating facts, and that he was saying to his listeners that naturally the U.S.S.R., which is so close to that part of Asia, has been taking advantage of the present situation and of the mistakes made in the past by the powers that are foreign to Asia.
I want it perfectly understood that if I am supporting the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the setting up of this committee and most of the policies of the C.B.C., I am not opposing altogether at the same time all the requests and the points of view of the privately-owned stations. No, I think they have their own interests to take care of, their own interests to defend. I think their criticism is welcome provided that it is constructive, and is offered in a pleasant way. I do not oppose them altogether. I say that at the present time Canada needs this organization, the C.B.C., functioning as it does presently under the direction and administration of the board of directors.
Of course sometimes regulations have to be passed which do not please everyone. Scripts have been put on the air of which, at times, I have not approved. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) will remember my criticism of the scripts dealing with Bertrand Russell and Anna Freud. I believe that took place either last year or the year before. I strongly opposed the presentation of the views held by those people. I would still oppose any such presentation; and every time a script of that kind is brought to my attention I shall oppose it. My criticism was that those scripts should not have been presented on the air, especially over the C.B.C. stations.
But if there have been mistakes made by the C.B.C., I am sure that mistakes have been made, too, by the privately-owned stations. We must not heap all the sins of the world on the shoulders of the directors of the publicly-owned organization. We must establish a dividing line of responsibility between the privately-owned and publicly-owned systems.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think my hon. friend would agree, though, that when an objectionable script is used, it is much more serious when
Committee on Broadcasting it is put over the national network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation than if put out only over some private stations.


Mr. Gauthier (Porlneuf):: That would
depend on certain things, of course. It would be most important that scripts of that kind should not be put on the air from a powerful privately-owned station serving, we will say, a million or half a million people. I would understand, of course, that if these objectionable lectures are put on the air over the national network they would reach more people than they would if put out over a privately-owned station, even though a big one.
I must repeat, however, that mistakes have not been made only on one side; the sins have not been committed only by the C.B.C. Sins and mistakes have been committed by the privately-owned stations, too; and my hon. friend knows that.
Although in the past I have criticized what has been done by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I still maintain that we need it. It is important that the operations of the corporation shall continue. It is important that this publicly-owned system shall continue to give the good service it has given the people of Canada in the past. There can be no question about that.
Upon reading the Massey report I found three good reasons for supporting broadcasting by the C.B.C. One of these reasons is that Canada has a small and scattered population in a vast area. Second, this population is clustered along the rim of another country many times more populous and of far greater economic strength. The third reason is that the majority of Canadians share their mother tongue with that neighbour, and this leads to a peculiarly close and intimate relationship. We are close to the United States.
Let us suppose that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation did not exist. My view is that if it were not in existence at this time it would have to be created at once, due to the vast financial strength of our neighbour to the south. If we did not have good programs put out by the C.B.C., neighbouring stations in the United States would draw Canadian listeners.
The C.B.C. is managed by human beings, and it cannot be perfect. At the same time, the privately-owned stations are in the same position; they are bound to make mistakes, too. But anyone who has a reasonable knowledge of radio broadcasting throughout the world will admit that the organization of the C.B.C., not only in Montreal but in the whole of Canada, is second to none in

Committee on Broadcasting the world. My hon. friends have seen that organization in Montreal, and they know that what I say it true.
We are a small population in a vast area. For example, one station in the city of New York can reach a population equal to that of Canada. Large amounts of money can flow into the purse of a privately-owned station in that city, because it will have great numbers of listeners, and the commercial material in the broadcasts can be made more interesting. Those who advertise over such a station realize that the more people who listen, the greater will be the results from advertising.
In Great Britain the British Broadcasting Corporation reaches a population of 50 million through the use of 975 miles of landline. In Canada we require 15,000 miles of telegraph and telephone lines to provide a national broadcasting service to our 14 million people. One can easily understand the difficulties which confronted the C.B.C. when it was created in 1936. Imagine the courage and far-sightedness that must have been exercised by the organizers of this publicly-owned organization. At first sight they had to realize that we must have some organization capable of covering large and far-removed areas. The privately-owned stations would not be interested because, from such areas, they could not derive enough income to cover their operational expenses.
I believe we can imagine what would have happened by taking the railways as an example. Perhaps the cheapest way of communication by rail between Montreal and Winnipeg could have been by way of Chicago. Not only would it have been cheaper; it would have been easier, and perhaps shorter. But it would not have been an all-Canadian railway system. To have that all-Canadian route we had to have help from public funds, as well as some kind of arrangement with the privately-owned system.
In radio the condition has been the same. We had to have the co-operation and help of both the publicly-owned and privately-owned systems in order to provide more facilities for those who wanted to go into this business. They needed sufficient facilities in order to start a very profitable business. That is what happened. No one can say that the C.B.C. has put privately-owned stations out of business since its inception. The number of privately-owned stations in Canada at the present time is proof that after all the regulations of the C.B.C. are not as stringent as some say they are and will continue to say they are.
There is another angle from which this problem of radio broadcasting can be approached, the angle concerning education,

