1953-03-18

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Hughes Cleaver (Halton) presented the first report of the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The officers of the Canadian
national European flood relief fund are anxious to have an announcement made of the amount parliament will be asked to appropriate as the Canadian government's contribution to the fund. This will, of course, appear in the supplementary estimates when they are tabled, but the officers feel there would be an advantage in having the fact known at this time. I think that if it is to be known, it should be announced here. The government will ask parliament to appropriate the sum of $1 million for that purpose.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Harkness:: For what purposes was the lumber, produced at the Department of National Defence sawmill at Petawawa, used, giving the amount used for each project or building?


Mr. Blanchette:: The lumber was used for such things as forms for concrete for the construction of sidewalks, sewers, manholes, etc., the rehabilitation of temporary buildings and temporary married quarters to accommodate the units under training, routine maintenance, summer camp buildings such as shower stalls and field kitchen shelters and other miscellaneous projects, such as targets. Since the lumber used in these projects was drawn from day to
day as required over the last four or five years, it would require a great deal of research and analysis to determine the specific quantities used on each particular project.


NATO MILITARY TRAINING IN CANADA
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Since the establishment of NATO, how many persons from countries other than Canada have received or are now receiving training in Canada under the provision of any NATO agreements or arrangements?
2.	From what countries have such persons come, how many in each case, and how many in each year, since the establishment of NATO?
3.	What is the total amount spent to date for the training of those referred to in question (1), including transportation, maintenance or any other costs met by Canada?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	3,063.
2.	The following nations are participating under NATO agreements: United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Holland, Italy, Denmark, Norway and Portugal. Figures of trainees cannot be given without first obtaining the permission of each nation.
3.	$140,734,857.92 to January 31,	1953
including provision of necessary capital facilities.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Harkness:: 1.	Who constructed the Department of National Defence sawmill which was erected in the Petawawa military camp area in 1949, and what was the cost?
2.	If it was constructed by contract, who was the contractor and was the contract let by tender?
3.	What was the estimated value of the tank engine which was installed as the source of power for this sawmill?
4.	If the mill was constructed by the army works services or any other military unit, to what vote was the cost charged?
5.	What unit of the Department of National Defence operated this sawmill?
6.	If it was not operated by a unit of the Department of National Defence, by whom was it operated and under what conditions?
7.	How many logs, board measure, were cut for the use of this sawmill, exclusive of the 500,000 ft., board measure, declared surplus?
8.	Of the 500,000 feet, board measure, of logs cut in the logging season 1951-52, what proportion was jack pine and what proportion was white pine, and what was the average butt diameter of these logs?
9.	What was the estimated value per thousand of (a) jack pine logs; (b) white pine logs?
10.	How many cords of slabs were on hand at this mill when it was declared surplus on July 25, 1952, and what was the estimated value of these slabs?

Questions
11.	What disposal was made ol these slabs?
12.	What was the total amount of lumber, board measure, produced at this mill whilst it was operated by, or for, the Department of National Defence, and what was its estimated value?
13.	What was the cost to the Department of National Defence of the logging operations carried an in each of the logging seasons, 1949 to 1950, 1950 to 1951, 1951 to 1952?
14.	Was any logging carried on by the Department of National Defence in the logging season 1952 to 1953?	'
15.	If so, what was the amount of logs, board measure, cut; what was the cost of the operation and what disposal has been made of the logs?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	The army works service at a cost of approximately $5,000.
2.	It was not constructed by contract.
3.	Estimated value at the time of installation $1,250.
4.	Canadian army vote 140-09 maintenance projects.
5.	Petawawa detachment of 3 works company, RCE.
6.	Under the supervision of the above detachment, the actual operation of the mill was carried out.
(a)	During period 1949-51 by day labour employed by the detachment.
(b)	During period 1951-52 a contract was awarded through Department of Defence Production to Clouthier & Sons to operate the mill for the detachment at the rate of $16.30 per thousand for lumber sawn and delivered to Petawawa.
(c)	During 1952-53, Mr. A. Amyot has rented the mill to cut 500,000 feet board measure of logs sold to him by crown assets at a rental of $2 per thousand feet board measure of lumber sawn. However, since early November the mill has been placed in state of preservation until the spring when Mr. Amyot will complete his operations.
7.	1,380,000 feet board measure.
8.	White pine, 50 per cent. Jack pine, 50 per cent. Average butt diameter, 11 inches.
9.	Estimated value of logs per thousand is $35.
10.	The sawmill has not been declared surplus. On July 25, 1952, there were 300 cords of slabs on hand whose worth was estimated at $1 per cord.
11.	The above 300 cords were declared surplus to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
12.	1,550,000 feet board measure estimated value at $100 per M-$155,000.
13.	The costs of clearing areas, spot cutting of selected trees and strip clearing were: 1949-50, $6,400; 1950-51, $39,999.25; 1951-52, $18,500.

14.	No.
15.	Not applicable.


SURPLUS CROWN ASSETS
Mr. Fulton:: 1.	What are the makes, types, and year of manufacture respectively, of the 16 motor vehicles sold to Haney Garage Ltd., Haney, British Columbia, for $5,395, as surplus crown assets, as shown at page 17 of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation report for 1951-52?
2.	What was the original cost of acquisition of these vehicles?
3.	Were tenders invited for the purchase of these vehicles?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	The 16 motor vehicles concerned were part of a surplus declaration of 32 motor vehicles by No. 17 ordnance depot (army), Vancouver. All the motor vehicles had been condemned as being beyond economical repair. They were offered individually to the trade. Haney Garage Ltd., made the highest bid for 16 of these motor vehicles. For simplification, all 16 were included in one sales order.
Maker	Type	YearDodge... .	.. Truck	SC	2 Ton Stake. . .	. ..1943Dodge....	.. Truck	SC	2 Ton Stake...	...1943Dodge.. ..	..Truck	SC	2 Ton Stake...	. . .1943Dodge....	..Truck	SC	2 Ton Stake...	...1943Dodge....	..Truck	SC	2 Ton GS	...1943Dodge.. ..	..Truck	SC	3 Ton Stake. . .	...1943Dodge....	..Truck	SC	3 Ton Stake. . .	. ..1943Dodge... .	..Truck	SC	3 Ton Stake...	...1943Dodge	..Truck	SC	2 Ton Stake. . .	...1943Dodge	..Truck	SC	2 Ton Stake...	...1943Dodge... .	. . Truck	SC	2 Ton Stake...	...1943Dodge	..Truck	sc	3 Ton Stake...	...1943Dodge	..Truck	sc	2 Ton GS	...1943Dodge	..Truck	sc	2 Ton GS. .'. . .	...1943Dodge	..Truck	sc	i Ton Panel. . .	...1944Chevrolet.	. .Station Wagon	...19422.	The report of surplus gives the original cost as $30,983.3.	Bids were solicited from the trade.


BUREAU OF STATISTICS, OTTAWA-HEATING SYSTEM
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What firms constructed and/or installed the heating and ventilation systems in the new bureau of statistics building at Tunney's pasture, Ottawa?
2.	Were tenders called for in connection with all of the said work?
3.	If so, (a) when were tenders advertised for; (b) from whom were tenders received and at what prices; (c) who was the successful tenderer and what was the amount thereof; (d) have any extras been paid for or charged for? If so, how much is the amount thereof?
4.	Did any official of the government approve the design of the heating and ventilation systems before construction was started? If so, who was such person?

5.	Was approval given by any departmental official of the kind and type of heating and ventilating equipment to be installed in said building before construction on said building was started? If so, who was such person?
6.	Has any record of the daily temperatures in the said building been kept for the various divisions or sections therein since the said heating system was put in operation?
7.	What has been the total cost of the heating and ventilation systems installed in said building to date?
8.	Has further work to be completed in order to render the said system effective? If so, what is the estimated cost in order to make the system effective, and when is it expected the work will be completed?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Subcontracts for the installation of the heating and ventilation systems were awarded to John Colford Contracting Company Limited, Montreal, P.Q., by Anglin-Norcross (Ontario) Limited, the general contractors for the project.
2.	Yes, for the whole project, which included the heating and ventilation systems.
3.	(a) In November, 1950, for the whole project, which included the heating and ventilation systems.
Cb) Subcontractors' tenders for the heating and ventilation systems were submitted to the general contractors and not to the department. The amount of each subcontractor's tender to the general contractors is not known by this department.
(c)	John Colford Contracting Company Limited, Montreal, P.Q. The amount is not known by this department.
(d)	Yes. $7,135.13.
4.	Yes, the heating and ventilation systems were designed by engineers who were employed by the architects who designed the building and supervised the construction. General approval of the plans of the building was given by the chief architect of the Department of Public Works.
5.	See answer to No. 4.
6.	Checks are still being made by the engineer who installed the systems, as systems of these sizes require certain adjustments for some considerable time.
7.	Incorporated in box sum price, individual prices not known.
8.	Answered by No. 7.


CRAB FISH CATCH, HECATE STRAIT
Mr. Green:: 1.	What has been the total catch of crab fish in Hecate strait off the Pacific coast, during each of the last five seasons?
2.	What proportion of this catch has been made by (a) Canadian fishermen; (b) American fishermen; (c) fishermen of other nationalities?
Questions


Mr. MacNaughl:: 1.	Information is not available regarding the total catch of crabs in the Hecate strait area off the Pacific coast.
2 (a) Landing of crabs from the Hecate strait area by Canadian fishermen during the last five years are: 1948, 550,800 lbs.; 1949, 646,800 lbs.; 1950, 723,400 lbs.; 1951, 838,100 lbs.; 1952, 1,105,100 lbs.
Cb) Information is not available regarding the catch of crabs by United States fishermen.
Oc) To the best of knowledge no fishermen of other than Canadian or United States nationalities have fished for crabs in the Hecate strait area.


JOHN INGLIS COMPANY, SCARBOROUGH
Mr. Harkness:: 1.	What capital assistance, if any, has been extended by the government for the John Inglis Company plant in the Toronto suburb of Scarborough?
2.	How much of this capital assistance was for construction of the plant and how much for tools, equipment, etc.?
3.	How many square feet of factory space does this plant cover, and how many square feet of office space?
4.	What was the total cost of the construction of the plant?
5.	What is the plant going to manufacture for government account?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	The government has approved expenditures in the amount of $8,182,547.71 for the erection and equipping of a crown-owned plant in Scarborough for the manufacture of Y.100 main propulsion equipment for destroyer escort vessels. John Inglis Co. Limited of Toronto has received a contract from the government to manufacture such propulsion equipment in such plant.
2.	Construction, $4,332,068; equipment, $3,850,479.71.
3.	Factory, 162,202 square feet; office, 15,369 square feet; cafeteria, 9,024 square feet.
4.	Plant 95 per cent completed. Final cost not expected to exceed amount granted (i.e. $4,332,068).
5.	Y.100 main propulsion equipment for destroyer escort vessels.


GRAIN PERMIT BOOKS, MANITOBA
Mr. Bryce:: 1.	How many grain permit books were issued by the Manitoba pool elevators, during the last crop year?
2.	How many such books were issued by the united grain growers in Manitoba, during the last crop year?
3.	How many of these books were issued by all other line companies in Manitoba, during the last crop year?

Questions


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Speaker, it will be noted that the information asked for discloses the competitive position of individual elevator companies acting as agents for the wheat board. As I understand it, it has always been the practice not to give information about individual companies who are in competition with each other.
There is, of course, no objection to giving the number of permit books issued in the province. The figure for the province of Manitoba is 43,362 permit books issued on behalf of the Canadian wheat board for the crop year 1951-52.


Mr. Speaker:: Answered.


MATSQUI NAVAL STATION
Mr. Cruickshank:: What is the total amount spent on the Matsqui naval station for (a) the land and buildings; (b) equipment?


Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette: Since its construction in 1943 to December 31, 1952, the total amounts spent are:
(a)	Land and buildings-$231,426.31;
(b)	Equipment-$627,000.


JULY 1 HOLIDAY DESIGNATION
Mr. Cote (Matapedia-Malane):: In future, how is the 1st of July legal holiday to be officially designated?


