1953-03-17

ST. PATRICK'S DAY EXTENSION OF FELICITATIONS BY MEMBER FOR FORT WILLIAM

Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege I would like to extend to you, and through you to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and the big family over which you preside, greetings in the name of St. Patrick from the native-born sons of Ireland, and to wish all whom you preside over good success, true happiness and the peace that St. Patrick felt after a good day's work well done.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES   REFERENCE OF ANNUAL REPORT, AUDITORS' REPORT AND BUDGETS TO RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING COMMITTEE

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to lay on the table the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year ended December 31, 1952, the auditors' report to parliament for the year ended December 31, 1952, in respect of Trans-Canada Air Lines, and also the operating budget and capital budget for the calendar year 1953 in respect of Trans-Canada Air Lines.
Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I wish to move:
That the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year ended December 31, 1952, the auditors' report to parliament for the year ended December 31, 1952, in respect of Trans-Canada Air Lines, and also the operating budget and the capital budget for the calendar year 1953 in respect of Trans-Canada Air Lines, all tabled earlier this day, be referred to the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following
communication from His Excellency the Ambassador of The Netherlands:
Dear Mr. Speaker:
Upon instructions received I have the honour to convey to you. on behalf of Her Majesty, Queen Juliana, the expression of Her Majesty's most sincere appreciation for the sympathy of the Canadian House of Commons to the people of The Netherlands who have been so severely stricken by the recent flood disaster.
The text of the resolution which was passed unanimously in the House of Commons on Monday, February 2, 1953, was transmitted to Her Majesty by the Canadian Ambassador at The Hague, and I now have the pleasure to convey to you Her Majesty's most heartfelt thanks.
Yours very sincerely,
A. h. j. LOVINK.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 224, to amend the Canada Elections Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose
of this bill is to provide that the poll clerk shall represent a different political interest from that of the deputy returning officer and thereby eliminate the necessity for candidates' agents at the poll. Part II deals with advance polls and brings the act into line with the new revised statutes which are now being printed and are expected to appear during this session.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



REFERENCE OF WHEAT BOARD REPORT TO COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the report of the Canadian wheat board for the crop year 1951-52 be referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization for consideration during this session of parliament?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no objection, Mr. Speaker, to referring the report to the committee if the committee wishes to examine it. It has been the practice to examine the report every second year. It was examined last year, but if the committee wishes it

Inquiries of the Ministry done, I shall be glad to refer it to them again this session.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice concerning a matter about which he, I feel sure, is fully informed. Will the minister indicate what consideration has been given to the matter of the arrest and detention of a man named Ronald Power in Toronto, who was ultimately acquitted on the ground of mistaken identity?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the case to which my hon. friend refers is that of a gentleman who was brought up on a charge which comes wholly within the jurisdiction of the province, so far as the administration of justice is concerned. I do not think that the federal Department of Justice has any connection with the matter at all. It has been commented upon already by the attorney general of Ontario who has said that, in the judgment of himself and his colleagues, there was no proper occasion for the granting of compensation.


George Alexander Drew: Supplementary to that, I should like to point out that the attorney general also said that the matter was the responsibility of the federal authorities. Has there been any communication between the attorney general and the Minister of Justice in regard to this unfortunate case where this young man was held under mistaken identity for seven months?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There has been no communication from the attorney general of Ontario that has come to my attention. Now, when I say that, I do not mean to imply that the Department of Justice has received a communication that has not come to my attention. Sometimes, however, there is a time lag of about 24 hours before I receive it myself. Subject to that lag there has been no communication from the attorney general of Ontario to myself.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alan Macnaughion (Mount Royal):: have a question I should like to address to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister indicate how long it will be before plans for
(Mr. Howe.]
the new air terminal buildings at Dorval, Montreal, will be completed, and how soon thereafter a start will be made on construction? While I am on my feet, perhaps I could ask the minister to spike, once and for all, the rumour that the international air terminal will be moved from Montreal to Toronto.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: The hon. member has just handed
me a clipping which appeared in this morning's Montreal Gazette dealing with one part of his question. I should like to say that, with reference to the airport facilities, the question of the planning of a major airport terminal is a very big job architecturally and would probably take close to a year. Instructions have been given already to start the preparation of the plans. The initiation of construction will, of course, depend upon the availability of funds in the estimates.
The other matter, having to do with the movement of the headquarters of international air lines from one airport to the other, is a matter that is not governed by the air lines. It is governed by international bilateral air agreements, approved of by the air transport board and concurred in by the government. These bilateral air agreements stipulate that there are to be certain stopovers in the city of Montreal and Toronto. I know of no intention, either by the British or United States governments, to amend either of those two bilateral air agreements. If such a request is submitted, it will of course be given careful consideration.


George Alexander Drew: Supplementary to that, may I ask the minister whether it is the intention of the government to assure terminal facilities at Montreal in keeping with the importance of that airport as an international airport?


Lionel Chevrier: The government has already spent substantial sums of money in the city of Montreal to extend and enlarge the runways that exist there at the moment. As I said in answer to the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Macnaughton), it has in view plans for a terminal building and other facilities, but because of defence requirements, and because of the fact that expenditures had to be curtailed for other air facilities, it has not been possible to include in the major estimates all of the facilities that we want in the city of Montreal. But I can assure my hon. friend that the airport facilities are not lacking there, and it is our intention to see that they are in conformity with the traffic which offers.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: Since the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is not in the house, may I address this question to the Prime Minister? In view of the day, would the Prime Minister be prepared to investigate the granting of Canadian citizenship to Michael Patrick O'Brien?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I regret that I do not know
Michael Patrick O'Brien.


Gordon Francis Higgins: He is the unfortunate gentleman who has been travelling back and forth on the ferry between Hong Kong and Macao for the past seven months.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the Minister of Finance or the government considered the advantages and feasibility of issuing bilingual cheques covering old age pensions for the people of Canada? If so, can we expect this to take place in the near future?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: I thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of his question. The matter to which he refers has been under consideration, but as yet no decision has been reached.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. McCann:
That a select committee be appointed on broadcasting to consider the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to review the policies and aims of the corporation and its regulations, revenues, expenditures and development, with power to examine and inquire into the matters and things herein referred to and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, and to send for persons, papers and records; that the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable or necessary; that the committee have power to meet while the house is sitting; that the committee shall consist of the following members: Messrs, Beaudry, Boisvert, Breton, Carter, Courte-manche, Decore, Diefenbaker, Dinsdale, Fleming, Fulton, Gauthier (Portneuf), Gauthier (Sudbury), Hansell, Henry, Jones, Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth), Knight, MacLean (Queens), McCann, Murray (Cariboo), Mutch, Richard (Ottawa East). Riley,
Special Committee on Broadcasting Robinson, Smith (Moose Mountain), and Whitman; that standing orders 64 and 65 be suspended in relation thereto.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate, as Minister of Transport, because my department has some responsibility for the granting of licences for the operation of radio and television stations. Hon. members are aware that the procedure in this matter is that application is made to the Department of Transport for a licence to operate these stations. If the applications are found to be in order from the technical standpoint, or from other standpoints in so far as telecommunications are concerned, they are then referred to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for study and approval and for their recommendation as well. They then come back to the Minister of Transport, who has statutory authority to issue the licence.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with the principles upon which our television policy is based. But before doing so I should like to say something about the kind of nation that we are, about the kind of nation that we have succeeded in building because our principles, in a matter such as broadcasting and telecommunications, are all patterned upon the manner in which our country has been built. These are matters which, I submit with deference to the house, are of national concern. I should like, with your permission, to deal with them briefly.
There would be no Canadian nation at all if our founders had not realized that its creation, as well as its continued existence, required positive policies and careful planning in the fields of transport and communications, for instance, in the field of railways, in the field of national resources, in the field of banking and monetary problems as well as in many other fields. I am not thinking now, of course, of the kind of planning which our friends in the south corner of the house have reference to, but I am thinking of the co-ordinated efforts of public and private enterprise which have been characteristic of the growth of Canada from its earliest history.
The maintenance of our union, Mr. Speaker, was secured first, I suppose, by the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway which was constructed, established and completed by means of public as well as private enterprise. Our own Canadian banking system provided that we would have a national system of banking of our own. Then there came into being the Canadian National Railways, a system which by the assumption of several railway lines which
3008	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting were not successful financially, ensured railway facilities which otherwise it would have been impossible to obtain.
Then again, because of that attitude of parliament in our country towards the Canadian National Railways, it was possible at public expense to assist private industry through the technical information that was obtained from the Canadian National Railways system. Again, more recently in our history, communications have been strengthened by the creation of publicly-owned national air lines and aid has been given continuously to private enterprise to operate air lines of their own. I could go on and deal with a number of other well-known examples of that sort. I have in mind at the moment Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation, which this parliament established as a crown company some years ago. Here we have it operating successfully in the field of telecommunications, of submarine cables and of Marconi wireless, side by side with private enterprise. Rates for carrying goods and persons have been set by a public body to ensure the best possible service to the public itself, and at the same time to ensure that the facilities themselves could remain in existence in order to bind our nation together.
These are just a few examples picked at random to show how the nation, through successive governments, has grown and developed as a result of conscious planning by the representatives of the people themselves. Why has this been done? It has been done, Mr. Speaker, because the people of this country have wanted to build a national home of their own and a nation whose destinies they control, notwithstanding the fact that we live in an interdependent world. What would have happened if Canadian governments had sat by and had not helped to build the Canadian Pacific Railway, for instance? What would have happened if they had let banks from other countries take charge of our financial affairs? If that had happened, would our people be as well off and as prosperous as they are today? I ask that question because our development and the growth of this nation have been the result of a partnership between private enterprise on the one hand and public enterprise on the other.
In every significant field or stage there have, of course, been struggles between those who put the national interest first and those who had regard primarily for their own personal profits. Fortunately, the national interest has usually won out. The interesting thing is that private enterprise has prospered and succeeded side by side. This


partnership has been successful although at times it has been acrimonious. But if we are to continue to grow and develop, that partnership must be maintained. That is the view of the Liberal party, Mr. Speaker, and we believe it is the only way in which we can have a truly Canadian nation. But the important thing is that today we have a strong and powerful nation, and one that is growing stronger day by day.
We could, I suppose, buy our jet engines in the United States, take out the props from under the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway and abandon Trans-Canada Air Lines, but where would Canada be if we were to do that? Much as we like our friends to the south and much as we want to get along with them, we would probably be the 49th state of the union if we were to act in that fashion.
How, I ask, does all this fit into the pattern of radio and television? The main requirement for a station is, of course, a frequency channel. Those frequencies or channels belong not to any individual group; they are part of the public domain, the property of the Canadian people. As such they should be developed for the use of all Canadians, not just for a small number of individuals, not just for those who are anxious to make a tremendous profit or who are anxious to make a killing at the hands of the public domain. Control over this matter should be designed to ensure that the freest possible expression of opinion should be maintained, not an expression of opinion such as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) or the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) would have us have by banning commentators with whom they do not agree or whom they do not like. There are, of course, as the house knows, differences of opinion as to who is like Mr. Eisenhower and who is not.
Here I should like to deal with a matter which my friend the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) referred to yesterday. He took to task the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) because he thought he had spoken in derogatory terms of a former prime minister of this country. I did not think that he had. However, that is not my point. My point is that today I wish to deal with a former prime minister, and to do so in very laudatory terms. I hope that my friend the hon. member for Greenwood and those who sit with him will be able not only to follow what I have to say in so far as he is concerned but will be able to follow through the policy which we are advocating at this