culture and even national unity. Because of our nearness to the United States we are exposed to and endangered by its powerful financial organization. We must realize that we have something to preserve in our culture which is superior because of its duality. We must not allow United States culture to get the best of our listeners in Canada. Our listeners should not be subjected to the expansion of United States culture and at the same time forget our Canadian culture which has been achieved through Providence and because of the courage and broad-mindedness of the two principal races who have lived in Canada since the opening up of this country. The Massey report has this to say at page 276:
On the other hand, radio, as one of the most powerful means of education, may be regarded as a social influence too potent and too perilous to be ignored by the state which, in modern times, increasingly has assumed responsibility for the welfare of its citizens.
Those who invest money in broadcasting do not want to lose what they have invested. It is normal that they should want it to be a paying proposition, and there should be no quarrel about that. In order to make the greater profit they want to serve as many people as possible so that what they advertise will be most interesting. That is natural and normal. But who is to cover the vast areas with small populations if the C.B.C. is done away with? No one will cover those areas because it will not be a paying proposition to broadcast there. The C.B.C. has entered that field. I am sure that all rightthinking Canadians, those who do not want to offer futile criticism, will agree with me when I say that if the C.B.C. had not been created it would have to be created now because we need it in the worst way.
I admit that the publicly-owned system is supported by the taxpayers' money, and that that money should be spent according to their best wishes. The C.B.C. has made mistakes, and in the past I have offered criticism of its operations. I may have criticism to offer in the future. But I believe that in the long run the C.B.C. has a most commendable record as far as its work and achievements are concerned. I am sure the people of Canada at large support the work done by the C.B.C. for the Canadian people.
I am sure that I will not scandalize anyone when I say that I shall support the motion. I am not a socialist, nor do I believe that the more we have in the way of publicly-owned enterprise, the better it will be. I am in favour of private enterprise. But in certain fields, in this instance the broadcasting field,

I believe that a government-owned system is best. In that way the people are given the best programs possible.
The other day I read an article criticizing the new regulations about the use of Canadian talent. Canada is an ant-hill of talent and I think the more of this talent that is used, the better it will be for Canada and the more we will be doing to preserve our duality of culture.
I repeat that I will support the setting up of a committee. As far as my conscience allows me to do so, I will support the C.B.C. in the future. But I shall hold myself free, as we do in the Liberal party, to criticize when I think criticism should be made.