Mr. Bradley:: Sections 2 and 3 of the Dominion Day Act, chapter 49, R.S.C. 1927 read as follows:
2.	Throughout Canada, in each and every year, the first day of July, not being a Sunday, shall be a legal holiday, and shall be kept and observed as such, under the name of Dominion Day.
3.	When the first day of July is a Sunday, the second day of July shall be, in lieu thereof, throughout Canada, a legal holiday, and shall be kept and observed as such under the same name.
As long as these statutory provisions remain as they are, this holiday will continue to be officially designated Dominion day.


CONSTRUCTION OF DAMS
Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	Is the Canadian government building dams in Ceylon?
2.	If so, what is the cost?
3.	Is the engineering to be done by Canadians?
4.	What is the purpose of these dams?
5.	Will Canada derive any benefit from this expenditure?


Mr. Claxlon:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.

4. Answered by No. 1.
5. Answered by No. 1.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	What are the particulars of (a) the 41,532 pairs of canvas shoes; (b) the 36,399 pairs of canvas shoes, sold to Eastern Textile Products Ltd., Saint John, New Brunswick, as surplus crown assets, for (i) $33,225 and (ii) $29,119.20, as shown at page 17 of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation report for 1951-1952?
2.	Where were the said canvas shoes stored at the time of the sale?
3.	In what year or years and for what division of the armed services were the said canvas shoes originally purchased?
4.	What was the original cost of the said canvas shoes?
5.	Under whose authority were these canvas shoes sold as surplus crown assets?
6.	Were tenders invited for the purchase of these canvas shoes?
7.	If so, (a) where and when were the notices of tenders advertised or posted; (b) what are the names, addresses and amounts of tender of each tenderer?


MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mr. Fair:: For a copy of the judgment rendered by the board of grain commissioners in the case of Mr. H. K. Kreutzwieser, also of all letters, telegrams and other memoranda filed with the board in connection with the case.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, it will be
noted that this motion asks for the production of a judgment rendered by the board of grain commissioners and also of all letters, telegrams and other memoranda filed with the board in connection with the case.
One of the important duties of the board of grain commissioners is that of investigating complaints by farmers and making inquiries, and then making a finding or judgment on the inquiry. If the board has to disclose all memoranda, letters, telegrams or information received causing an investigation or inquiry to be made, it can be seen that their position would be quite impossible. There is, of course, no objection whatever to tabling the judgment. I would ask the hon. member to accept the order providing for the tabling of the judgment but without the additional information asked for.


Robert Fair: Very well.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion agreed to in
accordance with the statement made by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith).



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour concerning the grain handlers' strike which I am sure all hon. members will hope to see settled at the earliest possible moment. Has the offer to provide a person to negotiate the grain handlers' strike in Vancouver been refused? If so, what further action is the minister contemplating in order to assist the reaching of a settlement?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. I have notice of a similar question from the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) and others, so I shall try to answer them all by the following statement.
The strike of grain elevator employees in Vancouver, now in its fifth week, is proving difficult of settlement. On March 12 our chief conciliation officer, who had been sent to Vancouver to assist negotiations, submitted the following proposals to the companies and to the unions:
1.	A wage increase of 3 cents per hour, retroactive to the start of the new contract year, December 1, 1952.
2.	Two additional statutory holidays.
3.	An increase of 5 cents per hour in the present graveyard shift differential.
4.	The payment of double time for all work done on Sunday.
5.	Shift rotation of cleanermen in the one elevator where such arrangement has not already been made.
6.	The incorporation of schedules of job classifications in the collective agreement, without prejudice to the right of the management of each elevator to establish its own system of classification.
The deadline for replies to these proposals was set at 6 o'clock p.m. March 17. The companies replied to the proposals as follows:
I am instructed by the companies operating the terminal elevators to reply to your letter of the 12th of March in which you set forth the terms of a proposal for settlement of the dispute between my clients and their employees.
Your proposal has been given very careful consideration and I am directed to inform you that provided the employees return to work at once, my clients will agree to the terms numbered 2, 3 and 4 in, your proposal which provide for two additional statutory holidays, an increase of 5 cents per hour in the present graveyard shift differential and payment of double time for all work done on Sunday.
Inquiries of the Ministry My clients would like to have a further clarification of item number 5, described as shift rotation of cleanermen in one elevator where such arrangement has not already been made. My clients are not prepared to agree upon item I or item 6.
I am instructed to thank you for your impartial efforts to end this dispute.
The union replied as follows:
Please be advised that your proposals were put before the negotiating committee on Monday March 16, and were referred by the committee to a full membership meeting at 1.00 p.m. March 17, at which time the proposals were given the consideration of the entire membership, after which a vote was taken on the matter.
I have been instructed to advise you that the two hundred and sixty members present voted unanimously to reject your proposals.
My officer has since made arrangements to meet with representatives of all parties concerned tomorrow afternoon in a further effort to bring them into agreement.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue whether, in view of the prevailing shortage of interim personal income tax return forms for 1953, he is giving consideration to deferring beyond March 31 the filing date for interim income tax returns for 1953?
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National
Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I have not received notice of the hon. gentleman's question, but in so far as I know there are plenty of forms available to which he has made reference. It may be that there is a shortage at some particular places. However, we have given no consideration to extending the time for filing returns.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the minister not know that these forms have not been available in Toronto recently at all?


Mr. McCann:: That is a question which I shall look into immediately.



THE CORONATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Did the coronation committee give consideration to having representation at the coronation from the Canadian air force association? If not, why not?
3056	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I have had no notice from the hon. member of his intention to ask this question. I shall be glad to take his question as notice and give the matter consideration.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I sent notice.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: May I ask a question arising out of the question asked of the Secretary of State? Is the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in a position to say how many seats have been allotted to Canadians during the coronation? I ask the question because some doubt has been expressed in London as to whether or not Canada has taken up those allotted to her.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would have to get that information. I know that several days ago some of the seats that had been available for allotment by Canadian authorities in the Abbey had not been applied for, and some of those along the procession route were still available, but I could not tell the hon. gentleman at this time, without getting the latest information, what the numbers are.



COMPOSITION OP PERSONNEL OF ARMED FORCES CONTINGENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: May I ask
the Minister of National Defence a question. In view of numerous statements which have appeared in the press regarding the armed forces' contribution to the coronation contingent, can the minister inform the members, perhaps not today but in the near future, as to the [composition and number of personnel of the armed forces contingent which will be going to the coronation?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, that has already been fully announced in detail in the press, and I do not know that I should delay the house further by announcing it orally here.
I am quite prepared to do so now, but it would be taking up the time of the house.


An hon. Member:: It is not urgent.


George Randolph Pearkes: May I ask a supplementary question? Are the chiefs of staff attending the coronation?


Brooke Claxton: No, sir. I would not like to appear discourteous to the hon. member for Nanaimo. In view of the interest of hon. members, if he puts that question to me, I might take his question as notice and answer it in writing tomorrow so that we have it on the record.



MUNICIPAL COUNCILS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworihy (York South):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Will the minister comment on a statement reported in yesterday's Telegram to the effect that a justice department official said he believed municipal councils could do what they liked about renting public halls, and gave as his reason for that belief-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Has the hon. member sent the statement to the minister?


Joseph William Noseworthy: I have sent the minister a copy, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister may feel inclined to comment.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I wish to thank my hon. friend for sending me notice of his question, which I got just a few moments before the house opened. I have made a hasty inquiry, through the deputy minister of the department, without having so far established the identity of the departmental official who is alleged to have made this statement. However, the statement as it reads in the paper is a little different from what my hon. friend stated in his question. It reads as follows:
In Ottawa, a justice department official said he believed municipal councils could do what they liked about renting public buildings. He said there are scores of municipalities in Quebec where reds cannot rent halls.
My comment upon that is asked for. I have had no opportunity in the short interval of time between the asking of the question and the present time to make any check but having regard to the fact that municipalities do not come under federal jurisdiction, it is unlikely that there are any federal statutes which would interfere with discretion of municipal officials in this regard. As to whether there are provincial statutes which do interfere with that discretion, not having examined the relevant provincial statutes, I can offer no comment.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. McCann that a select committee be appointed on broadcasting, to consider the report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to review the policies and aims of the corporation, etc.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose last evening several complaints were being registered as to some of the comments I was making at the time, and a suggestion was made that I might be trying to delay the setting up of this committee on broadcasting. I wish to point out that that is not my intention, because I, along with many other hon. members, agree that we have delayed much too long thus far. It is at least seven weeks since we previously discussed this particular resolution, and I can only conclude that the complaints raised last evening were an attempt by the government to seek out a scapegoat for the delay.
I was dealing with certain misconceptions concerning the effectiveness of the broadcasting media in the realm of the communication of ideas, and I concluded it is quite possible that the impact on the arts, letters and sciences has been exaggerated. This being so it is also quite possible that the threat to Canadianism may not be as great as we have been led to believe.
Just before leaving that point there is one other observation I should like to make. It is to be noted that the influences on broadcasting in Canada come largely from urban centres. As we listen to the various programs presented we find that they originate largely in the four major metropolitan areas in this country, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver. It occurs to me that urban influences of that kind are not necessarily typical of true Canadian culture. Indeed, I would say that if there are any influences that come close to the typical American influence in this country they are those that come from the larger urban centres. In fact, the American way of life can, to a large extent, be related to or identified with the rise of urban culture in the modern world. Thisi is a point to which we might well give some attention in the committee. The fact that we do not have an opportunity to hear too many programs originating in smaller local communities might be a deterrent to the possible impact that broadcasting may have upon this country. And of course under the television program policy that has been presented thus far to the House of Commons, it appears that television is going to be almost exclusively urban, and therefore the dangers of urban influence would be exaggerated to an even greater extent.
I might mention one example of personal frustration in this regard. My own city of Brandon depends for its broadcasting outlets upon a private broadcasting station. Three years ago we endeavoured to take part in
Special Committee on Broadcasting an educational series known as University of the Air. We were deprived of a wider broadcasting outlet because there was no possible way whereby the programs originating in our local studio could be transmitted over C.B.C. stations. So that our contribution, which was of particular interest to the southwestern portion of Manitoba, was denied access to the larger listening audience. A possible solution for this difficulty might be the provision of some network facilities for the numerous private stations now in our midst.
I shall leave that topic and move to a positive note for a moment, in regard to C.B.C. broadcasts. One of the great contributions the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has made to the cultural life of Canada is through its educational programs. I think it is in this regard that the C.B.C. has obtained its greatest and most favourable reputation. There is the Wednesday night program, the program known as Citizens Forum, the program called Farm Forum, another known as In Search of Ourselves, and many others I could mention that have drawn international notice because of their excellence. I think this is the most important contribution that our publicly-owned broadcasting system has made to Canada. But on that point let me say that the success of these programs with educational emphasis has been assured only through the enthusiastic co-operation of organizations at the local, community level.
For example, connected with the program Citizens' Forum we have the voluntary group known as the Canadian association for adult education. A good deal of the credit for the success of this program must go rto the initiative that the association has manifested in this regard. For several years the program Farm Forum has been sponsored by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. They have encouraged the development of listening groups in the local farm communities. Of course the program Farm Forum as well as the program Citizens' Forum would be quite useless and meaningless unless there were these groups of interested citizens meeting weekly to listen to the programs, and to discuss in intelligent terms the various topics presented, from a background of material supplied in pamphlets printed by the Canadian association for adult education, and by the various groups sponsoring the Farm Forum program.	.
I would point out further that the adult education departments of the various provincial universities have given enthusiastic support to these programs of an educational