time, and which is based on the recommendations which were brought before parliament in those years. The late leader of the Conservative party, the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett, stated the principles on which he thought radio should operate in this country, and they are to be found in Hansard. The hon. member for Eglinton notwithstanding, the government believes that the same principles should continue to be applied in television today. In fact, because of the tremendous power and influence which this new medium is likely to have, we believe Mr. Bennett's dictum is more applicable today than it was then. I can do no better than to quote what Mr. Bennett said to this house on May 18, 1932, when he moved second reading of the bill respecting radio broadcasting. I ask those members on the opposition side particularly who have taken part in this debate and who have wandered away from the principles laid down by him to take note of what he said at that time, and I quote from page 3035 of Hansard:
First of all, this country must be assured of complete Canadian control of broadcasting from Canadian sources, free from foreign interference or influence. Without such control radio broadcasting can never become a great agency for the communication of matters of national concern and for the diffusion of national thought and ideals, and without such control it can never be the agency by which national consciousness may be fostered and sustained and national unity still further strengthened. Other and alternative systems may meet the requirements of other countries, and in any case it is not my purpose to comment unfavourably upon those systems. But it seems to me clear that in Canada the system we can most profitably employ is one which, in operation and control, responds most directly to the popular will and the national need. In this stage of our national development we have problems peculiar to ourselves and we must reach a solution of them through the employment of all available means. The radio has a place in the solution of all those problems. It becomes, then, the duty of parliament to safeguard it in such a way that its fullest benefits may be assured to the people as a whole.
And further on Lord Bennett continues:
No other scheme than that of public ownership can ensure to the people of this country, without regard to class or place, equal enjoyment of the benefits and pleasures of radio broadcasting.
And again:
The use of the air, or the air itself, whatever you may please to call it, that lies over the soil or land of Canada is a natural resource over which we have complete jurisdiction under the recent decision of the privy council.
In view of these circumstances and of the further fact that broadcasting is a science that is only yet in its infancy and about which we know little yet, I cannot think that any government would be warranted in leaving the air to private exploitation and not reserving it for development for the use of the people.
My hon. friend laughed as I began the recital of this statement a moment ago.
68108-191J
Special Committee on Broadcasting Well, he has a perfect right to do that, but I say those were the words of Mr. Bennett, those were the views which he expressed in 1932 on how radio should be operated in Canada; and to his eternal credit he never wavered, nor did he waver during the time that he was in the house, from those conclusions. We in the government think that the late Lord Bennett's views are still appropriate for today's conditions, and apply with even greater force in the field of television than they did in the field of broadcasting. Granted that the airwaves, through which television broadcasting takes place, belong to the public, it still is asked by many people:	Why, in a country where
private enterprise is encouraged and supported by the majority of the population, should there be public development and the public control of television broadcasting? Obviously there has to be some measure of public control, some policing of the air, or the right to broadcast would be worthless, because one station would be in interference with another, one frequency would overlap the other. As the house well knows, it is impossible to give two stations the same frequency. Obviously it follows that any Canadian with the necessary capital cannot just start to broadcast. He must first be allotted a frequency or an exclusive channel, whether it is in the field of broadcasting or in the field of television.
In other words, every private station which is allowed to broadcast is being given a special privilege which is not open to anyone else, and since it is a privilege to exploit the public domain and to try to make money out of the public domain, parliament has not only a perfect right, but it has a duty, to see to it that there is control over that kind of broadcasting, whether it be in one field or the other.
Now, then, what is the public interest? I am prepared to admit that if Canada were an island such as Australia the same dangers would not obtain for our country as it would for other countries, because Australia is thousands of miles away from other countries. We in Canada have to live beside a much more populous and wealthier country which extends along the whole of our southern border. If we are to maintain our Canadian traditions and our Canadian policy, as we have maintained them in the field of radio, then we must see to it that there is a strict control in so far as these stations are concerned.
A generation ago patriotic Canadians like the late Lord Bennett and the late Mr. Dafoe were seriously concerned lest radio broadcasting should fall entirely under the

Special Committee on Broadcasting control of American chains. This was not because we did not like the people of the United States. It was not because we did not want to listen to a good many of the American programs. It was simply because we wanted some of our broadcasting, as much as we could reasonably afford, to be of Canadian content and of Canadian origin, and I think most of us wanted it to be distinctly Canadian, even if it developed a little more slowly and might not be technically as good at the start as that produced in the United States.
Well, I am not going to make any comparisons between broadcasting in our country and broadcasting in the United States; but I do think that the existence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has contributed to keeping this country definitely and distinctively Canadian. Had it not been for the C.B.C. we would have had a condition in this country such as that which the Winnipeg Free Press feared as far back as 1932 when it wrote editorials on the subject. I have one in my hand dated Wednesday, April 13, 1932, which pointed to the strength of the monopolies in the field of radio in the United States and expressed the fear that those companies should move into Canada and take over our radio. Just let me quote that portion of the editorial:
The radio issue now being decided at Ottawa is quite simple and very easily grasped. There is a choice between a national system and the handing over of the radio-supporting public of Canada to the radio monopolies of the United States. All the pleas put forth on behalf of private control of radio in Canada, no matter how plausibly presented nor how strongly backed by eminent figures in the world of finance, are in support of a system which in its practical working out will make Canada a subordinate annex of United States radio-land and give the final (if concealed) voice in the decision of how radio is to be operated in Canada to purely commercial interests, American in character. The day of the small detached and supposedly independent radio station is about over in Canada. If the field is left to private enterprise, there will be rapid consolidation of these stations into a combination. We shall have a privately-owned monopoly of the air, and this monopoly will operate in harmony with the great radio monopoly of the United States-the harmony that always exists between the boss that gives orders and the dependent subordinate who obeys them.
If that was true in 1932 with reference to radio, a fortiori it is still true today wtih reference to television. Let me go on and say this:	What I believe the people of
Canada want more than anything else is that in the field of television the programs should be of Canadian origination and of Canadian content and should not be canned programs coming in from the United States. Most people have formed the impression that television can have a much more powerful
[Mr. Chevrier.l

influence on the minds of people than radio. In fact it can have a tremendous influence on the minds of our children, and for that reason it is all the more necessary for us to see to it that a policy is worked out which will protect those interests.
I think that in the field of television there is a graver danger to our distinctive Cana-dianism from American control than there would have been from American control of sound broadcasting.
In other words the essential reason for public development of television in this country is that we want a reasonable proportion of what we look at and, more particularly, what our children look at, both popular programs and cultural programs, to be produced in Canada by Canadians, about Canada. That does not mean-


Mr. Fleming:: And that is what your television policy will defeat, the way you are going about it now.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend says that that is what our television policy will defeat. That is just what the policy he is advocating will accomplish; and if he will allow me to continue my remarks he will see from them that the policy advocated by him and by his leader, and those of his party who have spoken in this debate, is just the kind of policy which will allow the television operators from the United States to move in and take over the field. Of that there can be no doubt.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You are hopelessly wrong.


Lionel Chevrier: We shall see about that.
I was going on to say, in my statement with reference to American influence on television, that I do not want to be misconstrued by having it said that we do not want broadcasting outlets or programs which would emanate from the United States. On the contrary we hope that there will be programs from the United States. We want programs from the United States. Some of them we like; many of them we do not like. But we do not want, above all, that these programs will come over and be in a position to monopolize the field.
That does not mean that our broadcasting outlets will not select a good many American programs-and perhaps a good many American programs of which the hon. member for Eglinton or even the Leader of the Opposition will not approve. But, after all, we cannot all have the same judgment as to what is or what is not a good program. No one is silly enough to suggest that all television broadcasts should be Canadian; and that is not what I am advocating. But we do want a

substantial part of that to be Canadian. And it is essential that they should be, if this country is to remain Canada.
Now then, dealing more particularly with the interruption of my hon. friend: It is perfect nonsense-and I hope the Leader of the Opposition will excuse me if I take that word from his vocabulary, because he seems to be fond of using it-it is perfect nonsense for anyone to suggest that private enterprise in Canada, left to itself, will provide Canadian programs. People who invest their money in private television stations, like people who invest their money in other business enterprises, are investing that money to make money. And I am not criticizing them for that. They will certainly invest their money where they will make the profit-by importing American programs-if on the other hand they will make very little or no profit by originating Canadian programs.
Obviously there is far more money to be made-in some cases 50 per cent, 100 per cent, 200 per cent or 500 per cent-from these canned programs that would come in from the United States, far more than would be made otherwise by producing and originating Canadian programs.
So, for that reason, it is my humble view that private broadcasters should not be allowed the full field, as suggested by my hon. friend. Indeed, the only way in which we will get Canadian programs is by-


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister a question?


An hon. Member:: Make your own speech later.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Who is the hon. member to whom the minister is referring, and to whom he attributes the assertion that all broadcasting should be private?


Lionel Chevrier: I was referring to the interruption made by my hon. friend earlier to which he wanted a reply, and I gave it to him. And, if he will just hold himself, he will see, later on in my remarks, whom I am referring to. But I repeat-


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a question of privilege; I infer from the minister's response to my question that he seems to be referring to me.


Mr. Dickey:: If the cap fits, wear it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish to make it clear that I have not said any such thing at any time. Certainly it does not bear any resemblance to anything I have ever said.


Mr. Sinclair:: You have been converted. You are the first convert.
Special Committee on Broadcasting


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend should not be so nervous about what he has said or what he has not said. But I would like to continue my remarks.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then speak the truth.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, we will see, I hope, before I take my seat, just who is telling the truth. The only way, in my humble opinion, in which we will get Canadian programs is by some form of public provision for their production, and some form of public requirement for their dissemination.
That, very simply, is the reason why parliament decided, in Mr. Bennett's day, and has never seen fit to alter the decision, that the national agency-now the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-should have the primacy in the field of broadcasting.
Why then, it may be asked, have any private stations at all? Why not give the whole field to the C.B.C.? There are some who advocate that course; but that is not the position taken by the government. Our view is that the private station, also, has a place in the broadcasting field, not as a competitor of the C.B.C. but as a complement to the C.B.C.
If the C.B.C. had the field all to itself in sound broadcasting or in television, there would be a real danger of uniformity and of complacency. There would not be the same incentive to provide local programs to meet local desires. Moreover, it is still early to say just how many television stations can really be operated profitably.
How many are, in fact, really needed to provide decent public service? That is another question to which consideration should be given. There is an element of risk-taking, an element of enterprise, in the establishment of stations in medium and smaller centres. And this is an appropriate field for local initiative, for private enterprise, and for all the extra incentives and ingenuity likely to be called forth by the necessity to make an enterprise pay.
That is why the government feels, at this stage, that we should have in television, as in sound broadcasting, a combination of public and private stations. But there is one difference between the two. For the present, at least, we are proposing to grant only one licence in each centre.
Why this policy? Well, there are several reasons for it. One of the most important is that we feel that there is only a limited amount of capital available in Canada for investment in television stations, and, since television stations can be established only by use of the public domain, that they should be situated so as to provide service to the largest possible number of Canadians, from