Mr. Casselman:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Gauthier: My hon. friend says, "oh, oh." I understand that "oh, oh", because it comes from the whip of the Conservative party.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house has listened with interest and in large measure with approval to the most thoughtful speech just delivered by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier). One may disagree with some of his ideas, but at the same time I think we must admire an attitude which is so fair and reasonable in the discussion of this problem, as the hon. member has exhibited on other occasions in the past.
I intend to endeavour to follow the hon. member and deal with these matters in a dispassionate manner. As I listened to him concluding his remarks and making an appeal on behalf of freedom, I could not but agree when he referred to the difficulties Canada experiences by reason of being adjacent to a great nation to the south, with all its power and influence. I realized once more something of the challenge and the responsibility of maintaining in Canada that duality of culture to which he referred. I also accept and concur in the sentiments which he expressed.
Freedom is a subject that is always of interest. History shows that throughout the ages there has been a continuing contest between those who demand freedom of speech and those on the other hand who fear the use of that freedom. I am going to make some reference to freedom a little later on in connection with the C.B.C. I believe the time has come for a declaration additional to that made by the committee on a previous occasion in respect to that concept of freedom which is so much misunderstood today.
I want to make it clear, and as I said I am going to make reference to it later on, 68108-89
Committee on Broadcasting that in my opinion freedom in essence is the embodiment of the principle of the sacredness of the personality of the individual, and from that concept flows the idea of freedom of religion and of speech and of thought and association.
I think that periodically we have to make a declaration, each for himself, that freedom denies that we should be told what we are to read or hear or speak or write or think, except in so far as limitation of those rights is necessary in order to secure and assure the freedom of others. For if we ever come to the view that freedom consists in thinking what the majority believes or directs shall be thought, we shall have indeed defeated the concept for which democracy stands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: There is a tendency today-and it grows and attacks governments, and it attacks individuals as well-for people to believe that for which they stand is right, and that for which those opposed stand is wrong.
When I say these things I do not say that the use of freedom should permit or allow its abuse, for after all freedom consists in limiting the right of each of us in the interests of and the assurance to all of us of a like degree of freedom. If we ever arrive at a point-an unthinkable position-where each of us has to think what the majority demands, then we have indeed defeated democracy.
I believe that freedom can only exist where there is freedom of the mind, and that freedom can withstand wrong and evil only so long as it recognizes the right of each human being to find truth for himself. Democracy will not survive unless it depends for its living vitality on the persuasiveness of argument rather than uniformity of thinking determined directly or indirectly by the state. Freedom can only survive if each of us has freedom to inquire and to discuss; but freedom does not cover the right to speak disloyally, blasphemously or slanderously.
From time to time we have to do our thinking regarding freedom. A committee such as the radio committee is one that I am always proud to serve on, for in that committee there is a freedom from partisanship that too often bedevils some of the other committees set up by the house. There is freedom to think there, to disagree, to argue, and to discuss; and all of us within the same party do not have to have the same viewpoint regarding freedom. After all, freedom knows no bounds of party.

Committee on Broadcasting
I am one of those who fear for this nation if we ever arrive at a point when the governor or the board of governors of the C.B.C. are going to determine what I shall hear and when I shall hear it. I want to have the right to hear the exposition of views whether I agree with them or not. Providing that the delicacy of people is not shocked, or their religious sensibilities are not disturbed, I hope the day does not come in this nation when the C.B.C. will be in a position to determine for me what I shall hear over the air of this country. If we allow ourselves that luxury it will not be very long before the views expressed there will be the views *of the government of the day, and the opportunity for public opinion to be created by hearing all sides will have been denied. I say that by way of opening.
I listened to the minister today with great interest. He mentioned that I tried to trick him by a question, but that was farthest from my mind. I was trying to get information about what was going to happen and what was in the mind of the minister. He dealt with his stepchild with geniality, and throughout with pride. He pointed out that the C.B.C. has many friends; that he numbered himself among that host of friends; that it has much on the credit side of the ledger, and we all admit that. But, sir, changes have taken place within the last year or two that have also achieved a very unusual number of debits on the other side. I think one of the reasons for that is the fact, pointed out by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) this afternoon with his usual comprehensiveness in discussing the matter, that now that the C.B.C. is freed from any direct responsibility to parliament to secure funds, it has also freed itself from doing some things that parliament has a right to demand that it shall do.
I believe criticism has been on the increase during the last year, and it is not criticism restricted to private radio stations, or to the press, or to chambers of commerce to which the minister referred. Criticism is becoming more general than ever before, and I think the reason is that there has been a tendency -and I speak wishing that I did not have to say the things that I am about to say- for the C.B.C. to become more absolute in its domination over private stations. It has revealed an attitude of mind in the promulgation of, or at least in threatening to promulgate, new rules, and also in allowing some of its programs to develop a sort of idolatrous adulation of some of the things this government does.
That is a trend, and unless we bring it before parliament it will continue. I am not going to single out any particular person