Special Committee on Broadcasting nature. In this regard I must almost take back some of the statements I have already made regarding the ineffectiveness of mass media in the field of cultural development; but let it be noted that the success of the educational programs is due to the cooperation of the -local voluntary groups and the establishment of a situation of interaction where the needs of the communities can be brought to the attention of those who are responsible for the presentation of those very excellent programs.
One more point, and here I think is one of the reasons why we should be very cautious in our approach to the problem of policy for broadcasting in- Canada. The major emphasis from this group, a suggestion put forward over a period of several years, is the need for an independent regulatory body. I think that is the only major change in so far as radio broadcasting is concerned that this group has put -forward. Thi-s suggestion is made because broadcasting conditions have changed rather remarkably sin-ce the Aird commission first submitted its report. At that time the commission considered that broadcasting would become a state monopoly in Canada. They were patterning their thinking after B.B.C. experience in the old country, in, England; but, of course, the geographic situation and the general cultural situation are quite different in the United Kingdom from what they are in Canada. In spite of the fact that a complete state monopoly was projected by the report, we have seen private stations become increasingly numerous down, through the years until, at the present time, we have 135 private stations operating and making an important contribution to the total field of broadcasting activities, especially on the local level.
Now, in the light of these changed circumstances there seems to me to be a need for reformulation of the -policy of control. With government encroaching continually on private affairs it would be wise to avoid even a suggestion of state monopoly by moving toward an independent regulatory body appointed by public authorities but free from even the slightest suspicion of state monopoly or state manipulation. I would consider a move of that kind rather important in the case of a government which has acquired the reputation of having an authoritarian and autocratic complex. A government in that situation should, I believe, shun the very appearance of evil.
As far as T.V. is -concerned it is a new medium, still in the experimental stage. We seem to be proceeding along the policy lines that have -been followed for the past twenty

years in connection with radio broadcasting; and it might be that the policies! adopted for radio do not fit precisely the new medium of telecasting. As the committee meets, I hope there will be extensive discussion concerning the rather ambiguous -policies' that have been adopted so far in regard to television in Canada.
One of the major problems in television, which does not necessarily apply in radio broadcasting, is the tremendous expense involved in establishing stations-just providing the mechanical equipment. Before even considering the huge expenditure necessary for programming it i-s necessary to sink millions of dollars into the provision of mechanical equipment. It may be, with the excellent facilities for television programming available through the national film board, we might emphasize the Canadian viewpoint much more effectively and much more cheaply, by the use -of national film board resources under a policy of control by an independent regulatory body, thereby assuring that the programs that appeal to Canadian audiences would be presented even though telecasting facilities may be provided by private sources. All those details remain to be discus-sed in committee, and I trust that the members taking part in the -committee will be able to give some intensive thought to those problems.
Finally, this point which I raise in conclusion is presented more in the form of a query. In regard to the democratic process in- Canada, it used to be that when a government lost the confidence of the people, that government no longer remained in -control of the administration. It seem-s- to me that today with the trends in our modern complex world leading us relentlessly towards the allpowerful state, the principle is being reversed; the people are being suffered and allowed to carry on their -activities -only so long as they retain the confidence of th-e government. I think, Mr. Speaker, that has very ominous implications for any democracy, particularly in the light of the topic under discussion.


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take two or three minutes in this debate to speak on the subject of television.
I do not suppose the minister will be surprised when I say that I do not rise to tell the government I think they are doing a good job. Like other members of this group, I do believe that the C.B.C. can most effectively and most efficiently operate television. At the same time, I feel compelled to say that, in my opinion, the Canadian record on television so far is ineffective, disappointing, and maddeningly slow. I do

not blame the C.B.C. too much for this fact, because they have been so far hobbled by government policy.
I admit that I do not know too much about the mechanics of television but I do know that in the United States and most European countries, they have had television for a good many years. I know, for instance, that the Americans saw their 1948 presidential election campaign on television. A few days ago, I had dinner in the parliamentary restaurant with a gentleman from Mexico. He told me that they had television in a number of cities down there.
Why is it that Canada, with all our vaunted expansion, with our wealth and resources, still lags so far behind in this particular field? I say the lack of progress is caused by the indecision, the vacillation and the hesitancy of this government. They cannot seem to make up their minds whether to let the C.B.C. go ahead and make a job of television, or whether to call in the assistance of private capital.
In opening this debate some weeks ago, the minister made this statement at page 1358 of Hansard:
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, . . .
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is just what this government has been doing for the past ten years-going slowly. What I want to know is when they are going to speed up. If they are in office, and go as slowly in the next ten years as they have in the last ten years, most people in this country still will not have television. I cannot agree that such a policy is sound. Most Canadians, I think, want television, but they want it in their lifetime.
Those of us who live in the outlying provinces of this country feel that if it is government policy to subsidize television stations in central Canada with the people's money, it is only fair to do the same thing in the other provinces.
I said a moment ago that I believe the C.B.C. should direct and control television in Canada. I think that a truly Canadian network is needed for cultural reasons, for educational reasons, and for reasons of national unity. Television is too important a medium to be used primarily for commercial purposes. However, I repeat that Canadians in the outlying provinces are getting tired of waiting for television.
This government and the C.B.C. have completely overlooked the province of Saskatchewan in allocating television. As happens so often under this government, once again we appear to be the forgotten province. The
18, 1953	3059
Special Committee on Broadcasting minister was asked about Saskatchewan some weeks ago, and, at page 1358 of Hansard, he made this statement:
We might hope that probably Saskatchewan could be supplied with programs, on the one side from Manitoba or on the other from Calgary, . . .
I do not think that is good enough. As I say, I am not a technician, but I do not think it is possible to bring television roughly five hundred miles from Winnipeg or Calgary to our main cities. I do not think it is feasible.
The minister went on to say:
-if not, we would have to give consideration, to the establishment of a C.B.C. transmitter in the province of Saskatchewan.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the minister that the people of Saskatchewan feel such a policy is too indefinite. It gives us no assurance that we will have television for many years. We do not think it gives us the same treatment as other provinces are being given.
I believe that it would be possible for the C.B.C. to establish a tower some place in the middle of the Saskatoon-Moose Jaw-Regina triangle. Such a powerful station would only be about 80 miles from each of the three main cities, and it should be possible for that station to serve not only those three centres of population, but also the surrounding rural areas. So, I hope that when this committee sits that it will give consideration to such a station. In any event, I hope that when the committee does sit they will clarify the air as far as Saskatchewan is concerned.
Is the C.B.C. going into our province? If it is not, is this one of the areas which are going to be declared open for some private stations? The people of Saskatchewan, I think, would like to know.
I support the setting up of this committee.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I too support the setting up of this committee and I am delighted to see that eventually action is to be taken towards that end. I hope that the committee will be set up very shortly, consistent of course with the rights and the obligations of the members of this house to debate fully this very important subject.
I listened with interest yesterday to the speech of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and I was especially interested in his opening remarks with regard to the fact that in many fields of endeavour in this country we have a situation where there are privately-owned enterprises in a field which is shared by some publicly-owned enterprises as well. In that connection he

Special Committee on Broadcasting cited, and very properly, the fields of transportation' where we have the publicly-owned Canadian National Railways and the privately-owned Canadian Pacific Railway. Then, again, he cited another case-Trans-Canada Air Lines and Canadian Pacific Air Lines.
There are many other cases of this type of situation which one might cite. For example, one could refer to the distribution of electric power in most of the provinces of our country. Then there are our telephone services, some of which are provided by private companies and some by publicly owned crown companies of one kind or another. In the field of broadcasting we have the same situation. We have places where the field is shared by the publicly owned broadcasting system and privately owned broadcasting stations, and consistent with the condition which exists in other fields I think that is right. There is definitely a place for each in our country. There are some services that the publicly owned broadcasting system can provide best. There are some services which by their very nature are money-losing and which the private companies cannot always supply.
On the other hand there are certain services that the publicly owned system cannot very well provide such as local services and so forth. Because there is a place for publicly owned radio it does not necessarily mean that there is no place for privately owned stations, although that is what many people try to argue. However, I think all parties in the house recognize the fact that there is a place for private broadcasting, and I think that the vast majority of the Canadian people recognize that as well. The royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences also recognized that fact. I should like to quote from page 281 of their report where they say in part:
It is necessary here only to refer to the functions of the privately owned station. In this broad country we still have inadequate radio coverage; without the supplementary outlets of the private stations many more areas would be deprived of the national programs of the C.B.C., and could be reached only at great additional public expenditure. Apart from this direct national service, the private stations perform community services which, as they rightly point out, are important to the nation: local advertising is in itself a service of value to the community; local news, information and the promotion of worthy causes are essential services, as many individuals and groups have testified. A third proper function of the local station is the encouragement and development of local talent. As we have stated in part I, this third function has in general been neglected.
Having seen that there is definitely a place in this country for both the privately and publicly owned systems, I should like to


point out that all parties in the house as far as I am aware-certainly this party- recognize the great benefits which have accrued from our nationally owned system, a system which was organized by the party to which I belong. The C.B.C. has provided and is providing many excellent services. I only need to mention a few of them in passing, the farm radio forum, the national news service, weather reports, educational programs and many others that are of undoubted benefit and for the most part are performed in an excellent manner. It is absurd to suggest that this or any other party would fail to continue that service if it came into power. We all recognize the necessity of that service, and I think we support it 100 per cent.
However, public ownership does not automatically find itself on the side of the angels merely because it can say it is a body that is publicly owned. Public ownership has no monopoly on virtue. It may have a monopoly in some other fields but it certainly has no monopoly on virtue. I should like to point out that the private broadcasting stations provide without cost many services of a beneficial nature to their communities for which they seldom get just credit. I might mention in passing the excellent services rendered by private broadcasters to their communities for many projects that are of general benefit to the communities. They give free broadcasting time to almost any group that approaches them-at least they do in my part of the country-tor time on the air so that some need can be brought to the attention of the public.
Then too, private broadcasters can and do provide most beneficial services in times of national emergency. A case in point is the Winnipeg flood of two or three years ago at which time the private stations provided a great deal of very useful service to that community in its time of distress. I think it might also be well for us to remember that the private broadcasters provide many services of a national nature which benefit the welfare of the country generally. In that regard I should like to cite the program "Report from Parliament Hill", of which most members take advantage, and which is very well received throughout this country. This service is provided free of charge by the private broadcasters, and I think anyone who takes the position that only the publicly owned service provides these facilities to the public is trying to defend a completely untenable position. In that connection many people falsely take the stand that everything that the private broadcasters do is automatically wrong and what the public service does is automatically right. On the other hand, other people take the opposite stand.