Special Committee on Broadcasting one station, before anyone is allowed to provide the people in any community with two stations.
I am sure that, except for a few individuals and corporations directly interested, this policy will appeal to the vast majority of Canadians as a reasonable and fair one. I know that there are certain interests which would like to provide stations in the more populous centres which have been reserved for the time being exclusively to C.B.C. It may well be that in time the policy will have to be amended; it may well be that plans can be worked out which will be fair to the public for the establishment of private stations in those centres. But in the early stages, if we are to have the production of Canadian material broadcast by television, the C.B.C. must have access to the areas where large revenues can be earned to finance Canadian production for national distribution both by the C.B.C. and by the private stations. That is what can be called the basic economics of the television policy. That is the television policy of the government.
To sum it up, it is the traditional policy of the Liberal party to protect the public domain for the benefit of the Canadian people and in the field of broadcasting and television, through public development and public control, to make sure there is a sufficient Canadian content in the broadcasting to keep Canada Canadian. At the same time it is our policy through the granting of licences to private stations, but not to chains of private stations, to provide scope for local development and for genuine enterprise and risk-taking in the development of this new medium of mass communication and mass entertainment.
One other thing. We do not think that the taxpayers as a whole should be required to finance the public development of television. We think it should be financed as far as possible by the television users, either through advertising revenue earned by both public and private stations or through the special excise on radio and television parts as stated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in his budget speech. This is a tax which is to be paid only by the users and which in future is to be devoted to the maintenance and development of our Canadian system.
Now I come to the Tory policy in the field of television. This is what the hon. member for Eglinton seemed to be so worried and bothered about. I am sorry to say that the Tories have abandoned the enlightened and patriotic policy which Mr. Bennett adopted twenty years ago. They have gone
[Mr. Chevrier.l
back to the traditional Tory policy of handing over the exploitation of the public domain to their wealthy political friends.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is just political claptrap.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend does not like to be told that.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker-


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friends will just allow me I will quote from a speech made by the Leader of the Opposition to maintain and substantiate what I have said. This was admitted quite openly by the Leader of the Opposition in the house during the present session of parliament when he stated, and I quote from page 410 of Hansard of December 8, 1952, as follows:
If the concept of the C.B.C., in relation to this new medium of communicating thoughts, news and pictures of events as well, is to he carried forward consistently with the original idea, then surely it should be the purpose of the C.B.C. to provide television broadcasts in those areas where private broadcasting will not find it economically convenient to do so.
If the Leader of the Opposition feels as he did when he uttered those words, then my view of those words, if they mean anything, is that private interests are to operate in those areas where there is money to be made and the C.B.C. is not to have a chance to gain revenue with which to improve and expand its system for the benefit of all Canadians, and the development of good Canadian talent would not be encouraged as it otherwise would be.
I do not think that the public of this country have yet realized what the Tory party is really advocating in the field of television. What they are saying is that we should take this great natural resource which belongs to the public and hand over those parts of it which are a sure thing, out of which you cannot fail to make money, to two or three of their wealthy friends and then leave the taxpayers of Canada to put up the money out of general taxes to provide television in those areas where it cannot and will not pay or, as is much more likely, leave those people without any television at all. I quote again from the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition:
That was the intention of the C.B.C. in relation to radio broadcasting. If the same principle is carried forward, then surely the whole purpose of the C.B.C. in relation to television should be to let the private stations, without public expense, broadcast the television broadcasts in the great areas of concentrated population where that is financially possible, and for the C.B.C. to provide the television broadcasts in those areas where the ordinary financial returns will not justify private investment.

All I can say is that personally I would not ask for a better issue to put up to the people of this country. Do they want to turn the government over to a party which believes in handing over special privileges to a few of its wealthy supporters and adding to the tax rate to provide services which could be paid for out of the exploitation of the public domain by the public and for the public? Or do they prefer a government which has a policy which will ensure to the public a respectable share of the revenue from the development of this great new resource while at the same time leaving to enterprising citizens an opportunity to exploit those parts of the public domain where there really is a risk to be taken but where good and prudent management is likely to provide a modest and reasonable profit?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Just political claptrap.


Lionel Chevrier: I wish my hon. friend would not interrupt me like that. If he has anything to say, why does he not stand up and say it? He has been interrupting me repeatedly and I really do not know what he is saying. If the Tory policy is followed to its logical conclusion there will be no regard for regional or minority rights. That is evident because that was the view of the Aird commission; that was the view of this parliament when it set up this radio committee which brought down recommendations which were put into statutory form; those were the views of Lord Bennett; those were the views of Mr. King, namely, that this commission should have regional and minority representation.
If the policy of the Conservative party is such as was laid down by the Leader of the Opposition at page 410 of Hansard, which I have just read, then there is to be no regard for regional or minority rights. I go a step further and say that there is to be no French-language television station. That is evident and I will tell my hon. friends why.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is the most shocking kind of demagogic claptrap.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend is shocked. Let him listen to this and he will be shocked still more. Here is the point. If there is a greater profit, a far greater profit to be made from other programs, does my hon. friend think that private broadcasting and television firms will originate French-language programs? Of course they will not, because these programs are the ones that cost more money.
If we are to have a continuation of our cultural life, if we are to have a continuation of our national traditions in this country, then I say let us follow the policy of the
Special Committee on Broadcasting government. My hon. friends may call that "shocking" but it is the truth, nonetheless.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not the truth. There is no truth in it at all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: And the authority is none other than a former leader of my hon. friend's party, and the Winnipeg Free Press, who thought of this matter just as I am thinking at the moment. If private interests are to monopolize the populous and paying parts of the field-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nonsense.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Those are your views.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend interrupts by saying "nonsense". Is that the only contribution he can make?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I correct that? Will the minister permit a question? What I said to the minister was: Do not confuse the two parties and "monopoly". Monopoly is your policy, the Grit policy, and not the Conservative policy.


Lionel Chevrier: It is evident that my hon. friend did not want to ask a question. He wanted to place a statement on Hansard.
I will continue the argument I was making.
If private interests were to monopolize, as I believe they would, the populous and paying parts of the field, in accordance with the policy laid down by the Tories, they would import American programs where the profit is high rather than originate Canadian programs where the cost is high. From that I conclude with logic, as did those who concluded it in 1932, that the French-language television stations would be "out the window".


An hon. Member:: Tell that to Quebec.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, as the minister who will have primary responsibility in connection with the licensing of private television stations, I am proud of the Liberal policy in this field and I would hate to have to defend the Tory policy in any part of this country.
(Translation):


Mr. Henri Couriemanche (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, on December 4 last, the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Beaudry) deemed it advisable to devote most of his speech to me. He is an expert in the field of radio, having owned, operated and managed a network of private stations and now being at the head of

Special Committee on Broadcasting an advertising firm which has much to do with radio. He wanted to give a lesson to your humble servant who has never managed radio stations and who consequently knows practically nothing at all of radio broadcasting. Until now, I have had no opportunity to tell him how much I appreciated his brilliant speech and plea on behalf of the C.B.C., and his good words about me. I now have the opportunity to do so and I do not want to miss it.
He said that I was worthy of one of Voltaire's theories that "one never lies in vain".
Mr. Speaker, you deemed it advisable to intervene to remind the hon. member for St. James that he had, to say the least, gone beyond the limits of parliamentary courtesy.
You may readily believe that I quickly forgot about all this when I reminded myself of these other lines by Voltaire:
Ecoute, je connais l'envie et 1'imposture Et quel cceur gen6reux echappe a leur injure.
Now, let us see why the hon. member for St. James did me such honour.
If I go over his speech I can see that it is because I stated that the C.B.C. could force its own programs on private stations. It is also because I said that the C.B.C. required an expensive licence fee from each private station operator. Finally it is because I attacked the C.B.C. and attempted to defend private radio broadcasting even though, unlike him, I "had no particular claim to being heard".
True, Mr. Speaker, I could not describe a hockey game in a voice guaranteed to hold, for years on end, the admiration of thousands of listeners. True also that should I be called upon one day to manage a chain of radio stations I would most probably have to resign after a very short while since I lack the required competence.


Mr. Lesage:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. member for St. James is absent. I do not think that the hon. member for Labelle has the right to say of one of his colleagues in the house that he lacks competence. It seems to me that it is going a bit too far.


Henri Courtemanche: The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet is defending a very bad case. First of all, if I wait until the hon. member for St. James resumes his seat, I shall never be able to deliver my speech;
secondly, if the hon. member for Montmagny-L,'Islet (Mr. Lesage) had listened carefully, he would know that I did not attack the hon. member for St. James by saying that he lacked competence; on the contrary, I recognize that he has a certain ability and it is precisely for this reason that I am delivering a speech here to remind him of certain statements which are somewhat at variance with what he said in December last.


Raoul Poulin: Hear, hear.


Henri Courtemanche: In order that the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet may understand what I am talking about, I will repeat what I was saying. It is true that if I had some day to run a radio network I might have to give up after a short while, due to a lack of competence. It is true that, being against the C.B.C. monopoly as I am, I could not try for long to sell or organize radio programs as my hon. colleague is doing. I admit all that.
But I think I am as qualified as he is when it comes to discussing the activities of the C.B.C. It is not as a radio broadcasting expert that I criticize the C.B.C. and its monopoly, but as the representative of a group of electors of this country, of people who pay taxes and who are not satisfied with the present radio set-up, of people who want to know what use is made of their money.
In the first part of the speech he made on Thursday, December 4, of last year, my hon. colleague spoke of national defence expenditures.
Well, nobody blamed him for it though, to my knowledge, he is neither an accountant nor a military man.
When the estimates of the Department of Justice come up for discussion, there is no question of allowing the lawyers alone to consider them; who would want the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare to be submitted solely to the physicians who sit in the House of Commons?
The hon. member for St. James is very familiar with broadcasting. I have never denied it and the hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet will realize it when he reads what I have just said; but the member for St. James seems to be much less cognizant of the taxpayers' needs. Let him speak about what he knows well; I, on the other hand, shall remain the taxpayers' spokesman and frankly, I prefer my part to the one my hon. colleague is playing.

My criticism of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is based on documents which were established by people well versed in broadcasting matters; they are based on numerous briefs submitted by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters which, I think, includes a great majority of private station operators. These people must know as much about radio as the hon. member for St. James, since they are at present station owners and not former owners, since these people are now subject to C.B.C. regulations.
My criticism is also based on the reports of competent people who have made surveys on public radio broadcasting. We have, for instance, those articles published in the Calgary Herald, and in the Winnipeg Free Press, a Liberal newspaper. They are also based on various pamphlets, like the one written by A. F. Wrenshall, of Toronto, entitled "Radio and Freedom", from which I read the following excerpt taken from page 9:
Apart from financial security, the C.B.C. also holds a very privileged position for asserting itself in the public mind. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has absolute control over everything that is said on the air in Canada. It has the privilege of compelling all stations to transmit the programs it wishes to give to the public . . .
For instance, the member for St. James knows very well that the station which signs a contract with the C.B.C. for a certain number of hours per day cannot, during those hours, substitute a program which would be more to its liking than that of the national network and would also be more beneficial financially.
My hon. colleague may, if he likes, get mad at those who do not see things the way he does, but he cannot deny that the system of broadcasting as applied in our country is worthy of a socialist government. This, he knows very well, because Liberal members have said the same thing.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, the question of broadcasting is not discussed only in the house; it is much debated elsewhere too. The proof is that there was a debate on October 2, 1946, at the Montreal Advertising Club, on the subject "Private radio vs. State radio" between the chairman of the C.B.C., Mr. Davidson Dunton, and another gentleman, who started his speech by saying that he was a Liberal. The said gentleman had copies of this speech printed and I have the good fortune of having one here.
I therefore take the liberty of quoting certain excerpts, taken here and there. The quotations are rather interesting. The speech was made in English and also printed in English. That is why I am quoting those excerpts in English.
Special Committee on Broadcasting (Text):
I would like to speak to you today as a private individual, interested in radio who finds it paradoxical in extreme, that a body, originally devised to preserve the rights of Canadians, in the field of radio broadcasting, should rapidly tend to become the controller and sole enjoyer of these rights- and that, with the occasional blessing of a democratic parliament which is its very benign father.
(Translation):
That is a good start. This gentleman voices his opinion about the C.B.C. in terms quite similar to ours. The speaker then explains that he does not entertain any doubt about the sincerity of Mr. Dunton's words and that, moreover, as a friend of the C.B.C., he gets fair treatment from that body. But he adds:
(Text):
But, I also speak as a citizen of a democratic state, as a small cog in the wheels of advertising in a world where advertising plays a great part towards progress of mankind, and I believe that as a friend of the C.B.C., as a taxpayer, as a Liberal and a democrat, I must say to Mr. Dunton that while the C.B.C.'s intentions may be of the best, while its aims may be of the highest, while its ideals may be of the loftiest, it is an almost inescapable conclusion that the very realization of these must bring about something which the C.B.C. claims as farthest from its thoughts and its intentions-the demise of private radio broadcasting and the existence of a state monopoly.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I 'think that in his utterances the speaker was not differing too much from the argument which I have put forward many times in this house and which exposed me to-


Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: am sorry to interrupt my hon. friend. I find him very interesting but I feel that his text is a nuisance to him and I would ask him to be kind enough to dispense from using it, to do away with his notes, and to present his views in a spontaneous manner.