this evening in what I am saying. I believe that some recent broadcasts, and it has been particularly noticeable in the last six months, by some commentators bear all the evidence of an endeavour to build up the government and some of the ministers of the government in a manner that is detrimental to maintaining the non-political character of the C.B.C.
The news summaries by the C.B.C. are unbiased, as I see them. They are worth while, and they are listened to by the people of this nation. But some of the commentaries on the news by alleged independent commentators have shown that praise, however unjustified, of the government is not a disqualification of those who would make these commentaries and who do make them. The minister says there is no interference whatever by the government, and I will accept that statement. But there can be unconscious interference, which may be just as effective as conscious interference. I have noticed in the last year particularly that, with a number of exceptions, the commentaries on Sunday could not have been more effective as Liberal propaganda if the government had consciously intended that they should be such.
I believe in free speech, but freedom of speech does not consist in a national body or a national institution placing before the people, as unbiased commentaries, adulation amounting almost to idolatry, however commendable that may be to those in this country who enjoy power.


Jean-François Pouliot: Constant criticism is another excess.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right. My hon. friend speaks with authority on that, and I agree with him entirely in that interruption. Now, returning once more to the regulations-


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Today the regulations are out of date; they are obsolete. With few exceptions they go back to 1936, before the day of television. A little later on I am going to make a reference to television. I am all in favour of a Canadian national feeling. I am in favour of Canadian programs but, Mr. Speaker, the regulation that is about to be passed-if well-informed C.B.C. sources may be taken as correct in their assumption- that the Canadian content of programs must be increased by 48 per cent, indicates to me that the C.B.C., realizing that that cannot take place under present circumstances, is using its power against the tax-paying private station in a manner that is most unfair. How is a single station going to carry out a policy such as that?


James Joseph McCann: Those are still matters for negotiation.


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate that. I said it was in a period of suspended animation. But according to well-informed sources in the C.B.C., this is the regulation that is going into effect. However laudable the purpose may be of providing talent by edict, the result of this regulation, if carried into effect, will be unfair and unjust to the private stations of this country.
The minister says it is a matter of negotiation, and I agree. But I want to contribute my views at this moment so that, in so far as negotiation is concerned, my own views and those of many other Canadians on that subject will be known. I quote from the Vancouver Sun, which has never shown any particular desire to criticize this government. The editorial, appearing on October 31, 1952, read as follows:
C.B.C. thwarts talent
The eve of television development in Canada is a good time to expose the C.B.C.'s pretentious boast that it is the hothouse and forcing-bed of Canadian culture and entertainment talent.
It is just the reverse.
Then it goes on to say:
Private broadcasters say this situation effectively discourages the development of Canadian talent.
"There is no competition for talent," they point out, "since it must either work within the terms established by the C.B.C. at C.B.C.'s prices or have no field in nation-wide Canadian broadcasting."
That is the view generally held.


Mr. Rowe:: What paper was that?


John George Diefenbaker: That was the Vancouver Sun. I did not read all the editorial. It becomes more definite as it goes on, and uses some language that might not be regarded by the government as parliamentary. It does point out that a regulation such as that leads to other regulations, and such regulations will ultimately lead to the regimentation of private broadcasting stations in this country, if indeed the purpose of this regulation is not the achievement of that end.
Imagine what the newspapers in Canada would say if they were directed that they must publish editorials, 50 per cent of which dealt with Canadianism. How long would they stand regimentation such as that? When the C.B.C. was originally set up it was intended, in spite of what the government would assert today, that private stations could operate in co-operation with the C.B.C. In support of that statement I have the authoritative words of one of the first governors of this body. These regulations are not in effect yet, but my view is that they are dangerous in their potentialities. They would place the private stations in this 68108-891
Committee on Broadcasting country in the position of being pawns in the hands of the government competitors.
The minister endeavours to brush all this aside by saying the regulations are necessary. Certainly they are. Who argues against them? But regulations should be fair; they should be reasonable. If these regulations are brought into effect they will indeed provide an argument in support of those of us who believe that, as today there is a board of transport commissioners that determines disputes as between the government-owned railroad and the privately-owned railroad, so there should be a body similar in nature, if not the same body, in order to determine disputes as between the C.B.C. and the private stations. Last year the minister brought in legislation to provide for an appeal to the exchequer court.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That was in 1951.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes; in 1951. That was a sop. What is being asked for is not a right of appeal such as that, commendable and effective as it may be within its narrow compass. I say that a regulation such as the one I have been discussing is strong support of the need for a semi-judicial body to control the C.B.C. and to prevent injustice and unfairness from being perpetrated upon the private stations by the C.B.C. acting as both litigant and judge, a position that is a denial of every principle of right and justice.
I now pass on to a question that has been dealt with at considerable length today, namely that of television. I listened to the minister, and I tried to be impressed by his argument. In Saskatchewan we find that we are to be the forgotten province. There is nothing for us. We are not even worthy of a dam. But now, in addition to that, we are to receive no consideration in connection with television. Private companies everywhere are willing to establish television.