I am not one to go to excesses and I believe there is some virtue in both points of view. So far as advertising is concerned, for instance, the private broadcasters are accused of contaminating the air with unsuitable types of advertising. They are accused of having only one method by which they gauge what will not be broadcast, namely, who pays the most money. It should be remembered with respect to advertising that the publicly owned system accepts advertising, and it should also be remembered that the advertising it accepts is not always of a high standard. If we had the system of public ownership of radio broadcasting that exists in the United Kingdom, where no advertising is accepted, then that criticism might have some foundation; but since our publicly owned system does accept advertising I think it is not very becoming for them or anyone else to criticize the private broadcasters too severely when they resort to advertising as a means of gaining the revenues which they require to continue in existence.
I have already mentioned public services. There again the provision of beneficial public service is not a monopoly of the publicly owned system. In many cases such services are also provided free of charge by the private broadcasters. It is said too by some people that only the public system provides entertainment of a high standard. This statement, too, is false, because many of our best programs are made available to the Canadian people by large private concerns. I grant you that in most cases they are channelled over networks which are owned by the public system. Nevertheless, these programs are made possible by the advertising of large corporations. Again, if one takes the position that all that is good comes from the publicly-owned system and from that only, I think the position is false.
The private broadcasters are accused of having a higher percentage of foreign content in their broadcasts than is the case with the public service. This may be true, and it probably is. I should like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that in my humble opinion in any event the private broadcasters do not do that out of malice or for some insidious reason they desire to undermine our Canadian culture or that they want to poison our Canadian way of life with Americanism. The private broadcasters do this sort of thing because they have no other choice. They do so because live talent is not available or is too expensive, and they must resort to the canned programs. In many cases they find there are no canned programs of Canadian origin, so they are forced to resort to the United States field. This is a field in connection with which I think the C.B.C. might
18, 1953
Special Committee on Broadcasting render the country a real service by providing canned programs of Canadian origin and content for both audio and television broadcasting, which could be broadcast both by the privately-owned and by publicly-owned stations.
The C.B.C. on occasion-I think possibly there are occasions when this criticism is justified-is accused of being jealous of the private stations because, for some reason of which I am not aware, in those localities in which there is competition between private stations and the C.B.C. the private stations get the biggest percentage of the listening audience. This is true even for television in the Toronto area where the C.B.C. programs are available. It has been shown that almost 80 per cent of the viewers in Toronto are viewing United States programs, even during the hours when the C.B.C. programs are being telecast. This criticism may or may not be fair, but there are large numbers of people who believe that, in this connection, the C.B.C. is a bit jealous of the private broadcasters. I think it was Lord Macaulay who said that the puritans hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear but because it gave pleasure to the spectators. Occasionally one is tempted to believe that the C.B.C. objects to the private broadcasters, not because they are lowering the cultural value of Canadian radio programs but because they are giving pleasure to the audience.
It goes without saying, I think, that all hon. members in this house, and most Canadians, recognize that there is a certain objective which we should like to reach so far as radio and television programs are concerned. We should all like to have programs which are entertaining, which are cultural and which do not contain a high percentage of objectionable advertising. I think I am correct in making those generalizations. But if one assumes from these premises that the only way to attain this end is by complete public ownership or by a continuation of the present system exactly as it stands, I think that conclusion is false.
Let us look at this in a rational manner. I think it is quite possible that our present system can be improved; as a matter of fact, I am convinced it can be improved. It is with that end in view that the party to which I belong has put forward certain suggestions. We could say with equal force that we in this country desire that we should have suitable food. After all, I think food is more important to us than radio programs. We at least require that we have milk which is pasteurized and which has a certain butter-fat content; but that does not mean that the only way to attain that end is to collectivize all the dairy farms in this country. There
3062	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting are people who would suggest that, as is the case in Russia. However, I do not believe such an extreme measure is necessary to obtain the desired result. There are people who quote a sort of apt phrase, without thinking very deeply of its meaning, when they say the air belongs to the Canadian people and should, therefore, be publicly owned so far as broadcasting is concerned. The same line of reasoning could be applied to the production of food in this country.
There was a time when there were large areas of potential agricultural land which were owned by the state. At that time we had two choices. We could have made those areas into one vast collective farm, because they belonged to the nation, or we could give people the right to own sections of this land in compliance with the laws of the country, provided they produced a product which met certain standards and was acceptable to the Canadian people. I maintain therefore, Mr. Speaker, that complete public ownership is not necessary. I am convinced that it would not be even a good thing. For one to say that broadcasting is not an industry, simply because the air belongs to the people, is no more logical than to say that agriculture is not an industry because the agricultural land of this country originally belonged to the crown. I am not saying that even in agriculture there is no place for publicly-owned farms. They can fulfil a very special function. We have our large experimental farms which are publicly owned, and their function is to give leadership and to do experimentation, which will not be profitable in itself but which will in the end provide great advantage to the industry. In the same way, the publicly-owned sections of our broadcasting system could render great service to the public generally.
I should like to refer for a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, to the question of television, because that is an extremely important thing. We in Canada have not yet felt the full impact of television, but when broadcasts are more generally available we will. The people of the United States have felt the impact of this new medium of television. I was amazed to read just recently figures which showed that in seven or eight cities in the United States there are already more television receivers than there are private telephones and that in the city of Chicago there are more television receiving sets than there are bathtubs. When we realize the meaning of these statistics, we recognize the desire that people have to have a television receiver when there is a broadcast available to be received.


In connection with television broadcasting, I am not at all satisfied with the present state of affairs. We have in the maritimes, in my province of Prince Edward Island, a position where there is no television available and none to be available in the foreseeable future. I feel that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should utilize private stations in areas where they are willing to provide the service and that they do it on a competitive basis. I should like to see the C.B.C. willing to accept competition in the field of television broadcasting in the large centres of this country. In that connection may I say that we in this party feel this way about the C.B.C. Although it is doing an excellent job in the field of broadcasting generally, we have great doubts as to its ability to supervise the industry generally as well. In that connection I should like to quote again from the report of the Massey commission with regard to the dual function of the C.B.C. At page 40 they say:
Our special investigation appears to bear out the comments which we received throughout the country to the effect that the C.B.C. is in general performing its duties satisfactorily,-
And that is true.
-sometimes even admirably, in providing appropriate and varied programs; less admirably does it exercise its responsibilities of control. The national system, however, has constantly kept in view its three objectives for broadcasting in Canada; an adequate coverage of the entire population, opportunities for Canadian talent and for Canadian selfexpression generally, and successful resistance to the absorption of Canada into the general cultural pattern of the United States. Much remains to be done, but the record of the past fourteen years is most encouraging.
I agree with that statement completely. But one should not read that paragraph without noting this language:
Less admirably does it exercise its responsibilities of control.
We in this party recommend that a separate board should be set up for the control of broadcasting generally; that the C.B.C. should continue its function of providing a publicly-owned service in the field of broadcasting but that the whole enterprise of broadcasting should be controlled by a separate board.
I know that great scorn has been poured on that suggestion from various quarters, and that is not surprising because great scorn has been poured on the suggestion made by this party that radio licences be abolished. However, I notice that they have been abolished; and the day may come when the virtue of this suggestion may be seen by more people also. It is not a harebrained or ill-conceived suggestion. It is one which is

patently logical. It is one that is already functioning admirably in another dominion of this commonwealth.
In that connection I should like to quote from an act of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is an act respecting Australian broadcasting. I may say that in Australia there is in existence exactly the system which this party recommends for this country. They have a publicly-owned broadcasting system, which, incidentally, does not broadcast any advertising. Parallel with that publicly-owned system they have a system of privately-owned stations. Both are controlled by a board which is set up and which is responsible to the postmaster general in that country. I should like to quote briefly from this act which outlines the purposes of this board, which is called the Australian Broadcasting Control Board:
Powers and Functions of the Board
(1) The functions of the board shall be-
(a)	to ensure the provision of services by broadcasting stations, television stations and facsimile stations, and services of a like kind, in accordance with plans from time to time prepared by the board and approved by the minister;
(b)	to ensure that the technical equipment and operation of such stations are in accordance with such standards and practices as the board considers to be appropriate; and
(c)	to ensure that adequate and comprehensive programs are provided by such stations to serve the best interests of the general public, . . .
Then again it says:
(a)	The board shall, in relation to programs of the commission-
That is the publicly-owned service.
-consult the commission and, in relation to programs of commercial broadcasting stations, shall consult representatives of licensees of commercial broadcasting stations; and
(b)	The board shall, in particular-
(i)	ensure reasonable variety of programs;
(ii)	ensure that divine worship or other matter of a religious nature is broadcast for adequate periods and at appropriate times and that no matter which is not of a religious nature is broadcast by a station during any period during which divine worship or other matter of a religious nature is broadcast by that station;
(iii)	ensure that facilities are provided on an equitable basis for the broadcasting of political or controversial matter;
(iv)	determine the extent to which advertisements may be broadcast in the program of any commercial broadcasting station; and-
It does not refer to the publicly-owned system because they do not broadcast advertising.
- (v) fix the hours of service of broadcasting stations, television stations and facsimile stations.
Mr. Speaker, I fail to see how there can be any grave objection to that system. I think it has advantages which our system has not. We have a system where we have
Special Committee on Broadcasting the C.B.C. filling a dual role of controller and competitor at the same time. By members supporting the present system we shall be told that this is the best system possible, and they will ask: How could the C.B.C. possibly be accused of any prejudice or unfairness in dealing with the private broadcasters? But, Mr. Speaker, if the intentions of the C.B.C. are as good as they say they are with regard to control, why are they so loath to give up their powers of control? In that connection I should like to quote from Thomas a Kempis. He has been dead now for about 500 years and I suppose there were not any corporations at that time. But what he says applies, I think, to corporations as well as to men. He said: "No man ruleth safely but he that is willing to be ruled." That is a quotation which I should like to see the C.B.C. read and take to heart.
A great deal has been said with regard to the merits of public ownership and I agree with most of it; but, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree that public ownership should have a monopoly in the field of broadcasting or television broadcasting in any area. I do not feel that the publicly-owned broadcasting system should also be the controller of its competitor. I know there are many people who are extremely enthusiastic about complete public ownership, and that they go out with a missionary zeal to convert the general public to an appreciation of the advantages of these socialistic ideas. In many instances people are taken in. They say, "Why, the man is so sincere".


Mr. Gillis:: You are surely helping public ownership this afternoon. You are making a case for public ownership.


John Angus MacLean: Up to a point, but I am not making a case for a monopoly of public ownership. There are many people whose missionary zeal and enthusiasm-this does not apply only to the socialists; it applies to many other people, and as a matter of fact it applies to some of the ministers of the government-for what they support seems to be so great, and who seem to be so bubbling over with delight at their own accomplishments that the general public say: "Well, surely a man with that enthusiasm and a man so happy with the present state of affairs must have an easy conscience. He must be convinced of the rightness of what he sees, and therefore because he is happy with the situation, perhaps he is right."
I would just like to make one comment with regard to that, Mr. Speaker. It is an observation that has been made by Ogden Nash. There are two ways to be happy on

Special Committee on Broadcasting this terrestrial ball. One is to have a clear conscience. The other is to have none at all.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, broadcasting in Canada can exercise a tremendous influence in the moulding of the Canada of tomorow. The matter we now are discussing therefore is one of major significance. I have felt a bit ill at ease because of the amount of political fervour which at times appeared to me to be allowed to creep into the debate. I am almost afraid that if we allow the Liberals by any chance to be returned next time-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Unthinkable!


John Horne Blackmore: -because they had advocated the kind of controls which they have all already advocated and the people returned them, they would think that meant that people all over Canada wanted their broadcasting policy. You may find many reasons why people may vote for the Liberals or against the Liberals. No voter has time enough to think of everything a party stands for when he casts a vote. All of this has a bearing on making this radio matter too political.
I do not believe that a broadcasting policy ought to be a matter of politics at all. We ought to have certain aims in our minds as a people, and I believe we all do. Then we should set out with the utmost calmness and wisdom to determine how to attain those aims, because they will affect us and our children no matter to which party we belong or do not belong.
When I am confronted with any real problem I turn to the Bible and base my thinking fundamentally on the teaching of that great book. Throughout the Bible I find stated, emphasized and re-emphasized the transcendent importance of three eternal realities. The first is truth, the second understanding, and the third the fear of the Lord. We find truth stressed for us in St. John 8 and 32. I trust the house will pardon me if I read the Bible. I seem to be the only one who ever reads the Bible in the house. Therefore probably it will not offend the house too much if I indulge my liking for the Bible occasionally. May I read the passage which the Saviour uttered:
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
If there is one thing the Canadian people want to be, every one of them, it is to be free.


An hon. Member:: What is truth?


John Horne Blackmore: " 'What is truth?' said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer".

Understanding that, the man that asks the question puts himself in rather unenviable company.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: The devil can quote scripture.


John Horne Blackmore: That is right-for his
purpose. Now we come to understanding, and we turn to Proverbs 4 and 7. I have always been greatly impressed by the words we find there:
Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom:	and with all thy getting get understanding.
And now, fear of the Lord. We have fear of the Lord stressed time and time again, and particularly very well in Psalm 111, verse 10, which I crave permission to read to the house:
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: a good- understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth forever.
It may seem a bit strange that I should quote these passages of scripture before beginning to discuss the C.B.C., but maybe I have been unfortunate in the programs I have heard coming over the C.B.C. I cannot recall since the C.B.C. came into operation any speech or sermon that was designed to teach the people the fear of the Lord, but I have heard a lot of them that taught and indoctrinated the opposite. I say that is a very serious accusation to make against the C.B.C. Somewhere someone has fallen down.
I do not mean that the C.B.C. needs to teach the doctrines of any particular church. I would say it would be quite out of order to do that unless each of the various churches had an opportunity to present its case; but the great fundamental verities which underlie the Bible, which all men accept who are well trained, could be taught under the direction of the C.B.C.
It must be our constant aim, I believe, to provide the people truth and understanding, and to teach them the fear of the Lord. I think there would be no serious disagreement with that position on the part of any hon. member of the house, to whatsoever party he happens to belong. The big problem with us, as I see it, is to try to set up a mechanism for the control and regulation of our broadcasting under which we shall have the greatest possible chance of having these three great objectives attained. I do not believe that up to the present time these objectives have been attained by the C.B.C. I do not believe the organization we have at the present time will attain them.
There is an ever prevailing danger of undue influence, of hidden hands, guided by evil forces, acting unknown to the people. Anyone in this country or in this house who fails

to recognize the truth of what I have just said is betraying the trust which has been imposed upon him.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Will my hon. friend permit a question? I should like to know who these hidden hands are, to whom they belong. I think we ought to know this.