Henri Courtemanche: Mr. Speaker, I would not object to that if the rule were applied as well to the hon. members on the other side of the house. However, as most of the other members read their speeches, knowing that they could not otherwise express themselves well enough, I certainly have the right to do the same; since I am dealing with questions on which I am not an expert I am thus better assured not to utter too many stupid declarations, and to speak more intelligently.


Sarto Fournier: Speaking on the point of order, I must say that I note the hon. member is not an expert, as he has said so himself. I regret to learn this, because I was inclined to believe the contrary. However, I would ask him not to criticize others. He accuses others of reading
3016	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting their speeches; I would ask him to put his sheets aside. He accuses hon. members of reading texts that have been written by someone else. To prove himself right, to show that he is a great patriot and a great man, I would ask him to leave his notes aside and show us that we are wrong, that he knows everything, that he need not be an expert to make a speech about any technical matter without looking at notes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member permitted to make a speech when rising on a point of order?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont has risen on a point of order. In my opinion, he could limit his remarks to the arguments he must put forward to explain his point of order. He has raised a point of order on the ground that speeches should not be read in this house. I believe the hon. member for Labelle will agree and that he will continue his speech without reading it. However, he may, as it is a more or less recognized practice in this house, refer to the notes before him if he deems it advisable.


Sarto Fournier: Mr. Speaker, in my last remark-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point of order has been settled; the hon. member for Labelle has the floor.


Sarto Fournier: Who has the floor, the hon. member for Labelle?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Order!


Henri Courtemanche: I thank the hon.
member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Fournier). I remember the fine speeches he made when he was travelling the length and breadth of Montreal as a mayoralty candidate.
I warned him that I was not going to rely on my memory, and since I do not wish to say more than I think, I have condensed, in writing, what I strictly want to say. Let him not worry about me. I have hardly started to give the explanations I wanted to give to my hon. friend from St. James (Mr. Beaudry) had he been in the house. I am sorry that he is not. I do not like to speak in his absence. Unfortunately, he is not here this afternoon. Besides, had I known that I would have spoken this afternoon on this matter,
I would certainly have invited him and he would have been glad no doubt to reply to my speech.


Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that I must refer to the printed text of a lecture, some excerpts of which I should like to quote and put on the record. I do not intend to invent anything; I shall quote the very words spoken by the hon. member for St. James.
The speaker of last December spoke of the radio licence which the C.B.C. imposed on the people at that time. This licence having been abolished, I shall not speak at any length about that. There is, however, a commercial matter; referring to this tax, the member for St. James said-and here again I quote from the hon. member's speech: (Text):
Let me only dwell a moment on the economic repercussions of higher commercialism on the part of the C.B.C.
The sources of commercial revenue are not inexhaustible-you gentlemen are most aware of that-nor are they greatly elastic. We have also already recognized that the clock is inexorable. If, therefore, the foregoing is true, it fairly well remains that what commercial revenue will be derived additionally by the C.B.C. will in almost equal proportion be lopped off the income of private radio industry.
If you skim off that income, which amount represents the profit or t.he incentive of profit you come perilously close to a loss-and private industry will not remain an industry very long if it operates at loss. No more than will an advertiser or an advertising agency.
(Translation):
Anyway, the situation looks serious enough for the speaker to make the following statement, after quoting certain statistics:
(Text):
My purpose is merely that of demonstrating to you that, words to the contrary, Canada soon will have to decide for itself whether it desires freedom for private enterprise in radio or the state owned and controlled operation.
And if Canada is to avoid control-a normal avoidance I might say since we are not a socialist state-some revision has to be made of the concept of 1932 and its sometimes very wide application since.
(Translation):
And a little further on:
(Text):
Again I repeat-any expansion of the C.B.C. on a scale of any importance inevitably leads to socialization of radio; by the sole operation of a fundamental law of mathematics and without the help of any desire or wish or intention to socialize radio.
(Translation):
But listen now to this grave warning given us by the hon. member for St. James:
(Text):
My purpose is merely to indicate to a group of men interested in advertising in Canada, that, unless a check is brought to the expansion of the powers and the operation of C.B.C., there will

remain no private radio industry when this expansion has reached the stage where, on a permanent basis, a certain if at present indefinite amount of money has been syphoned from private stations' commercial revenue into the C.B.C.'s commercial income sheets.
(Translation):
As for the services rendered by the C.B.C. to small private stations, let us not be fooled. I am still quoting the hon. member for St. James-


Sarto Fournier: course; otherwise you could not speak.


Henri Courtemanche: (Text):
Mr, Dunton may tell you that the C.B.C. has helped many a small station-true-particularly in a sustaining program way. But in the case of commercial broadcasts it should not take too much credit since its help is explained far more by its virtual monopoly of lines and networks than by any other factor. Under the circumstances almost any other body controlling networks and lines could claim as much credit.
(Translation):
And he comes to the following conclusion: (Text):
As a conclusion may I say that Canadian radio has perhaps reached the stage where a revision of its control and of its operation is indicated.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I think you will admit that between this gentleman's ideas and my own there is no considerable difference. Now, if you look at the title page of the pamphlet where may be found the text of the speech I spoke about, you will find this:
(Text):
The Question of Private and Public Radio Ownership Reprint of Talk by Mr. Roland Beaudry, M.P., Publisher of La Revue Moderne, Montreal.
In a debate with Mr. Davidson Dunton, Chairman of the C.B.C. at The Advertising Club of Montreal, October 2nd, 1946.
(Translation):
And to prove myself as polite and pleasant as the hon. member for St. James has been to me, I really should grant him a licentiate, a master's degree or even a doctor's degree. However, having no wish to-


Sarto Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if I rise once more-


Henri Courtemanche: I am nearly through.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, the hon. member rises on a point of order.


Sarto Fournier: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that since the rules of this house require an hon. member not only not to read his speech, but to look at the Speaker when he speaks, the least we could require of the hon. member is to look at Mr. Speaker continuously.
68108-192i
Special Committee on Broadcasting


Henri Courtemanche: May I go on, Mr-
Speaker?


Mr. Sluder:: Don't begin to read; don't read your speech.


Henri Courtemanche: However, since I do not want to be unfair to him, I shall leave every member in this house free to qualify, as he wishes, the hon. member's attitude at the time of his statements before the Advertising Club, on October 2, 1946, in Montreal; and particularly when he was so kind to me, in this house, on December 4 last.


Sarto Fournier: Mr. Speaker, you will excuse my being obtrusive, and I know it is disagreeable, but I regret I must again, for the third time, rise on a point of order. I still claim that the hon. member persists in reading a speech which he has not prepared himself, and that is why I ask you to give a ruling on this point.


Henri Courtemanche: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order to raise myself; I would ask the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont to prove his statement. I have prepared this speech myself and I could prepare others for him if he so wished.


Sarto Fournier: To
prove it I would ask him to hand me his notes and then he may try to speak.


An hon. Member:: It is true.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I understand that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Courtemanche) will shortly conclude his speech. He may continue.


Henri Courtemanche: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Sarto Fournier: You
are safe then.


Henri Courtemanche: I would ask the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont to give me a chance of meeting him under other circumstances, where we would not need any notes. I wager that I would stand up to him.


Sarto Fournier: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Henri Courtemanche: I understand why the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont is so eager to defend the other member. I know that my remarks hurt him, because I have quoted the words of one of his friends. I also know why he would like me to refrain from repeating those things in the house.


Sarto Fournier: Hear, hear.

Special Committee on Broadcasting


Henri Courtemanche: The hon. member
for St. James attacked me first by quoting Voltaire. I answered that I had been comforted myself by Voltaire and now I am taking the liberty of quoting also from Mr. Arouet the following words:
I have always made to God a prayer . . .
Are you going to let me read this?


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: For once, you will have prayed and that will do you good.


Sarto Fournier: As
long as you are in order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Henri Courtemanche: You still have a lot to learn, my good friends. I will start over again for it is a beautiful prayer:
I have always made to God a prayer which is very short: here it is: My God, cover my enemies with ridicule! God has always heard my prayer.
(Text):


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to be here on January 27 when this debate was begun, but I am very happy that I am here today and able to take part in a discussion of radio and television broadcasting, in which for many years I have been interested. I regret that this year I am not on the radio committee again, but one of our representatives on the committee, in the person of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight), placed our views before this house very ably and well when he spoke on the first occasion that this resolution was before the house.
When the last committee reported to this house it reiterated the statements of previous committees all through the years as I have understood them. You will recollect, sir, that in December-I think December 14, 1951- the last report on radio broadcasting was tabled in this chamber. The committee said this:
Your committee shares the view of the royal commission-
That is the commission we usually refer to as the Massey commission.
-and of previous committees of the house that the national broadcasting service carried on by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is essential in the development of our national life in Canada and is efficiently performing an extremely valuable and important function.
There may be some disagreement with the last clause, but I do not think there should be any disagreement with the statement that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is essential in the development of our national life in this country. The committee had this
'Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont).]