James Joseph McCann: Where in Saskatchewan?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know where in Saskatchewan.


James Joseph McCann: No; you do not know.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know that. If the minister is able to answer that question, I will be able to ask him a couple of questions. When I tried to get answers today he said the questions had tricky propensities about them.


William Earl Rowe: He did not know; that is why he asked you.


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact, the attitude of the government toward television has placed Canada farther back in television than any other nation similarly placed. I do

Committee on Broadcasting not understand this dog-in-the-manger attitude. If the government is not going ahead with television, why stop someone else from doing it?, My hon. friend says: Will anybody establish a station in Saskatchewan? Give them a chance. Will the minister now rise and say that if any private company is prepared to establish a television station in Saskatchewan, it will be allowed to do so?


James Joseph McCann: Not that I know of.


John George Diefenbaker: I am asking whether they will be allowed to do so.


William Earl Rowe: Not that he knows of, the minister says.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, as far as I
know no applications have been received from private individuals in the province of Saskatchewan. Should an application come from somebody in the province of Saskatchewan, it will be given consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Joseph McCann: There is nothing to laugh at about it. The hon. member asked for an answer and I am giving it. Should an application come from somebody in the province of Saskatchewan, it will be given consideration by the Department of Transport and by the governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


An hon. Member:: Pass the buck.


William Earl Rowe: The operators are not laughing.


John George Diefenbaker: Television applications have been receiving that same kind of consideration for the last two years. Thirty-four of them have been held in abeyance, some of them for two years; yet my hon. friend says the same consideration will be given to any applicant in the province of Saskatchewan.


William Earl Rowe: That will be 1965.


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member will be gone by then.


William Earl Rowe: So will the minister. Don't worry about that. Your whole party will be gone.


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member will still be driving race horses.


William Earl Rowe: No; they will still be on the payroll.


Mr. Fraser:: This government have only horses.


William Earl Rowe: The minister will be able to ride one.


James Joseph McCann: Don't you ever think it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, these highly interesting interjections should be broadcast by the C.B.C.


James Joseph McCann: The proceedings ought to be televised.


John George Diefenbaker: What I am trying to point out is this, subject to the assistance I am getting from both sides of the house. As television expands, radio recedes. Wherever television is allowed to establish itself, ordinary radio broadcasting in effect ceases.


James Joseph McCann: Oh, no; that is not the experience.


John George Diefenbaker: Of course the minister speaks as an authority. I am just going to quote the former head of the National Broadcasting Company, Mr. Merlin H. Aylesworth. He said "Radio is doomed". A little later he said: "Radio is the only American industry that died in its infancy". He goes on to point out that when television finally is established, people cease to use the ordinary radio. What is our position today in Canada? We have promises for the future. The private broadcasting stations are placed in the position that they may establish places where the pickings are no good. That is, in effect, the policy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister nods his head to that statement.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister agrees. I am glad to have his approval of what I have stated. In effect the position is this. The C.B.C. exercises a selectivity in examining all parts of the country; and having decided that some time in the future they may do something-and they do not yet know when they are going to start in various provinces -they say: This area looks profitable, so we are going to set it aside as an area in which we may establish, but until we decide, no one in that area shall have television. To me, Mr. Speaker, that is a denial of every right of private enterprise.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And of the Canadian people.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a denial of the right of the Canadian people to hear Canadian programs. Instead, they are being forced into the position mentioned by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) a moment ago, namely of being obliged to accept United States programs, to turn on their television sets to hear what the United States has to say rather than having a government or a broadcasting corporation that is prepared to go

ahead in Canada and assure Canadians of some of this Canadian unity of which we hear so much prated.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Diefenbaker the debate was adjourned.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is private members' day.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, January 28, 1953