John Horne Blackmore: I think you ought to know it. I think one of the hon. member's deficiencies in this house is that he does not know it. If he will come to me outside the house I will put him through a course of training that will teach him these things; and it would be greatly to his benefit.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: In secret?


John Horne Blackmore: My room is no secret place.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Put it on
Hansard.


John Horne Blackmore: My room is no secret place, and the hon. member will be welcome. I have not time to teach him from the floor of the House of Commons.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Let us have the truth today.


John Horne Blackmore: That is exactly what we are working for; and I would remind the hon. member that if he wants to know the truth, then let him come where I can talk to him.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I am prepared to have you talk right here, and put it on the record.


John Horne Blackmore: And I am prepared to have you come to my room and learn it there; and I will tell you that you will learn the truth.


Joseph William Noseworthy: You cannot back up what you are saying.


John Horne Blackmore: Don't think for one moment that I cannot. I can back it up far more than the hon. member would dare think. He will never know a lot of these things himself, although he seems to be curious about them. Let him come around and find out.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I challenge you to do it here.


John Horne Blackmore: All right. You come around and see me and I will put you through a six months' course that will be your salvation.


James Joseph McCann: Will you give him a diploma?


John Horne Blackmore: These things have to be learned by much study, and probably by much prayer and humility.


Mr. Fraser:: There is a lot in that.
18. 1953	3065
Special Committee on Broadcasting


John Horne Blackmore: And by much teachableness. The facts are not hidden to those who wish to find them. The evidence abounds for those who are ready to see it.
In our broadcasting system we must have provision for a thorough and sympathetic presentation of all aspects of any and every problem which would be of interest to the people. I think all hon. members would agree with that statement. In the light of it I would ask them to consider the broadcasting policy followed by the C.B.C. during the last five years, and then ask themselves whether that objective or principle has been observed.
The people ought to have the privilege of deciding for themselves the kind of programs they shall have. Let me tell the house what has happened in my community, which is served by the local radio station CJOC. If they broadcast material which meets with strong disapproval on the part of the people in the area, they soon hear about it. But if the C.B.C. broadcasts over that station things that meet with the disapproval of the people in the area, their voices are as those crying in the wilderness. And that, in my opinion, is a very serious condition.
Considering every aspect of the question, and the principles I have thus far laid down, it seems to me that the only solution to the problem of allowing the people to have the kind of programs they want is to permit a good deal of local control. I cannot see how that can be obtained in any way other than by having local broadcasting stations under private ownership, which will be sensitive to the desires of the people in the areas they serve.
I should like to have that matter discussed with considerable care in the committee about to be set up. It ought to have a strong bearing upon what the committee's recommendations would be in respect of the C.B.C. and broadcasting generally in Canada.
May I refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well), because I wish to express my diametrical opposition to it. As reported at page 3018 he said:
Propaganda of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters for the private control of television, whether they realize it or not, and of those who associate themselves with that propaganda, is in effect, in my opinion, treasonable to this country.
The hon. member is quite entitled to his opinion; but it is my opinion that just exactly the opposite is the case.


Mr. Hansell:: He did not say who they were.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: The C.A.B.
3066	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting


Ernest George Hansell: "And of those who associate themselves with that propaganda", but he does not say who they are. Why does he not come out openly and say who they are?


John Horne Blackmore: The Canadian Association of Broadcasters consists of men who are in close contact with people throughout this country. On the other hand the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation more or less resides in ivory towers. Anyone who says that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, with its roots and its contacts right down among the people from coast to coast, does not know what is good for broadcasting in this country, is just unrealistic. And I suspect that it indicates in the mind of the hon. member who made the quoted statement a strong tendency toward the idea that it is possible to find two or three or perhaps four or five men in the nation who know just exactly what everyone in the nation ought to hear, and who are determined to see that they shall hear it, whether they want to or not.
That is the socialist concept, as I understand it; and it is just diametrically opposite to the Social Credit concept. It shows just what the C.C.F. stands for. It shows just what centralization means in Canada.
There are two types of mentality in the world. In Canada today there is one type of mentality that thinks the people ought to be told what to do, and there is the other type that thinks the people ought to do the telling as to what is to be done. In a democracy the fundamental essential is that the people shall tell those in authority what to do. Just as soon as people begin to think in the opposite direction, while they may call themselves democrats, they are democrats only in their own opinion. This is fundamental.
I should like to make one or two general comments on the position taken by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, for whom I have much respect although I do not agree with his general attitude to life, that of telling the people what to do. Democracy is 'based upon checks and balances. Notice how carefully in this and in all other Anglo-Saxon nations there have been set up checks on governing bodies. In Great Britain there is the House of Lords which stands as a check on the House of Commons. In Canada we have the Senate as the check on the House of Commons. And in practically every aspect of government we have checks set up against those who have power.
What finer -check could there be against the government of the C.B.C. than strong, local, privately-owned stations? And if that is not a check, what -check would you have? The general position of the Social Credit league,


party, group, association or call it what you will-we do not exactly like to call it a party; we have always called ourselves "The Social Credit league" in Alberta, and we have looked upon ourselves as just a group of people banded together seeking the attainment of the things which the people desire and ought to be able to have, bearing in mind the resources available-might be set out in the following words: Some of the speeches already made in this debate insupport of present government policy in respect -of radio and television would lend the impression that those who oppose that policy would completely overthrow the present Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-throw it to the dogs-and hand over -all broadcasting and television to private interests to exploit-and that without law or regulation.
Our position has been made clear over the years, that we -do not -believe the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, operating side by side and in competition with independent radio stations across Canada, should -be the controlling body. We believe that the C.B.C. has its place in Canadian radio, and I might say a very important place. It has a very important function to perform, and we support the C.B.C. -as a body functioning in the interests of good -radio in Canada.
Our objection is to the fact that, by law, it is endowed with powers to control and regulate its competitors. Our position is that there should be a separate body or board that would function as an umpire. We do not behove the umpire should be -one of the players in the game.
Because we believe in a separate regulatory body, surely by no stretch of the imagination can we be, therefore, accused of wanting to turn radio and television over to American influence. We are of the opinion that any crown corporation of the kind we are here dealing with, especially if it is given all the power which some members of this house and of certain political parties are advocating, might arrogate to itself such authority as would make it a powerful propaganda body whose purpose would be to perpetuate a party in power, or exercise a dangerous thought control; or, worse still, fall under the domination of dangerous and subversive alien influences and make it possible for them to undermine and eventually destroy all that is true and good and really democratic in our Canadian -lives.
As a possible safeguard we strongly urge that this parliament set up a select standing committee on radio, television and the C.B.C., with terms of reference broad enough and specific enough to enable the committee members constantly to scrutinize C.B.C. policy

and performance, and thus to .guard against the dangerous .possibilities inherent in the present set-up.
Social Creditors favour the setting up of this committee.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker,
I am only going to detain the house for a few minutes, and I admit at the commencement of my remarks that they are rather in the nature of special pleadings for the city of Victoria. I make them because Victoria is not represented in this house during this session owing to a vacancy which exists there; and also because I am not a member of the committee and, therefore, may not have another opportunity to present the case of the southern area of Vancouver island. I would ask that when the minister closes this debate, or when, the matter is being considered in the committee, the position of Victoria and some of Vancouver island in respect of television be cleared up and explained. Until the last month or so Victoria had hoped that one or other of the applicants who were anxious to establish television stations there would have been granted a licence. But only a few weeks ago, when this matter was being sounded out, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advised that they would not, at the present time, consider any licences for the city of Victoria. That meant that some portion of Vancouver island would still have to depend for its reception of television programs on the neighbouring station in Seattle.
As I said, until recently it had been hoped that either the C.B.C. would establish a station of their own on the southern part of Vancouver island, or that they would permit some privately-owned station to be granted a licence. About a month or so ago, however, the C.B.C. said they would establish a television station in Vancouver and it was expected that this station would cover Victoria. Therefore, they said, they were not now in a position to consider applications for licences for television broadcasting in Victoria.
That has been a shock to the people of Vancouver island, because not only is Victoria the capital of British Columbia but it is also a busy industrial part of the country; and the immediate vicinity of Victoria has been building up and increasing in population very greatly during the past few years. They resent being referred to as a fringe area of a place called Vancouver, or anywhere else.
Furthermore, we have heard recently that the city of Hamilton will be granted a licence while the C.B.C. television station is established in Toronto. Hamilton and Toronto
18. 1953
Special Committee on Broadcasting are separated by about 40 miles in an air line. The air line between Vancouver and Victoria is nearly double that distance. Furthermore it is not merely an air line across flat terrain. The television waves would have to pass not only over the sea; there are a number of fair-sized mountains on Vancouver island and not inconsiderable hills on the gulf islands, which lie in the direct air line between the city of Victoria and the city of Vancouver. Therefore it is extremely doubtful whether any programs sent out from a television station in Vancouver could be received well on Vancouver island.
For those reasons I would ask the minister when he is summing up this debate to explain the situation as far as Victoria is concerned. If he is not in a position to do that at the present time it might be referred to the committee.
When I asked a question about this problem in the house on February 26, the minister said it would be receiving further study. I can only express the hope that the further study and decision will not be delayed for many months until such time as the station in Vancouver has been set up and tested; because, whether the reception is fair or only indifferent on Vancouver island, there is still a demand for a separate station in Victoria, or in the vicinity of Victoria, which can look after the island problems as distinct from the problems of Vancouver and the mainland.


James Joseph McCann: May I relieve the hon. gentleman's mind by telling him that Victoria is not to be included in the Vancouver area.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is the minister in a position to relieve my mind further by telling me now that a licence will be considered for Victoria?


James Joseph McCann: One relief at a time is sufficient, I think.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the setting up of this committee. I want to express my approval of the government's decision to abolish the radio licence fee, and also my approval of the decision that there will be no licence fee charged for television. I think the government is to be congratulated for setting aside a stable annual revenue for the use of the C.B.C. While I do not support the excise tax, yet if we are to have an excise tax then I think the government, in making a portion of it available for the support of the C.B.C., is following a wise course.
I am certainly in favour of the public control of radio and television. Unlike the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), I do not believe for one moment that there
3068	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting are hidden hands guided by evil forces now directing the C.B.C. I hope the hon. member will devote a forty minute period in the house to telling us just what are these evil forces and evil hands.
I must admit that his challenge that I take a six weeks' course is rather intriguing, but if the result of my taking such a course were the same as the result of listening to the hon. member in the house for what must amount to a total of close to six weeks, I am afraid I would not gain much by it. I doubt if any member of the bouse who has listened to the hon. member over the years for a time that would approximate six weeks is any better informed now about what the hon. member is talking about than he was when the hon. member made his first speech.


John Horne Blackmore: Did they want to learn?


Joseph William Noseworthy: I am not a believer in the statement that the officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation live in an ivory tower while the Canadian Association of Broadcasters has its roots deep down among the people, and that they know what is good for broadcasting any more than the C.B.C. does. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters certainly has its roots deep down among the people, and I would say that its roots are well watered by the profits which some of these private stations make from the public.
Certainly in a democracy, as the hon. member said, the people must tell the government what to do. We try to do that under our present system, and I have much more confidence in an organization such as the C.B.C., responsible to parliament through a minister, providing the Canadian people with the kind of broadcasting they want than I have in strong privately-owned radio stations whose first and primary interest must be profits from advertising.
How long will these privately-owned radio stations remain independent? How long will it be before they become a part of a chain owned by some group of commercial interests? I think the government, and particularly the department of the government responsible for the administration of the C.B.C., deserve a great deal of credit for the way in which they have stood by the principles and policies laid down by the public-spirited founders of the C.B.C. The extent to which the government has refrained from yielding to pressure campaigns carried on by private enterprise groups and private enterprise politicians will remain for posterity as one of the contributions which the government has made to the people of Canada.