to say on the topic which now forms the major part of the discussion on television:
Your committee is strongly impressed with the vital need for the development of a television system that is essentially Canadian and which gives expression in this new form of broadcasting to Canadian ideas and aspirations. It agrees with the royal commission that the situation must be avoided under which commercial pressures will lead to the major part of the material on Canadian channels being non-Canadian.
I think both these recommendations to the house were sound and indeed were worth reiterating on that occasion, as the committee had reiterated them on many previous occasions.
At this time Canadians are being subject to ever-increasing propaganda from the United States-and when I refer to the United States I want it clearly understood that I am not unfriendly to the United States; but I am anxious that this country, Canada, shall remain an independent entity on the North American continent. I recollect well that it was Sir John A. Macdonald who said, and the Right Hon. R. L. Borden who reiterated: "A British subject I was born, a British subject I will die". Well, I can say, of course, a British subject I was born, as most hon. members in this house can, and as a Canadian citizen I hope to die. I believe that we have to do everything we can to preserve our national identity. As a matter of fact we are subject, as I have said, to ever-increasing propaganda from our great neighbour to the south. Our cheap magazines and literature, so largely read by our young people, originate mostly on the other side of the line, and more and more economically the basic resources of this country are being exploited by United States' corporations and their Canadian subsidiaries. And altogether it behooves this parliament to take every conceivable step within our power to maintain the national integrity of this country and to maintain our national independence. Indeed, I believe that the national independence of this country has already been jeopardized economically and culturally by operations of corporations and of organizations originating in the United States.
Television is probably the most potent force for propaganda or for education that is now, or ever has been, available to man. Its misuse by those who wish to use it as a commercial organ dependent largely, as they must be if they are going to run continuous programs, on United States material, could destroy the whole fabric of our independent national existence.
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. Those who consciously or unconsciously echo their demand for the private control of television and broadcasting are, in my opinion, encouraging propaganda which eventually will destroy the identity and the independence of this Canadian nation. And if we allow a new and more powerful way of American influence to enter into Canadian homes, whether it be under the sacred name of private enterprise or not, we shall prevent the development of a distinctive Canadian society of any permanence.
As the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) indicated this afternoon in some of the examples he gave, this parliament ever since confederation has been called upon to make decisions, decisions which were designed to establish and maintain Canada as an independent, distinct North American nation. In 1867 those scattered provinces of North America were bound together under the British North America Act in confederation. Shortly afterwards, in order to bind this country more closely, as the Minister of Transport indicated this afternoon, a railway was built across Canada with large grants of public lands and money to secure what the union already visualized and to establish the nation, as the main entrance to this building indicates, stretching from sea to sea.
May I point out to my hon. friends of the Conservative party that that indeed was the principal objective of the national policy of Sir John A. Macdonald in 1878. Whether we agree with that tariff policy or not, that was the objective Sir John A. Macdonald had in view at that time. Indeed it had been the motive of his life and policies before that time. I hope that my hon. friends and others in this house have read that very interesting, unusual and exceedingly well-written biography of "John A. Macdonald, the Young Politician" by Professor Donald Creighton. I regard that as one of the most significant and best pieces of literature produced at any time in Canada for Canadians, and by a Canadian. I think it is something we should all read and recommend.
The national policy of 1878 was designed to that end, and in 1919 it was Sir Robert Borden who placed Canada's signature on the treaty of Versailles, in Canada's own right-as Canada. This represented another step in the promotion of our national development as an independent nation.
I am not going into the setting up of the Canadian National Railways, and other aspects of this problem. But since 1930 parliament has made many decisions designed
Special Committee on Broadcasting to protect and to develop Canadian institutions and Canadian citizenship. And no man was more anxious to do that than the late Lord Bennett. I am not going to quote, as I have often done, from his many speeches in the house-some of which I had the privilege of hearing-regarding Canadian broadcasting. But Mr. Bennett's speeches at all times indicate clearly the importance of radio broadcasting as a means of promoting Canadian unity and Canadian consciousness.
He stated clearly again and again that, because of its importance, radio broadcasting could not be left to private commercial interests either to develop or to control in any particular. Indeed, it was Mr. Bennett who wanted a limitation placed upon the power private radio stations would obtain under the licence from the Department of Transport. And I regret to say that, step by step, over the years, the original conception of the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act has been largely discounted-I shall not say, "set aside"-by parliament, when private radio stations have been allowed to go in power from 1,000 to 5,000, 10,000 or even 50,000 kilowatts. That was something never intended when that act was passed by parliament.
In the main, in spite of what I have just said, the successors to Mr. Bennett, the Liberal government-and perhaps under its new leadership it might be considered to be a somewhat different government-but at any rate the successors to Mr. Bennett have tried invariably, I think, to do the same thing with regard to broadcasting. And it was with these ends in view, as the Minister of Transport said this afternoon, that parliament established a national banking system, set up the Bank of Canada, to supervise and control our Canadian banks and financial corporations under public control and, so far as possible, in the public interest. Whether it succeeded in doing that is another question not to be debated this afternoon.
Then, the Canadian Citizenship Act was passed for the same purpose. And lastly, and perhaps most important of all-because, as it were, it is a culmination in the cultural field of national policy-we set up a royal commission known as the Massey commission. And we set up that Massey commission to see how Canada's cultural development could be maintained, how it could be promoted. We have now before us the recommendations and report of that commission.
And so I would say this, that if at this juncture we allow the newest and most important educational or, if you wish so to describe it, propaganda instrument, to pass out of complete control of the public, through
3020	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting parliament, we shall undermine the decisions which for the last 86 years have been the basic steps in developing Canada as a conscious, separate and independent nation.
To my mind those who would set the clock back at this stage, and hand over this most potent force to private interests, which of necessity would rely largely upon programs originating in the United States, are in effect, while they may not realize it-and I am not accusing them of it consciously-subversive of our national interests. And indeed when we hear so much about the freedom connected with radio broadcasting, we must conclude that their activities and proposals are subversive of the freedom of this country as an independent and distinct nation.
I want it to be clearly understood that in expressing these views I am not, nor is the C.C.F. movement, narrowly nationalistic. We believe that each national culture should be promoted, because eventually it will contribute to a world society in which individual cultures and abilities will be integrated but will not be smothered. That, indeed, is the concept of Canada as a confederation of two great peoples with different cultures, joined together, integrated and making a joint contribution, but neither one smothering the other.
Indeed, I would go beyond that and say that within our national boundaries we have representatives of other nations and other cultures-Ukrainian, Polish, Italian, Norwegian, Swedish and many others. All these should be encouraged to maintain their peculiar national cultures, but also become integrated into a Canadian society, a Canadian nation.
And so I say that what I have been saying is not narrowly nationalistic. When I say this I wish merely to point out that I am endeavouring to place before the house the danger of allowing this great instrument of education or of propaganda to be used to subvert Canadian independence, Canadian ideals and Canadian culture-all of which could easily be done if we were to rely upon private television organizations importing, as they would have to, programs from the United States.
There is a difference between an unhealthy chauvinistic nationalism and a pride in a distinctive national culture and endeavour. And it is that pride of distinctive culture and national endeavour that leads me to say what I am saying this afternoon.
The clamour for private television stations is due largely to the natural desire of our people to enjoy television; and that is being capitalized upon by organizations that want
[Mr. Coldwell.l

to make money out of that natural desire for television. May I say that I share the desire to see some television in Canada. I know, perhaps as well as anyone in the house, the blessings that radio broadcasting has brought to people who are unable to leave their homes or their rooms. I know perfectly well that television will bring additional joy to that group of people, provided we get the decent and proper type of programs to show them.
And so I say I share that desire; and I think parliament should appropriate sufficient funds so that television under public ownership and public control can be effective, and so that stations to give television can be established to serve all parts of Canada. Our people have a right to a nation-wide service. I think, even if it requires large amounts of money to be appropriated by parliament, that every attempt should be made, for example, to establish stations in Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary and Edmonton, or those other parts of Canada which at the moment seem to be left out. I think we owe it to the people in those regions to establish these stations if we are to safeguard television for Canada and offset the propaganda of the C.A.B. throughout those regions. We should do everything we can to establish stations at as early a date as possible. There is no reason why we in Ottawa or the people in Toronto and Montreal should enjoy this service, largely at public expense. I do not for one moment believe, except in the initial stage, that the excise tax on television sets and radios will entirely compensate the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the services which they will be called upon to render. So I should like to see all our centres in Canada served so that there will be complete coverage of the whole country even if this involves further financial aid to the C.B.C.
Our people have a right to a nation-wide service. This service should be national in the best sense of the word and certainly should not be left to advertisers, to profit-seekers, yes, to hucksters whose only incentive is that of profit and gain. The incentive for television, and indeed for radio, should be service to Canada as a nation and to its people as citizens. To adopt any other policy would in my opinion be an act of treachery and treason on the part of this parliament to those who for the last 86 years have endeavoured to make Canada a free, independent and distinct nation. At page 303 of the report of the Massey commission we find these words:
That no private television broadcasting stations be licensed until the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has available national television programs

and that all private stations be required to serve as outlets for national programs.
After going across the country and hearing representations from all sorts of people the Massey commission made a recommendation which I think was a sound one. 1 am not saying that under such a system there would not be room, as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) has stated, for some private television stations, but they should be under distinct control and should be required to take from the C.B.C. such television programs as originate in the C.B.C. studios in this country.
I do not want to see repeated what has happened largely with our radio. I do not want to see an organization like the Canadian Association of Broadcasters being able to place itself in the position of saying that they are equal to or competitive with the national broadcasting system. I want to emphasize what the Minister of Transport said, and what others no doubt have said and will say, that the granting of an air channel or a television channel-there are fewer of those-is the granting of a monopoly to a private corporation if it is granted to a corporation. No one else can use that channel. There is no freedom of expression as a right on that channel.
We see now that the C.A.B. want to go one step forward and place themselves in the position of being able largely to control public thinking by demanding the right to editorialize on the air through the private stations. I think that that is something that should be prevented at all costs. The C.A.B. has built itself up until today it is a powerful propaganda agency operating as I believe against the best interests of the country, and from my point of view likely to destroy the independence of this country and place us more and more under the cultural and economic control of the United States. As I have said already, I regard that as a treasonable and subversive activity, just as treasonable and subversive as the activities of those who would sell our country to a communist power or to Russia. I can see little difference between the two.
We welcome, because the people of Canada welcome, the abolition of the licence fee. I know that there were many people who could not pay the fee and that there were others who did not pay the fee, and therefore perhaps it was an unfair levy. But I know of no payment that an individual could make which brought more value into his home than the $2.50 he paid to the C.B.C. as a licence fee to operate his radio. However, some people did not pay it and others could not pay it so we decided to abolish it. But I do want to say that in my opinion there was nothing for which we obtained such great
Special Committee on Broadcasting value as we obtained for this $2.50 licence fee. I think of the many hours of delight that I have had in listening to opera, to symphonies, to drama, to forums of information-


Mr. Knight:: To hockey games.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, to hockey games. Many people enjoy the hockey games. The variety provided by the C.B.C. is something to be commended. Of course there are some programs which I could criticize most adversely, but then there are other advertising programs I can acclaim as being good programs. I think the program sponsored by Canadian Industries Limited called "Singing Stars of Tomorrow" is one of the most worth-while radio programs we have. One is glad indeed that there are some good advertising programs. This one is a jewel amid a great deal of muck and drivel that goes for advertising over radio stations.
I want to see preserved the national interest. I believe that Canada's ultimate independence is linked with education. These are the two most powerful instruments of education that we have today-radio and television. Let us keep them Canadian. Let us not allow ourselves to be sold down the river even to a great and friendly neighbour to the south.
I want to conclude my remarks with this thought. Today once again, as in 1867, in 1878, in 1919, in 1932 and all down the years, this parliament is called upon once again to make a decision involving the future of our country. Let that decision be that we are going to keep this great educational facility for the development of Canadian citizenship and the preservation of Canada as an independent North American nation with its own distinctive culture.


Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it was nice to see the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Caldwell) back in the house again in good form this afternoon. In the main I share his views and I hope they will prevail. 1 agree that all our thinking on television must start with one basic principle. I cannot put it better than it was put by the minister in charge of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation who said:
Television is probably the most effective method yet devised by man for making an impression on the minds of people.
The importance of television is being appreciated more and more from day to day. Its social implications, its potential for moulding the thinking habits of Canadians, cannot be exaggerated. Sight has been joined to sound and will be the medium of influence in the privacy of our homes. Like radio, it will open

Special Committee on Broadcasting up a new world for great segments of the population. The world of education, amusement, sports, entertainment, culture and events will be brought into our homes. The young will find it useful in their schools and in the universities.
I bring to the attention of the house that here is an opportunity to pioneer, to lead the world, in using television as an instrument of education. Our universities, our colleges and our public schools are bubbling with talent. If we give them opportunities to produce programs they may not click the first time, but they will in time. There is a place for television in the classrooms as well as in the homes, for the education of the young as well as the adult.
It follows that television has tremendous possibilities for good and for something very much worse. Properly developed it can become an unparalleled instrument for education and for cultural and social development-everything that radio, with a few notable exceptions, was not. Improperly handled television can follow the worst in radio, with banal entertainment, the inevitable and nauseating commercials, a combination of intellectual trash and social unconcern.
Today television in Canada is at the crossroads. We have to decide which course it shall take. We have the opportunity, as no other country has at the present time, to usher in a new tomorrow for television. Our only guide to the future is the history of radio broadcasting, although obviously the development of television will be much faster and it will be a greater and more significant force for good or for ill.
We now have in Canada 250,000 television sets. Forty per cent of them are in the Toronto-Hamilton area; 21-5 per cent are in the Windsor area; 18 per cent of them are in the Montreal area; and 14 per cent are in the Niagara area. Within the next four years we will have a million sets in Canada.
I speak as a believer in the public ownership and the public control of licence. The public television channels should be used only in the public interest. I am a firm believer in the value of the C.B.C. It has for many years given us a standard of excellence in culture, entertainment, events and information which is unique in North America. I hail the government's decision to place television in the same competent hands and to administer its use in the same impartial manner.
I believe the Canadian people are well satisfied with the status of broadcasting in this country. They will be equally satisfied if we can develop a television system designed to reach and serve the greatest


possible number of Canadians and link together all parts of Canada. Television must remain the property of the people and must be developed and controlled by the people-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


David Arnold Croll: -and not by the promoters of beer, cosmetics and patent medicines. Television must belong neither to the "long-hairs" nor to the "crew-cuts". I am opposed to excessive artiness as I am opposed to the pitchman's taste.
To understand the problem it is essential to have some background, in order that we may not make the same mistake twice in one generation. There are three possible courses open for the development of television. We can leave it to private interests. We tried that in radio and it did not work because private radio stations became outlets for United States chains; and so we created the C.B.C. We may develop it under a mutual system of public ownership and publicly controlled private enterprise; that is the government's proposal. The third course is that we may keep it strictly under public control; I am afraid it is a little too late for that now.
So far as private development of television is concerned, I can only say: Look at the state of commercial radio and television in the United States. Further comment, to me, seems superfluous. Still, we must deal with the arguments propounded by those who advocate privately-owned television. They say it was private enterprise that developed radio in Canada in the 1920's. It is true that private interests began radio broadcasting in Canada; but its supporters neglect to mention that they failed to meet Canadian needs, to serve outlying districts or to develop any distinctive form of Canadian radio. They were merely outlets for United States programs, and so it became necessary to create the C.B.C.
I disagree with those who believe we should pattern our television system on that of the United States. I rebel against the unending and constant exhortations to buy beer, cigarettes, detergents, dill pickles, and lazy laxatives with or without chlorophyll. I am opposed to having my viewing restricted to those programs which advertisers feel will sell those products. American television is not all bad. Nothing is. Some of it is good, and some of it is very good; but it is submerged in a flood of bad programs. Believe me, if the Americans had it to do all over again they certainly would correct their overemphasis on advertising. If they had our opportunity, United States television would be different, yes, very much different.

The more important feature is that the possibilities latent in television-and we have only to guess at some of them-are tremendous. We cannot afford to have television get out of public hands. Someone must always have the responsibility of answering for it on the floor of this house of parliament. As an example of joint public and private ownership we have the C.B.C. with an excellent record of service and a high calibre of programs. There must be room in our television schedules for those types of programs which are not commercially popular but which provide interesting viewing for Canadians. There must be a place in Canadian television for educational programs. If we do not apply common sense now in establishing the Canadian television system we will find the most powerful means of communication yet devised by man degenerating into a living room billboard.
The commercial interests in this country are very impatient. They want one of our greatest natural resources, our invaluable television channels which are limited in number, thrown open to anyone who has money enough to open a station, thus granting to a handful of people the right to give us only the programs which they want to broadcast, and which will sell their products. What they want is an advertising heaven on earth.
I do not object to advertising. As a matter of principle, I welcome it. I enjoy it, and it can be useful and intelligent. It must not, however, monopolize our television channels with a steady parade of comedy, quizzes, panel programs, western movies-bad ones at that-and gangster films which are the daily diet of the United States television viewers. We must escape from those who think television is God's gift to advertising. I admit that television is the greatest medium of advertising known to mankind, and private television is doing its best to hit the jackpot with it.
There is not much need for me to deal with the third point, which is that of public control; but it is worth noting that as an example of public control we have Great Britain, where both radio and television are state enterprises. The cultural level of the B.B.C., with its three great program divisions, is unquestionably the highest in the world. As for British television, all observers are in agreement that it is artistically and technically far ahead of its closest competitor in the United States.
We know that television is very costly. A single unit, with all the necessary equipment, is estimated to cost in the neighbourhood of
Special Committee on Broadcasting $1 million. We know the short range of its transmission, some 40 or 50 miles, which makes necessary a network of relay towers across this country. There are few people in this country who singly or even collectively have a million dollars. We cannot afford to put this tremendous medium of communication, with all its potential, into the hands of a few wealthy people. They own too many radio stations now. Concentration of this important medium of communication may well be a danger and a hazard to our liberty.
I read from the Globe and Mail of March 14, J. V. McAree's column, in which he says:
Roy Thomson, having bought the Advertiser and two other suburban papers from the Charters Publishing Company, now owns fifteen or sixteen newspapers from Quebec to Vancouver and one in Florida. He also owns half a dozen radio stations.
I have nothing against Mr. Thomson. He is a very fine gentleman. I merely read the extract in order to make a point which I think is important. In years past we have been concerned about one-newspaper towns, and in later years about chain newspapers. In more recent times, newspapers and radio stations in the same city have all too frequently been owned by the same people. Today we face a new problem; I ask this house and the country, is it in the public interest that the newspaper, radio and television stations in a city should be owned and controlled by the same people? I ask another question. Is it in the public interest that the radio and television stations of a city should be owned and controlled by the same people? Are we not being party to the building up of a colossal mass-communications empire, a combine which we shall some day have to break up? Why permit the building of that empire at the present time?
We know that Canada, with its sparse population and great land area, presents a very difficult and expensive proposition for television. The result must inevitably be that commercial television will be concentrated in the Montreal and Toronto areas which comprise the best two commercially profitable fields for exploitation. That is the very thing we cannot allow. Television in Canada must be television for all the people, and not for just a few of the people. The opponents of the government's television policy are going about the country saying that Toronto and Montreal are the chosen people in so far as television is concerned. Nothing is further from the truth. Toronto and Montreal have television stations because they reach 30 per cent Gf the total population of Canada, and because they are the great sources of revenue. It is true that St. James

Special Committee on Broadcasting
street and Bay street have money, and television is put there for the purpose of digging some of it out for the benefit of the rest of the people of Canada. The revenue derived from these two cities will make it possible to have television in the smaller centres much sooner and much cheaper.
The private stations are only interested in the populous centres, and would leave the rest of the country literally in the dark.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What else is the C.B.C. doing?


David Arnold Croll: Private interests want the easy pickings. The C.B.C. will get around to the rest of the country. Now that the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has interjected, I must read him the statement of his leader in order that I may emphasize what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) has already placed upon the record. I quote from the Globe and Mail of December 9, 1952, which states:
The Progressive Conservative chieftain held that Canadian television development should be the other way around. Private interests should be free to invade those areas most suitable to them while the C.B.C. should undertake to put television into areas where the ordinary financial returns will not justify private investment.
I re-emphasize what the minister has today placed upon the record. There is more to it than merely that. The C.B.C. production centres must be located where the greatest amount of talent is available, where there are musicians, actors, writers and those with related talents required by television. Undoubtedly there is very good talent to be found in Moncton, Prince Albert, Trail, and other centres; yet it is not available in sufficient numbers to supply a television service operating on a national basis. It is my hope that those in charge of Canadian television will recognize that our primary responsibility will be in the development and presentation of Canadian talent. They must open new doors to our people of creative talent in order to give them opportunities for expressions which hitherto they have not had in this country, and have had to seek in the United States and Great Britain. We must submerge our inferiority complex with regard to native talent and give it a chance.
I cannot resist the temptation, and the house will forgive me, to take a well deserved smack at my own city of Toronto, particularly at the Canadian National Exhibition. When I speak of giving our own talent an opportunity, I think a good start would be for our Canadian talent to have the opportunity of carrying the entertainment portion of the Canadian National Exhibition at Toronto. I think an all-Canadian show would break all box office records. What is more, it would 
break down the inferiority complex for which there is no reason or excuse. Canadian entertainment has never been given a fair chance to carry this show. It has always been written off without a chance to measure up. The time has come for a new approach.
We have spent substantial sums of money in the investigation of United States, European and British television. We know something of the mistakes made by others, and we should avoid the same pitfalls. We must profit from their experience but we must not be hurried, in spite of what anyone says about not providing television to the whole of Canada overnight. There may be advantages in not being too hurried. It is often said that colour television is just around the corner, and we may avoid putting our people to double expense.
It is quite obvious from what has been said on behalf of private enterprise that they want to get on the gravy train. But commercial television could not possibly provide us with the service which we have a right to expect across Canada. The only alternative is for a balanced service which only C.B.C. can give. As we have done with other great enterprises, because of our relatively small population scattered over great distances, we must continue to do those things collectively which we cannot do individually. Thus I share with the government the view that our needs can best be met by public ownership with reasonable financial support, supplemented by publicly controlled private enterprise.
I recognize that private radio stations have been turning licence into privilege and now claim with some force and recognition a vested interest. Nonetheless, we must continue to lay stress on the need to keep use of the airways free from vested private interests.
The government have said that they will build television stations in Vancouver, Winnipeg and Halifax in addition to those in Toronto and Montreal, and that applications from private stations will be considered for other points not within the coverage of C.B.C. stations. There will be ample opportunity for private enterprise in television.
The recommendation by Sir John Aird, the father of publicly-owned broadcasting, whose emphasis was on "freedom of the air", was reiterated and supported by Right Hon. R. B. Bennett who declared that "the airways belong to the people". The Massey commission also recommended a system of public ownership. I am firmly convinced that each was right in his time.
When we support the C.B.C., we are providing favourable conditions for a service from which everyone will benefit eventually.