There has been some surrender over the years, but I would say that on the whole the compromise between the publicly-owned system and the privately-owned stations which the C.B.C. has worked out is giving the Canadian public good service. Under C.B.C. control the private stations are rendering good, useful service. I for one would not want to see the private stations under any other control than that of the publicly-owned C.B.C.
Public control of television will be even more important than public control of radio. Television contains much greater potentialities for good or evil than radio. There has been no opportunity yet to measure the influence of television upon children of preschool and public school age. Investigations in the United States have shown that children of lower grade public school age spend more time before television screens than they do in public schools. What will be the effect upon children of long hours spent viewing a television screen? Certainly the influence of television upon our youth, as upon our people generally, is such that we dare not entrust the responsibility for that great medium of instruction and influence to any private group of people whose interest is first and foremost that of private commercial enterprise.
I deplore some of the methods being used by the private interests in their efforts to break down the C.B.C. They say they are doing this in the interests of freedom, and it has been reported in the press that United States commercial interests have indicated that they are ready to back the fight for the freedom of the air waves in Canada.
I wonder just what these commercial interests, American or Canadian, mean by the freedom of the air waves. What is the freedom they want? They want freedom to bring commercial advertising, Canadian and American, into our homes and to charge the cost of that advertising to the consumer or deduct it from their income tax.
In my opinion these groups confuse private ownership of radio and television with freedom. We can have freedom of expression over the air waves, freedom of listening, only so long as we have control vested in the hands of a group that is directly or indirectly responsible to the people of Canada through their parliament. The moment that control passes from some such organization as the C.B.C. into the hands of privately-owned radio stations or into the hands of any commercial group, then at that moment we shall cease to have freedom to listen or freedom of expression over the, air waves.

One of the first things such a group would do, were they to obtain control of radio, would be to keep off the air those who expressed opinions with which they differed. Today they smear anything of which they disapprove, and many of the things which they do not understand, with the charge of being communist. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that is a very dangerous technique. Are we to permit advertising agencies, whether Canadian or American, to determine public policy regarding radio and television by frightening the Canadian public with the communist smear?


John Horne Blackmore: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Joseph William Noseworthy: I am not supporting an extremist view-all right; yes.


John Horne Blackmore: I just wondered if the hon. member had the impression that anyone in this house had advocated control of radio by private concerns. Have those who have spoken against the present policy of the C.B.C. not advocated the setting up of a government agency to control both the C.B.C. and the private stations?


Joseph William Noseworthy: I shall refer to that later. If the hon. member is not satisfied with my answer I give him exactly the same reply he gave me a few moments ago, that he can come to my room and spend some time there and I shall explain the matter to him at greater length.
I am not supporting extremist views one way or the other, nor am I advocating any particular programs. I do assert, however, that it is important to us in this parliament that we maintain our freedom of speech and freedom to listen over the air. We want to hear more than one side of a question. While I do not think any small group of five or six men is capable of telling the people of Canada what they should receive over the radio, I still believe that those who are in charge of the C.B.C. are just as capable and much more likely to provide the kind of radio programs that Canadians want than would any other organization set up by privately-owned stations which would be, as I have said, interested first and foremost in commercial advertising.
We want to hear more than one side of every question. Having heard that full and free discussion, then I submit that our intellect should be free to make our own choice. We respect minority rights of opinion in matters of religion in this country; we respect it in matters of education and we respect it in matters of language. We must, I submit, respect minority rights to the freedom of speech and freedom of listening to the radio,
Special Committee on Broadcasting and allow the intellect to form its own judgment having listened to both sides of the question. I do not think that any small group of people is necessarily capable or should attempt to tell the people of Canada what they should receive over the radio, but as I have said I still have more confidence in the ability of those who control the C.B.C. to give the Canadian people the kind of programs that will raise our cultural level, than I have in any privately-owned stations.
In answer to the question the hon. member raised a moment ago, I fail to see how any independent or so-called independent committee, designed to control both the C.B.C. and private radio, would long remain independent. In my opinion any such committee set-up would, in time, come under the control of the big business that television and radio is now becoming and would become if left under private enterprise.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: The proposal to set up a committee to study radio, Mr. Speaker, is something that has been advocated by this party ever since this house met in the present session. We have regretted very much that for seven weeks the motion to set up the committee has remained in suspense. This motion would have passed with little or no debate when it was again brought before us yesterday if it had not been for the fact that the government put forward a statement of the case which was so completely contrary to all the known facts, and which sought to arouse racial prejudice and other feelings of prejudice in relation to a subject which justifies no such appeal and which could and should be dealt with upon the basis of the real needs and the best advantage of the Canadian people.
To have left the statement of the government as it stood yesterday, and to have permitted the committee to be set up without dealing with that statement, would have been to leave on the Hansard record of the proceedings of this house a statement so remote from the facts, so prejudiced in its appeal, and so completely devoid of any real consideration of the issues before us, that it became necessary for hon. members in this house to deal with certain of the points that were put forward.
The attempt that was made by the government to mislead the people of Canada was clearly indicated by a headline appearing this morning in the Ottawa Citizen as follows: "Fight Move for Private TV Control". That was the interpretation placed upon the statement by the government yesterday. That was the thought the government sought to
3070	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting leave with the people of Canada, namely that an attempt was being made to place the control of television broadcasting in private hands. That interpretation of the views that have been put forward in this house does violence to the truth and is directly opposed to every argument that has been put forward in this house by the members of every party in it.


James Joseph McCann: We do not write the headlines.


George Alexander Drew: In this case I think that the headline correctly interpreted the impression the government was seeking to convey by the chosen mouthpiece through which their statement was presented yesterday.


Mr. Croll:: The bon. gentleman said that the headline did violence to the truth.


George Alexander Drew: No, that was not what I said.


David Arnold Croll: I thought it was, and I was listening carefully.


George Alexander Drew: I would ask the hon. member to recall how much more accurate his statements are when he makes his own speeches instead of interrupting, and I would commend that course to him. What 1 said was that the impression which the government sought to convey, and which was in this case correctly interpreted by that headline, does violence to the truth.
But there were certain statements made on behalf of the government yesterday which were a refreshing breeze in this house, which has become accustomed to an entirely different attitude. It was really a pleasant surprise to hear the review of the stages by which the development of this 'country has taken place. In this case the government placed before the house the great pageant of Canadian development. At first it may have seemed to some hon. members that the government was departing from the subject under consideration when reference was made to the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian National Railways, Trans-Canada Air Lines and other great public developments which have played their part in the expanding growth and unity of Canada. But in this case the position taken by the government related clearly to what we have before us.
It was refreshing to see this recognition of what has taken place in Canada. The government reminded the house that without the Canadian Pacific Railway the unity of this country would hardly have been a possibility. Was that the achievement of the party which this government on other occasions has told us was the author of all good in this


country? No. That was the achievement of the Conservative party, with men with the vision of national unity which was interpreted in those lines of steel that crossed a continent and bound this country together.
Then we were reminded of the Canadian National Railways and the vitally important part they played in the development of Canada. Was that the achievement of a government. formed from the party which we have been told over and over again was the author of all real development and expansion in Canada? No. That also was the result of the vision, decision and action of a Conservative government. That fact should not be forgotten at any time. In spite of the assertions they make outside about their exclusive contribution to the development of Canada, it is refreshing to have the government reminding this house that the two great rail lines, one private and the other public, which have played their vital part in developing and uniting Canada were the achievement, in both cases, of governments formed from the Conservative party.
The government might also have reminded us of the Bell Telephone Company which has given us such efficient communications in Canada. Was that company organized under a Liberal government? Oh, no. That company was organized under a Conservative government, and it was placed under those appropriate measures of supervision and control which, in the case of a monopoly or nearmonopoly of that kind, assure to the private individual, to Canadians living in every part of Canada, protection from any abuse there might be through monopoly either private or public.
Then the government also reminded us of Trans-Canada Air Lines and the part it played. Has the government forgotten that the decision to proceed with a trans-Canada air line was the decision of a Conservative government?


Mr. Howe:: Ha, ha, ha!


George Alexander Drew: Apparently it has. But let it go back to the record; let it examine the statements of a man who has been adopted by this government, General McNaughton, as to the decision which had been made and as to the airports which were being constructed across Canada for the purpose of a trans-Canada air line, decided upon by a Conservative government, for which he was building these airports across Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He was trying to get rid of some starving young men.


George Alexander Drew: No. Even though they have adopted this man at a time when his views

have changed so greatly as to the political party which can best serve Canada-


Clarence Decatur Howe: There was not a passenger plane operating in 1934.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to interrupt the general trend of my remarks. I would suggest that the minister just go back into the history of air development in this country.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I knew that history long before the hon. gentleman did.


George Alexander Drew: Let him recall the passenger planes which were flying at that time and which were blazing the trail for the great air developments which have taken place in this country.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nuts.


George Alexander Drew: Let him recall the passenger planes which were being flown in this country by pilots who today are taking their place as executive officials of both Trans-Canada Air Lines and Canadian Pacific Air Lines.


Mr. Gardiner:: They had to fly in spite of government policy then.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to bother about the minister who has just interpolated the last remark, because he is having enough difficulty explaining government policy in his own province and should not be worrying about anybody else in the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: When the hon. gentleman gets to the point where he will not have any more difficulty, he may get somewhere.


George Alexander Drew: Then, Mr. Speaker, it was by this process of reference to these great developments which have played their part in the expansion and increasing unity of Canada that the government then brought us to the C.B.C. It was appropriate that they should remind the members of this house and the people of Canada that these were achievements of the Conservative party throughout the years. It was also appropriate and refreshing to find the government reminding the members of this house that the C.B.C. was the result of the vision and decision and initiative of the Conservative party, which brought it into being in 1932.


James Garfield Gardiner: Did they build the Grand Trunk Pacific? Did they build the C.N.R.?


Mr. Hodgson:: Not the Saskatchewan dam, either.


George Alexander Drew: The Conservative party took the railways to which the minister has referred out of the difficulties that had been created by the lack of supervision of the Liberal 68108-195
Special Committee on Broadcasting party under which they were built. And that also might well have been part of the story that was placed before the house. But, Mr. Speaker, let us in this instance congratulate the government on the refreshing frankness they have displayed on this occasion when they did point out that the policy of the C.B.C., as well as the creation of the C.B.C., was laid down by the Conservative party under the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett.
It was extremely interesting and also refreshing to hear these words spoken by the minister who put forward the case of the government, as reported at page 3009 of Hansard:
I can do no better than to quote . . . Mr. Bennett.
Oh, how long we have waited for that refreshing truth; how 'long we have waited for that admission that they have found where they can go for policies that will really stand the test.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He was the last Conservative worth quoting.


George Alexander Drew: "I can do no .better than to quote Mr. Bennett." And so the government proceeded to place before the house the statement that Mr. Bennett made at the time the C.B.C. was being brought into existence. Yes, the C.B.C. has served this country well and has developed and expanded; but at that particular point, after having referred to the statement of policy of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, as he was at that time, the government unfortunately got back to form and departed from this refreshing admission of the facts, which up to that point had placed on the record a statement which might still have stood as an example of the kind of impartial recognition of the contribution made by governments of both parties throughout the years since 1867, that one should expect.
Great contributions have been made to the development of this country by governments of the Liberal party throughout the years, just as great contributions have been made by governments of the Conservative party. It was a refreshing thing yesterday to find the government-whether in an atmosphere of death-bed repentance or otherwise I do not know, but whatever the circumstances were-placing before the house and placing on the record for the people to read the fact that these great communication and transportation systems which have played such a vital part in the development, the expansion and the unity of Canada were in fact contributed to this country by the vision, energy and action of the Conservative party throughout the years.