Special Committee on Broadcasting
As privately-owned stations are developed in The Canadian people will not be satisfied non-C.B.C. areas, they will use C.B.C. material if we merely transfer the corner movie as a source of programs. What the Cana- screen, the music hall, the speaker s rostrum dian government can do and is doing for or the playing field into their living room, television, private enterprise cannot and will because it is crowded as it is. There is room not do because it does not pay. It does not in their homes for thoughts, ideas, education, follow that if private enterprise give a good spiritual and moral values-yes, and for some program, they will make a profit. If they commercial approaches.
are not making a profit, they are not Two important steps must be taken immeinterested.
We must ask ourselves the question whether we will control television or whether it will control us; whether it will be controlled by the profit-seekers and advertisers or whether it will remain under control of the people. These are the formative years and we must make up our minds. As citizens and listeners we must ask ourselves the question: Are we going to have something to say about the kind of programs that are going to be levelled at us, or are we prepared to turn the matter over and put it into the hands of others who are not answerable to the people? I realize that revenue from television is important; but we must not abdicate our trust and allow advertisers to say what shall be contained in our programs. Let there be advertising, yes; but it must remain secondary.
I have a word to say to C.B.C. television. If through lack of competition they become complacent or self-satisfied or heavy from sitting on-they know what I mean-we shall have to re-examine our policy. They carry a very heavy responsibility. Public ownership is on trial. I repeat that private enterprise failed us in the twenties, with the result that the C.B.C. was born. They cannot afford to fail today. The public may not fully appreciate or understand such public undertakings as Ontario hydro, from which they expect good service at low rates, or Canadian National Railways from which they expect good service without further deficits, or Polymer Corporation which they know little about, or the Chalk River atomic energy project which fires their imagination but which they are prepared to leave to others. But the public are as good judges of television programs as are C.B.C. governors, cabinet ministers or other members of this house. They can always make comparisons with United States programs. They think they know what they want, although I am not sure they do. Nevertheless they must be pleased, because they are the highest authority in the land and they pay the shot. The United States attitude is: Don't knock television; you get it for nothing. Our attitude is and must be: We pay, and we knock it if we don't like it.
diately. The C.B.C. must take the padlock or at least the thick rubber bands off the bank roll. They must provide ample funds. Television is expensive and the people must be told so. They should know that nothing in television is inexpensive. If they spend a little bit more money I believe the C.B.C. will be subject to much less criticism than they will be if they pinch pennies and give us bad or indifferent programs.
There is still another matter which should not be overlooked. To all our Canadians of talent, and those who believe they have talent, who left this country to seek opportunities in the United States or Great Britain in the field of television, a general invitation to return home must be issued, with the promise that all will be forgiven. We may not be able to pay them as much as they are now earning, but we can pay them a good living wage and we can give them what is even more important; We can provide them with scope for their talent. Here are opportunities unlimited. If they have the stuff, here is their opportunity. We need writers and artists. We need creative and imaginative people to train our staffs. We require them to make our programs interesting and acceptable.
I have already indicated what we do not want in television. It is much more difficult to explain what we do want. We may not all agree. This much I can say with certainty. We want something that is typically, exclusively and distinctly Canadian. I cannot describe it, but I am thinking of wheat fields, a sunset on the prairies, rural Quebec, pea soup, maple sugar, a hockey broadcast on Saturday night, Cathedral Grove, bluenoses, the Grey Cup game, spiritual and moral values, social justice such as the universal old age pension, freedom, peace, immigrants, space and growth, vitality and wide horizons. And I am thinking of people, yes, people as fine as any that have come down the pike of time, who want to be Canadians, just Canadians, destined to contribute something of value to our generation and to history.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I adjourn the debate?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Since it is five o'clock the debate is interrupted. The hon. member

Private Bills
may carry on at eight o'clock. We shall now consider public and private bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are several bills which are to be considered in committee. According to standing order 110 they should all go into committee on one motion. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The house in committee on Bills Nos. 149, 144, 145, 147, 150, 187 and 146, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps I should point out that these bills have all been considered in standing committees. Bill No. 149 was considered in the banking and commerce committee, and was reported to this house without amendment. All the other bills have been considered by the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and have been reported to this house without amendments.
Bill No. 149, to incorporate Canadian Reinsurance Company. (Without Amendment.) -Mr. Cameron.
Bill 144, to incorporate the Apostolic Trustees of the Friars Minor or Franciscans of Western Canada. (Without Amendment.) - Mr. Dechene.
Bill No. 145, to incorporate the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Western Canada. (Without Amendment.)-Mr. Knight.
Bill No. 147, respecting the Apostolic Trustees of the Friars Minor or Franciscans. (Without Amendment.)-Mr. Pinard.
Bill No. 150, to incorporate the Callow Veterans' and Invalids' Welfare League. (Without Amendment.)-Mr. Balcom.
Bill No. 187, respecting a certain patent and patent application of Florence F. Loudon. (Without Amendment.)-Mr. Cavers.
Bill No. 146, respecting the Detroit and Windsor Subway Company. (Without Amendment.)-Mr. Brown (Essex West).
Bills reported, read the third time and passed.



MID-CONTINENT PIPELINES LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Larson for the second reading of Bill No. 189, to incorporate Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited.
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday when the house rose I had made a few remarks on this bill, and I should now like to add a few more. I told 
the minister that we welcomed his enunciation of policy on the question of natural gas, and I reminded him that what he had said was an echo of what had been said more than once on this side of the house.
This is a matter of great importance and is almost certain to become of increasing importance; therefore I think it is worth spending a few minutes to put the record quite straight. I therefore propose to put on record a few of the statements which have been made. I welcome the minister's statement. It is almost like the return of the prodigal son to hear him saying the things he is now saying. I venture even to congratulate him in terms of Holy Writ by saying:
Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
The minister will understand the spirit in which I say that.
I wish to read briefly from the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) in the course of this debate, just to show exactly the line he took. This is the line he has taken over the years, not one he has suddenly come to in the last moment, when elections may be in the offlng, and when the need in the eastern provinces has become much more apparent than it was at an earlier time. Speaking on March 6 as reported at page 2704 of Hansard, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, after addressing some remarks to the central provinces about a Canadian pipe line to be built through Canadian territory, said:
In conclusion may I say that I believe it will be a great tragedy if this western gas is not used to supply Canada first.
Having said that he went on to quote Dr. Hume, the oil and gas expert, as follows: The building of an all-Canadian natural gas pipe line from western to eastern Canada could be as important a national asset as was the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway across the preCambrian area.
I draw attention to that phrase "across the pre-Cambrian area", because I suggest that implied in that statement is the fact that when we built across the north shore of Lake Superior it seemed as though every mile was a dead loss. Nevertheless we carried that burden for many years, and we are now beginning to discover that what we thought was a barren waste contained riches the like of which we had never dreamed.
I should like also to quote a sentence from what was said by the then minister of mines in Ontario who, oddly enough, expressed very much the same idea as did Dr. Hume.

Speaking on January 26, 1952, the report in the Globe and Mail states:
Even if it has to be subsidized a pipe line should be built to bring Alberta natural gas to Ontario and Quebec, provincial mines minister Gemmell said here today.
In Ottawa to attend the annual meeting of the Canadian institute of mining and metallurgy, Mr. Gemmell declared that a west-to-east natural gas pipe line was as important to national prosperity today as the C.P.R. was when it was started in the 1870's.
I shall not labour that point further. I just wish to quote another sentence from the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra when, in concluding his observations, he said:
Here is the best chance in our generation to further Canada's development into one of the leading nations of the world: and we must not let that chance slip through our fingers.
I wish to quote from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) who, speaking in the house on March 10 said, as reported at page 2807 of Hansard:
Let us end any uncertainty as to what policy is going to be adopted in a case of this kind. So far as the government are concerned they have left no doubt but that theirs is the ultimate responsibility. Let the government declare that, while it is perfectly true that these are private bills, it is the policy of this government that the first interest to be served will be the interest of the Canadian people.
And continuing the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition:
With regard to these pipe lines, let us have an unqualified declaration of a policy of Canada first in the use of these great resources. That does not mean any dog in the manger attitude in regard to either gas or oil.
And speaking later the same afternoon the Leader of the Opposition made it very clear that he was entirely in favour of the export of gas to the United States, the only condition being that home needs should be satisfied first.
I have read two demands made upon the government by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the Leader of the Opposition. Of course it is not often that the government complies so quickly with requests of that kind, or that it follows so exactly the direction offered to it. How much better the world would be if the government were to do that oftener. I wish now to read what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said on Friday last. If hon. members will recall they will see how meticulously he follows the requests made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the Leader of the Opposition. As reported at page 2929 of Hansard the minister said:
The policy of the government of Canada is to refuse permits for moving natural gas by pipe line
Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited across an international boundary until such time as we are convinced that there can be no economic use, present or future-
I underline the words "present or future", because that covers quite a lot of territory. -until such time as we are convinced that there can be no economic use, present or future, for that natural gas within Canada.
I stress again that that is an exact repetition in ideas, indeed almost a repetition in words, of what had been said by hon. members on this side of the house. I should say that the minister added, a sentence or two later-
The proposal is to follow this policy, within reason.
Well, I would not expect him to apply to it anything else but reason. I stress the fact that it has taken some years to bring the minister to this reasonable attitude, and that he was not always as reasonable as he now appears to be. There was a time when not only was he very unsympathetic but actually was very hostile to the ideas brought forward with great persistence and clarity by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra.
Less than three years ago the minister was pooh-poohing the Canada first suggestion in connection with the Alberta gas application; in fact he was very sharply critical of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. But I suppose two things have happened since that time. First, the arguments respecting the needs of Ontario and Quebec have become much clearer-and I shall have something to say about that later. Second we are approaching the time of an election; and of course anything that can be done to enable the government to claim credit from Ontario and Quebec, as well as from other provinces in Canada, is very important to the government. That could naturally have a great deal to do with declarations of policy. However, as I say, we ought to be very thankful; better late than never.
I have no desire to be ungenerous in welcoming what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said. I do think, however, that I should like to read to the house a letter written by the minister to the premier of Alberta, because I think there are implicit in that letter two or three points I have just made. As I said, the needs of the eastern provinces have become more apparent, and this is referred to in the letter I am about to read. It is a letter of January 2, 1953 from the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the premier of Alberta, and states:
Dear Mr. Manning:
As I am leaving Canada for some five weeks, on a trade mission to South America, I think I should write you about the views of this department regarding the export of natural gas. You are

Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited doubtless aware that this department administers the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act.
We had a conversation about this subject at Sarnia, when Premier Frost was present. At that time, I stated that gas from Alberta must be available to potential customers in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and in the intervening provinces before further export of gas could be authorized.
Well, the minister kept that secret for a very long time, because that was a good many months ago. One would like to know what Premier Frost said to him at that time. It may be that he had some comments to make which crystallized the minister's attitude. Then his letter continues:
This attitude is consistent with the position that the government has taken with regard to the export of hydroelectric power for many years.
Well, that may be the minister's opinion: but it is like pulling teeth for us to get him to indicate any attitude at all. So far as I can recall, last year when many of us on this side of the house were resisting the proposal to have a natural gas pipe line built only as far as Manitoba, the minister was singularly silent. I cannot find that he had anything to say. But now all that is changed. He says:
This attitude is consistent with the position that the government has taken-
Then he goes on to say:
You will appreciate that the supply of gas through a pipe line is analogous with the supply of electric power, in that both demand continuity of supply.
I am aware that, for the period when natural gas is first made available in Ontario and Quebec, and until the load can be built up, such a pipe-line project is unlikely to be profitable, either for the producers of gas or for the owners of the pipeline.
It is most interesting to find the minister taking that line, because we know he used to scold the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) for being bold enough to suggest that there might conceivably be a broad policy in these matters and that possibly the acid test of the last dollar should not finally decide the matter. We now have a broader attitude being taken. The minister went on to say:
Nevertheless there is evidence that a pipe-line project for Ontario and Quebec can be worked out and that the project will be profitable over a period of years.
I am well aware that the government of Canada has no immediate concern with this problem, but I hope that it will be helpful for you to have its views before any definite decisions are taken in Alberta.
That is all I wish to read from the letter. Then later, as reported on the same page 2930 of Hansard, the minister went on to say:
This government has reason to believe that it is economically feasible to build a gas pipe line from southern Alberta to Toronto and Montreal,


serving the intervening Canadian cities, and government policy will require that Canadian gas be used in Canada accordingly.
Then there is a sentence which I read with interest because the minister had said in his letter that the government of Canada had no immediate concern with the problem. This next sentence I suggest rather negatives what he said.
In licensing the export of gas from Alberta, I am sure the government of that province will be disposed to conform with the policy of the federal government in that regard.
I imagine that when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) uses language of that kind people are inclined to think twice before they disagree. I do not believe I need labour the point further. I think it is perfectly clear that the government is now coming forward with this policy. This is a policy which has been advocated on this side for a long time, and therefore we applaud it. We hope no time will be lost in putting it into effect. We hope this measure will not in any way delay the working out of this policy. As I said before, we shall regard ourselves as the parents of this, and the minister only as a lately-arrived step-parent.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the motion for the second reading of Bill No. 189, to incorporate Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited, has in my judgment covered a most interesting and varied field. It has ranged from the clever and humorous contribution of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), down through the informative speech by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), and finally to the statement of policy made last Friday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. There were other speakers in between, such as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) who made their contributions. If I mention specifically the hon. members for Fraser Valley, Vancouver-Quadra and Port Arthur it is merely to emphasize the breadth of the field that has been covered in this debate, and not merely to single them out as being of particular merit as compared with other speakers.
As I listened to the hon. member for Fraser Valley joust with the mayor of Ottawa I thought what an interesting situation it would be if Charlotte should stand for election to this house, as she has threatened to do, and be successful. I can imagine the day when Ottawa's doughty mayoress takes her place in this house. I will want to have my flash camera here, set at fast speed to get a picture as the hon. member for Fraser Valley marches across the floor gallantly to plant his customary kiss on