Special Committee on Broadcasting
At this point, Mr. Speaker, the position of the government departed strangely from what it had 'been up to then. We were then told that if the policy supported toy the Conservative party were adapted there would be no French-'language television broadcast in Canada. What a shameless appeal to prejudice by a minister who accepts the responsibility of dealing with the particular subject now under discussion. What an utterly shameless distortion of the facts.


Mr. Lesage:: Did you quote Hansardl


George Alexander Drew: What are the facts? Has that minister not heard of the application of La Presse in Montreal? Has that minister not heard that when the application of La Presse for a French television broadcasting station came up for consideration it was deferred and is still deferred, and that under the policies established by this government will be deferred until a date so distant that we do not yet know when that may be? Had that minister, speaking on behalf of the government, not been informed of an application for a French television broadcasting station in the city of Quebec, the ancient capital of French Canada? If he had not, then there are members of the government who are fully aware of the situation connected with that application, and they should have informed him of the facts, because that application will come up for consideration on March 27, only nine days from now. It is unfortunate that the minister responsible is so unaware of matters of this kind that he should have ignored that fact.
That has been the policy of this government, which has withheld the opportunity to have French as well as English broadcasting in many places across Canada from which applications have been made to permit broadcasting. It is to be hoped that the government will not again put forward any appeal to prejudice and misunderstanding which can so easily be disposed of by the record which the government itself has at its disposal.
Then, Mr. Speaker, let us deal with the suggestion that an attempt is being made to hand over the control of television to private hands. Where has there been a suggestion of that at any time in this house from any hon. member? There has not been one, and the government knows it. When the argument is put forward that the policy of the Conservative party would be to hand over these television stations to their wealthy friends, as the statement was, I do believe it is about time to remind this house and the people of Canada that, except for those years that are described as the hungry thirties, when the economic storm swept Canada as well as the whole world, this government has


been in power since 1921, and that all the great wealth and the monopolies that have grown up during those years have been monopolies fathered by the loving care of this government throughout that period. Not only were they fathered with the loving care of this government, but fathered with that attention which fathers sometimes do not demand -a consideration from those to whom they gave their being, which no father would ordinarily exact of any child.
No; let this party examine the record. Let this party go down the list of those who have made great fortunes in Canada, and see how frequently those men were visitors in the offices of this present government. Let them do that before they start talking about wealthy friends. That is the kind of thing that has no relationship to the motion before the house, and which of necessity has involved further discussion on the subject at this time.
Let the government look at those who have applied for the right to broadcast television programs, in French as well as in English. There they will find friends-yes, and more than friends-of the government. They will find that in many cases there are people who have never hesitated to show their friendship and support of this government.
I do not criticize that. I believe it would be a very good thing for this country if every businessman in Canada declared his political colour, and came out into the open as to what his political beliefs are. But how often has the statement been heard in these past few years-"Oh, I would like to take a more active part in politics, but this government is so closely associated with our business activities that we do not think it would be a healthy thing for us to do so".
No; we say we think it would be a very good thing if businessmen openly declared their support of this government, or of other political parties. We think it is a good thing when businessmen declare their support of the C.C.F. party, and the Social Credit party as well-as, indeed, some of them do. We think it is a very unwise thing when those who have accepted and created positions of responsibility under our free enterprise system do not take their part actively and openly in the democratic processes, just like every other Canadian.


An hon. Member:: And so they would, if they were not afraid.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, to repeat the comment that has just been interjected; so they would, if they were not afraid. And I think that comment very appropriately fits this situation,


area is through privately-owned stations. In addition to those 30 stations which are carrying basic programs, there are 17 more private stations carrying supplementary programs for the C.B.C. So on the dominion network there is one C.B.C. station and a total of 47 private stations carrying basic and supplementary programs.
Then let us examine the trans-Canada network, the first of the two networks said to be created. On that network there are 16 C.B.C. stations and 26 private stations carrying basic and supplementary programs. Surely there is an example of co-operation between public and private ownership in which the private stations are providing by far the largest number of outlets for the programs initiated over the C.B.C.
Let us see what happens in the case of the French network. There the situation is similar. Again, in the broadcasting of French programs over what is known as the French network there are 3 C.B.C. stations and 12 privately-owned. That is exactly the kind of partnership that is healthy and in accordance with the basic policy laid down by the Conservative party under the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett in 1932, consistently supported by this party to this day, and now advocated as the policy which should be adopted in this country.
We believe this policy should be adopted for television.. We believe competition is good in television as well as in radio. We believe there should be competition in the dense centres of population between private and publicly-owned stations. We believe there should also be a similar type of cooperation between private and publicly-owned stations. We believe that in the building of microwave relay connections or in the building of coaxial cables, whichever method may be employed for the transmission of programs, there should be the same effective partnership between private and public ownership throughout the country.
But, Mr. Speaker, there again we come to one of the difficulties we find in understanding exactly what the government are advocating. They picture to us the horrors of United States programs. Oh, it was a terrible picture that was painted to us yesterday of the United States programs to which we might be subjected if the C.B.C. did not exercise an exclusive monopoly over television in this country. Well, the strange thing about it is that this government, which says that it is so determined to keep out United States programs, entered into a most improvident arrangement for the purpose of bringing in those programs. Before they had any contracts for programs from the United

States they entered into a contract under which they are now committed to a rental of $225,564 a year, payable to the Bell Telephone Company for a period of five years, for services which they have not yet been able to make available to them.
Here is a case where private and public ownership do offer the suggestion of competitive advantage. Any private ownership dependent upon revenues for survival would have tried to find out where it was going to get the programs before it committed itself to an expenditure of $225,564 a year for a period of five years. The government has entered into an arrangement under which it has attempted to make sure of United States programs, which it condemns so roundly; but it has failed to get them, except in one or two instances, because it has not been able to make satisfactory arrangements. With their low concept of the intrinsic value of the dollar, private companies of course would have tried to find out first whether they were going to get some revenue by the use of that service if it were arranged in that way.
There is another point I should like to recall which indicates the difficulty we have in understanding some of the arguments that are put forward. We were told of the terrors of United States programs. Yet at the same time we were told of the wonderful cultural broadcasts we get over the C.B.C., the opera on Saturday afternoon, the great symphony orchestras and other musical programs. Where do those come from? Where does the Metropolitan Opera broadcast come from? I was under the impression it came from New York, and I was strongly under the impression that it is sponsored by a private enterprise which pays a lot of money so that people may hear opera and so that it may have its own name briefly associated with that very commendable cultural broadcast. Then we also hear the New York philharmonic orchestra, one of the greatest and finest in the world, every week during the fall, winter and spring months. There again, strangely enough, this "evil" of private enterprise rears its ugly head, and again from the United States we find this "evil force" asserting its influence.
Again, on Sunday night, when so many people are at home, we find cultural programs, and some not quite so cultural but entertaining, being broadcast by the C.B.C. There again, strangely enough, they come from the United States and are sponsored by these "evil" private enterprise organizations which the government, at least in the speech of yesterday, held up to such abhorrence.
18, 1953	3075
Special Committee on Broadcasting
We do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that the control of television would safely rest in the hands of private enterprise if over-all control were entrusted to them. Never at any time, nor at this time, has a single member of this party suggested any such thing. Never! What we do suggest is that the competitive advantages, so simply and clearly stated by the chairman of the C.B.C. should be assured by a truly competitive system operating under an independent and impartial commission just as the private and public railways do, just as the private and public shipping lines do, just as the private and public air lines do.
We remind the government that never at any time has the government suggested that the operation of the C.P.R. in competition with Canadian National Railways or other rail lines in Canada be placed under the exclusive control and supervision of the Canadian National Railways. I do not believe that a single member of the government would ever make any such suggestion. Never at any time has the government suggested that the air lines of the country should be placed under the exclusive control of Trans-Canada Air Lines. I do not believe the government will make any such suggestion. There again the licensing and making of regulations are carried on by an independent body and not by the competing and operative organization. I do not believe the government would suggest for a moment that the public and privately-owned shipping lines, carrying goods and passengers in our domestic waters or overseas, should be placed exclusively under the control of the government-owned shipping lines. This government has asserted the proposition in relation to those enterprises that there should be competition and that the competition should be supervised, with licensing controlled and regulations made by an independent body not actively engaged in those operations.
But we are told, when we come to examine television, that the wave lengths and frequencies are in the public domain and must not be made a monopoly in the hands of any private enterprise. There never was a speaker of the old Marxian school who enunciated a clearer declaration against private enterprise than the government did yesterday when it pictured the horrors of private profits that might grow out of assigning wave lengths and frequencies to private enterprise.
What about the land that is set aside for rail lines? Is that not part of the public domain? When a government of Canada sets aside thousands of acres of land across this country for a rail line, public or private, is that not setting aside a monopoly over that
3076	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting particular part of the public domain for long years ahead, and so far as we are concerned in our lifetime, for perpetuity? What about airports and other land requirements of the air lines, public and private? Are they not part of the public domain set aside indefinitely throughout the years ahead by this government as a monopoly for the public or private operations to which they are assigned? Yes, certainly, those are monopolies, monopolies placed under control. We assert that either a public or private monopoly should be under impartial control at all times. We do not believe that a private or public monopoly should be used either for the benefit of a government or for the benefit of any group of people, private or public, in an enterprise of this nature.
Now that the government has at last seen the light, has adopted the policy of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett and says we can use no better words than his in describing the position we take, we hope that at last it will come to an understanding of the type of competition between private and public enterprise that has been the genius of this combined system in the case of railways, air transportation and radio broadcasting, and will be so in the case of television if it is properly employed. Mr. Speaker, the party which was- responsible for the creation of a publicly-owned broadcasting system in Canada, the party which brought the C.B.C. into existence, believes that the C.B.C. should be protected, and should be at all times removed from government interference which will be detrimental to the operation of that system for the general advantage of the people of Canada. Any time we have raised objection to interference with the C.B.C. by this government, we have done so in the belief that the C.B.C. has played, can play and will play a vitally important part in the cultural development of this country. It would be the hope that we will not again hear such a misrepresentation of the facts as we heard in this house yesterday.
This government is not uninformed in regard to what has taken place. This government knows quite well that in the case of educational broadcasts, which are of such immense value to the people of Canada, those come under the supervision of the provincial departments of education because education is still exclusively the responsibility of the provincial governments. I have had excellent experience in the remarkable work done by the C.B.C. in the field of education. For a while I had some responsibility for the educational broadcasts going out to the schools in one province, and to the children at home. I received the utmost co-operation,


the most wholehearted support, in broadcasting the types of programs that the department of education of that province thought would be of advantage to the young people. From conferences I have attended where ministers of education from other provinces were present, I know the same experience has been common throughout Canada. There has been remarkable cooperation between the C.B.C. and the departments of education in broadcasting educational programs in French and in English in- every part of this country.
The C.B.C. has given excellent service to this country through the Farm Forum which regularly permits discussion over the radio of the problems of the farmers, so they may hear the views the farmers exchange concerning this great and basic industry of Canada. Every day the. farm news, which digests the latest prices and interesting information concerning farm activity, goes out across Canada and is of great advantage to the farmers. In many cases they arrange their day so they are in their homes to hear this excellent broadcast. The people right across this country have come to appreciate the news broadcasts which go out over the C.B.C. I have stated my own belief that there are no better broadcasts going out over the radio stations of any country of which I know than the regular news broadcasts going out over the C.B.C. Where there has been criticism, it has been in cases where there has been interference with that measure of independence which is so important to the C.B.C., as it is to the private stations as well.
The way to assure that measure of independence which will maintain a broadcasting system second to none for the advantage of Canadians is to 'create an independent body similar to those which exercise even-handed justice in the case of the railways, the shipping lines, air lines and other similar services within this country. There may be cases where the parties are not satisfied. Even before our impartial courts the litigants are not always satisfied. But on the whole we Canadians have reason to be proud of the impartial service given by these public servants of different political persuasions who accept responsibilities on these important boards and commissions, recognizing the highest traditions of the civil service of this country and giving Canadians a great service. It is that kind of body that we suggest should exercise control. We wish to make quite sure that the control of television or radio is not in private hands.
We want to make equally sure that the control of these great media of information

and, propaganda as well-if that be the purpose for which they are employed-should not be in the hands of any government which is prepared to abuse the relationship which it has to those great public media of information and communication.
Subject to that reservation, in the case of either private or public distribution of programs of this nature we think there should be complete freedom of broadcasting, both in radio and television, subject only to those decencies which apply to ordinary communications between decent people. We believe that there certainly should be standards of decency with regard to programs either in the case of television or of radio broadcasting. As was pointed out by the government yesterday, a much higher measure of responsibility rests upon those who distribute programs by television than rests upon those who distribute programs which go out over the radio.
The government properly pointed out that great care should be taken that pictures, which make such a great impression on the minds of youth, should not be carried into the homes if they convey any impressions that might be detrimental to the splendid youth of Canada. Most certainly that statement should be kept in mind by the government itself in its decisions as to the kind of programs which will be broadcast. There have been in this country television broadcasts by government-owned, stations which no private station would have undertaken. Before every private station is held up to scorn for the kind of programs it gives, let the government examine the mote in its own eye. Let it examine the text of some of the broadcasts that have gone out over the government-owned television stations and see whether those are the kind of television broadcasts its members would like their own, children to receive in their homes if they did not ha,ppen to be there at the time the program was coming in. Surely that is a fair test, since they themselves have put forward the importance of recognizing the special importance of television broadcasting.
Mr. Speaker, we Canadians certainly have reason, to look with some concern at the situation with which we are confronted today. As the government said yesterday, television may now be the most important means of communicating ideas that has ever been made available to man. Of course the people of most of Canada are not going to know that, from their own experience, for some time to come. But as the government pointed out, we are living next door to a country which has a tremendous number of television programs. When the government
18, 1953	3077
Special Committee on Broadcasting told us that the restrictive course they are following with regard to television programs in the larger cities is designed to protect our people from United States programs and to give them Canadian programs, let them look at the real facts of the case.
Let us take Toronto as an example, where it is possible for people to see both C.B.C. and United States programs at the same time, depending on their own choice. The C.B.C. has decided, that it is going to maintain, in the Toronto area, a monopoly for the publicly-owned system. Let us see what has happened. Ever since the C.B.C. station started broadcasting, the audience which has been tuning in on the C.B.C. programs has been steadily going down with the result that today only about 20 per cent of the television audience is tuning in on C.B.C. programs while 80 per cent is tuning in on United States programs from Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse. We have not kept out United States programs by that device.
This would be a good time for the government to listen to the words of the chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which were to the effect that competition will keep the C.B.C. on its toes, and that competition naturally develops the kind of spirit that improves programs and builds up better programs. That is what we are advocating. We are advocating that there be publicly-owned and privately-owned stations in the great centres right across Canada. That is what we have advocated at all times. Never at any time have we suggested that there be either a private or a public monopoly in any centre in Canada. We want the advantages of competition under impartial control and supervision such as that which we have described.
What we have said is that we believe in the policy laid down by Right Hon. R. B. Bennett-a policy now adopted by this government-that in those places where it is not possible to have private broadcasting, the C.B.C. should provide facilities. That is perfectly sound. This is what Right Hon. R. B. Bennett said on May 18, 1932, in, the speech quoted with such great approval by the government yesterday. It may be found at page 3035 of Hansard of that year:
Private ownership must necessarily discriminate between densely and sparsely populated areas. This is not a correctable fault in private ownership; it is an inescapable and inherent demerit of that system. It does not seem right that in Canada the towns should be preferred to the countryside or the prosperous communities to those less fortunate . . . Equality of service is assured by the plan which calls for a chain of high power stations throughout Canada. And furthermore, the particular requirements of any community may be met by the installation of low power stations by means of which local broadcasting service may be obtained.
3078	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting
Those words, Mr. Speaker, were particularly sound with regard to radio broadcasting, and they are sound with regard to television broadcasting. Of course a new feature arises in connection with television. The area within which a program can be picked up directly from any station is smaller and consequently it becomes more difficult to carry those programs to more distant points. If there is to be equality of cultural opportunity, throughout Canada, which we believe should be made a reality as far as possible, it is essential that the publicly-owned system go into those areas where it is not likely or practical that private enterprise will enter the field of competition and provide facilities, just as they did in the case of radio broadcasting.
That was the concept in 1932. It has been the concept all along, and since the government does exercise directly or indirectly such an influence over the committees set up by this house in which there is a majority of members supporting the government, these arguments have been put forward in the hope that the deliberations of the committee will be carried on with the knowledge in the minds of the members of the committee who ordinarily support the government that it is the hope of the government that there will be continuing competition and continuing partnership between the two types of broadcasting.
I am not saying, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the committee are going to be necessarily subservient to the government in anything they do. I only suggest that the government, with that relationship which it has to the members of the party to which it belongs, should indicate to them quite clearly that it does support the policy that was enunciated by the Conservative party in 1932 and that is put forward by the Conservative party today; and that when this committee meets the government hopes that it will conduct its deliberations with the idea that it is the purpose of the government and of this house generally to give to the people of Canada as complete equality as possible in the cultural advantages that can flow from this new medium of communicating ideas.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite willing to give way to the minister provided he had time to make a proper answer, but there are a few words that I should like to say at this time.
I sat here and listened to the debate with a great deal of interest. I am awfully pleased to hear the speeches from the government side of the house and from the official opposition at this time. I was particularly pleased
[Mr. Drew.}

this afternoon to hear the Leader of the Opposition, in no uncertain terms, lay down what is the policy of the Conservative party at this time in regard to public ownership as related to this debate. Well, now, if you believe in public ownership to the extent that has been announced, both from the government side and by the Leader of the Opposition, then you must go along with that philosophy in other things.
I have listened to speeches yesterday and this afternoon on this particular subject, that I am glad were made, and I hope the newspaper editors across this country, supporting both the government and the official opposition, will take very careful note of this debate and the principles that have been accepted by both the Conservatives and the Liberals; because since 1932 to my own knowledge, up to a few weeks ago, the policy of the C.C.F. has been practically what has been accepted by both the opposition and the government at this time in relation to this debate, except that we were logical and carried it forward into other basic industries and natural resources in this country. Speeches such as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) made yesterday and the Leader of the Opposition made this afternoon received scare headlines. Editorials were written to the effect that the C.C.F. were socialists and communists because they dared to suggest the kind of things that have been accepted in this debate as being a desirable development for this country. I just wanted to make that observation because if this debate has proven anything it has proven the correctness of the C.C.F. policy since 1932 in regard to the development of the resources of this country.
Today everybody wants to take credit for the C.B.C. I am not particularly concerned as to who gets the credit for it as long as the Canadian people get the service. I have heard other opinions expressed in the years I have been here. There is no doubt about it; the Leader of the Opposition read into the record this afternoon the beginning of the discussion in this house as far as the C.B.C. is concerned; but during the time I have been here I have heard other opinions expressed from that direction, and if I were going to give any individual credit for the C.B.C., for T.C.A., for Polymer, for Canadian Arsenals and those organizations that are of great benefit to this country today I would select the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) because from 1940 until the present time he has been a minister of the government and I have been a member of the house.
During that period of time I heard many discussions in this house on this subject,

and I saw the Minister of Trade and Commerce moved from transport to reconstruction and juggled around in half a dozen different departments; but no matter where he went he took radio with him and he took the T.C.A. with him until very recently, until he was assured that it was consolidated and was accepted by the members of this house.
I have heard him have many a bitter fight in this house over the development of T.C.A., and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. If I were picking any individual I would pick him. Mind you, I do not think he had very much support in the early years on that side of the house, and he had none on this side, with the exception of the small group that sat here who used to take up the cudgels and help him in the kind of development we knew was desirable for this country.
Of course the part of the country you live in conditions your thinking in so far as the services of the C.B.C. are concerned. We accept the principle; we believe that is how it should be developed; but if you are living in the part of the country from which I come and you stay there exclusively you do not get a good opinion of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. For a start, you have the station at Sackville, New Brunswick;
I think it is CBA. It is supposed to be the voice of the maritimes. I am safe in saying that in 75 per cent of the maritimes you cannot get that station at all.
Second, in the area in which I live we cannot forget that we had private broadcasting in that area for 20 years at least before the C.B.C. station made its appearance there, and in that area that private station does a good job. We cannot forget that. I know that in 1950 a C.B.C. outlet was established in Sydney, but it has an unfortunate position on the dial. Most of the radios in the area will not pick it up at all, and quite naturally the only station left to you is CJCB. That station does an excellent job, and I was glad to hear it announced in the house that the management of the station will be granted a licence to establish a television station in the area when there is a Halifax station with an outlet that may be picked up and relayed along there.
Will you call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Tomorrow we shall take up the budget resolutions in the committee of ways and means.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Can we not continue this debate and have the committee set up?


Alphonse Fournier: Well, we have been trying very hard to do that, but it does not seem to be the wish of the house to set it up right now.
18, 1953	3079
Special Committee on Broadcasting


George Alexander Drew: I think it is the wish of the house; and any delay that has been caused has been as a result of the speech that was made yesterday, and wholly unnecessarily. I am referring to the speech by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). My understanding is that there is only one speaker, and we might clean it up.


James Joseph McCann: It has been the custom in the house to give the mover of a motion an opportunity to say a word in reply.


George Alexander Drew: All right.


James Joseph McCann: I have been sitting here all the time. This is the end of three full days of debate. It has never taken that long at any time in the last fifteen years.


Mr. Fulton:: We never had a speech like the Minister of Transport made, either.


James Joseph McCann: The Minister of Transport will answer for his own speech. I made a speech on January 27 which outlined, I think, the position the government was taking with relation to the C.B.C. That had to do with the operation, the organization and the management of that corporation. The speech you heard yesterday by the Minister of Transport had to do with that part of the law which comes under the Department of Transport, namely the administration of the Radio Act.
Now, whether that aroused controversy or not is a matter for the decision of individual members. I am glad the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) was refreshed by it. He indicated that he was.


George Alexander Drew: Greatly.


James Joseph McCann: And I hope the zephyrs from this side of the house will continue to refresh him. I was going to make some comment respecting his own political speech, because that is what it was. The different speeches we have heard for the last three days, in which there has been criticism, have been both informative and instructive. Now we know the position of the Tory party with respect to the C.B.C. That has not been its position within the last fifteen years. They were the first to repudiate a former prime minister of this country.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


James Joseph McCann: I will end it in five minutes, if you want the committee set up.


George Alexander Drew: I would point out that no one has suggested that the minister should not speak. On the contrary we are very hopeful that he will. May I say to the minister that I can assure him it was the decision of this party that they were quite prepared to have had the committee set up yesterday,

Special Committee on Broadcasting if it had not been for the speech made by a member of the government.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, if it is the sincere desire of everyone to set up the committee, why not forget about the clock, let the minister speak for ten minutes, and complete the debate? Have we unanimous consent for that?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) agrees.


Clarence Gillis: Well, I adjourned the debate. However, I have no desire to hold up procedure, if the house wishes to hear the minister. I am quite prepared to have it wound up today.


Mr. McLure:: I have waited here all day to say something, and now we find the debate is adjourned. But when the matter comes up again I will have something to say about it. I sat on the original committee in 1932, and I wish to correct a few errors that have been made about it.


Alphonse Fournier: Budget resolutions tomorrow.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The debate has been already adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless there is unanimous consent I shall have to call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Alphonse Fournier: Budget resolutions tomorrow.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But we could finish this up tomorrow. May I appeal to the minister to call this order of business tomorrow. It will not take long. We have been kept waiting seven weeks already, from January 27 until yesterday. The committee has a lot of work to do. The session is getting on. I appeal to the minister to call it tomorrow. It is evident the debate will be brief.


Alphonse Fournier: We cannot stop the flow, not even from the hon. member who is speaking.
On motion of Mr. Gillis the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 19, 1953