Charlotte's dynamic lips. That will be the day and that will be the picture.
I did enjoy the contribution made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley because I think he struggled hard to achieve something that would be worth while, that is to have more speakers take part in this debate, particularly those who might be interested in having for their constituencies a supply of natural gas. I hope the hon. member has succeeded and that there will be more speakers, because I think this debate is well worth while.
The only reason I take part is that I feel I can present a point of view which has not yet been mentioned. If I were merely to repeat what has been said I do not think I would be justified in taking part. My constituency is not on the proposed pipe line and therefore would have nothing to gain from its construction except indirectly. But I do think I have a point of view which hon. members will find interesting. I do not want to be unduly critical when I present it, and I do not mean what I say to be critical in any way.
As the hon. member for Greenwood said, on Friday night the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) placed on record the federal government's policy with respect to natural gas. When I read what the right hon. minister said I decided that in the interests of fairness and of getting at the whole truth I should put on record another statement of policy. The hon. member for Greenwood has quoted the letter written to the premier of Alberta, to be found at page 2930 of Hansard on March 13. I do not intend to repeat that letter, but I do want to repeat a sentence from the minister's remarks which the hon. member for Greenwood quoted and which I think is most interesting. The minister said in referring to the government of Alberta:
I am sure the government of that province will be disposed to conform with the policy of the federal government in that regard.
I should like at this point to put on record a statement of policy which the premier of Alberta made just a week ago in his budget speech delivered in Edmonton. I think hon. members will find it most interesting. I quote from that budget speech by Mr. Manning as follows:
To stimulate continued orderly development of Alberta's vast potential gas reserves, adequate markets for gas surplus to our own requirements are essential, and for this reason it is the policy of the government to approve the export of surplus gas for which no local market is available. As at January 31, 1953, some 300 gas wells representing a capital investment of over $18 million were capped for lack of a market. This situation.
Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited unless corrected, will have a progressively deterring influence on further gas exploration and development and also on the search for oil.
In the Pincher Creek area of southern Alberta, vast supplies of gas, rich in chemical by-products, such as propane, butane and sulphur, remain undeveloped because no adequate market is available in the province for the residue gas remaining after the chemical by-products have been extracted. There is a wide and increasing demand for these by-products within the province and their availability would do much to stimulate further secondary industry.
The government believes the interests of the people of Alberta will be best served by the continued progressive development of their natural resources, both from the standpoint of ensuring for themselves a more abundant supply of products for their own future use and also from the standpoint of sharing in the substantial benefits which will accrue to the province as a whole from such development. It will continue to be the government's policy to protect fully the interests of the people of Alberta by approving for export only gas that has been determined by the petroleum and natural gas conservation board to be surplus to our own requirements, but for the reasons I have outlined it is the government's intention to facilitate the establishment of adequate export markets for such surplus gas at the earliest possible date. In approving the export of surplus gas, the government will adhere to its policy of giving first priority to other Canadian markets if, in the opinion of the board, the economic factors involved are not incompatible with the interests of Alberta producers and the province as a whole.
That is the statement of policy of the Alberta government. I am hoping there will indeed continue to be happy relations between the federal government and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), and the government of the province of Alberta and Mr. Manning, who is the minister in charge of development and resources. I sincerely say that; but if that happy relationship is to continue, Mr. Speaker, then the minister is going to have to clarify some of the things he said on Friday night.
I would just like to read two or three excerpts from the minister's statement of last Friday, and the first one I read is from page 2930 of Hansard where, near the bottom of the page, after he had quoted a letter which he had written to Premier Manning on January 2 last, he said:
This letter is of course consistent with the government policy I have outlined. While the government of Alberta has proposals before it which involve the movement of gas eastward and across the United States border to Minneapolis, or through the United States to southern Ontario, permits to that end will not be granted under the terms of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act. This government has reason to believe that it is economically feasible to build a gas line from southern Alberta to Toronto and Montreal serving the intervening Canadian cities and government policy will require that Canadian gas be used in Canada accordingly. In licensing the export of gas from Alberta I am sure the government of that province will be disposed to conform with the policy of the federal government in that regard.
3030	HOUSE OF
Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited
In the next column, near the bottom but on the same page, the minister said this:
I am convinced, after thorough study of the matter, that the only reliable supply of natural gas for the provinces of Ontario and Quebec must be from western Canada by means of an allCanadian pipe line.
Mr. Speaker, I am led to ask what that statement means. It would not be surprising to me if the minister's statement had quite considerable political ramifications. Was the Minister of Trade and Commerce talking for Fort William and Port Arthur, or was he talking for all of Canada and the people of Canada? That is a question which I think we have to examine.
I would like to place on record some facts which must be kept in very sharp focus as we proceed to consider any application, I do not care what it is, for a pipe-line charter to carry gas from the province of Alberta to the eastern market. The first consideration is that Albertans sincerely want the development of their oil and gas resources. Second, adequate markets for gas which is surplus to Alberta's needs are essential. If markets! are not obtained then the development cannot go forward, and time is precious. Third, the Alberta government favours and has always favoured a Canada first policy.
Of course, the minister said the other night that it is not "Canada first"; it is "Canada always". Well, I do not mind going along with that, but I think the minister himself has shown a way on various occasions to distinguish between Canada first and Canada always. He himself has done some things and has made some decisions which show that there is a difference. It would not take long to cite them, but that is not my purpose here.
I have placed on the record of this house on several occasions statements by Premier Manning of Alberta to the effect that the Alberta government favours, and always has favoured, a Canada first policy; and if you want to go further and say a Canada always policy, that is all right.
The fourth point is that a pipe line or several pipe lines must be built to carry surplus gas to market. There is no other way by which that gas can reach a market anywhere; only by pipe line.
We are considering now a pipe line to open up possible markets in the provinces east of Alberta. I doubt that it would be possible for a pipe line to pay its costs unless it served a bigger market than is available in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the cities at the head of the lakes. This means, then, that the Ontario market is essential if the pipe line is to be an economic success or a
[Mr. Low.l

financial success. If it is not going to be an economic and financial success it will not be built. We might just as well look at the facts.
Westcoast Transmission Company Limited has already been granted a permit by the Alberta government to carry gas from northern Alberta to the Pacific coast. I understand that the federal Department of Transport has also granted a licence for that exportation of gas. If it has not done so I understand, from the minister's statement, that the government will be prepared to grant the licence. There is some danger, of course, that this line may not materialize because, as many hon. members of this house already know, serious opposition to marketing part of the gas in the United States has already arisen. Interests down there are battling against it and are using their influence with the federal government of the United States to prevent the granting of a licence to bring in that gas. Westcoast Transmission's pipe line would not be economically feasible without the northwestern United States market in addition to the Pacific coast British Columbia market. Development in my constituency, the Alberta Peace river area, and in the British Columbia Peace river area, would not be possible for perhaps many years if Westcoast Transmission's pipe line is not built, that is, if it is found that they cannot get this gas into the northwestern United States.
Those are merely the elementary facts of the situation. I think it would be a very serious blow to northern Alberta and British Columbia, as well as to the Pacific coast and to the whole province, if that pipe line fails to materialize. I am hoping that the good sense of the people in the United States will prevail and they will grant the Westcoast Transmission Company the right to market the surplus at the end of the line in the northwestern United States. I am quite certain, Mr. Speaker, we can guarantee them a continuous supply for many years ahead, and that is one of the important factors in securing and retaining any market. Well, the development of the natural gas resources, and I think perhaps along with them the oil resources, of the Peace river country will probably be delayed many years if the Westcoast Transmission Company or some other pipe-line company fails to build a transmission line from that country to Pacific coast points in British Columbia.
The next point we have to keep in mind is the route to be followed by any pipe line eastward from Alberta. It is a serious concern to many people. There are two main routes which might be taken in an

effort to tap the eastern markets that must be supplied if the huge cost of the line is to be recovered, making the building of it feasible. The first of these is the route directly across the prairie provinces to the head of the lakes, serving Saskatchewan points and Manitoba centres, particularly Winnipeg, and of course Port Arthur and Fort William. The pipe line would then proceed along the northern shore of Lake Superior, perhaps to Sudbury, and then southward into the Toronto area. Such a line might be tapped to supply centres along the way in Ontario as well as in the western provinces. I am sure that my hon. friends, the member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) and the member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), appreciate that fact. I do not need to go into the details.
This route would appear to have many advantages that are quite obvious. First, it is an all-Canadian route in keeping with the Canada first or Canada always philosophy, about which so many of the hon. members have shown deep concern. Second, it would supply, besides Saskatchewan centres and Winnipeg, the centres now industrialized such as Fort William and Port Arthur, Sudbury, and then on to the Toronto and western Ontario area. Let me remind hon. members that cheap, clean fuel is a great boon to industrialization. It will do more than anything else to stimulate industrialization. The third advantage of a pipe line along this route would be the possible stimulation of the growth of industries at all the main centres, and perhaps many others, thus contributing to the decentralization or dispersion of industry which is essential to the safety of Canada. Many of us have been talking for a long time about the necessity for the dispersal of industry.
The fourth advantage of the line, as I understand it, is that there might be a substantial income tax write-off on an allCanadian pipe line which may run to as much as $8 million. If that is the case, then I say it is a very substantial consideration from the financial point of view in building this great line. I think perhaps there would not be the same advantage if the line were built partly through the United States. There are possibly many other obvious advantages to this route which I cannot take the time now to list. But there are some very serious disadvantages to this route which must be recognized and taken into consideration. I should like to set them out as well.
17, 1953
Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited First, the distance to be spanned to reach the one market that must be served, if the project is able to pay, is very great. The minister pointed that out in the first part of his statement the other day when he was dealing with the arguments relative to the transportation of petroleum. He showed that there was a difference of something like 400 miles in the length of the route into the Sarnia area. The line that we have been discussing around the northern shores of the lakes would be traversing between 800 and
1,000	miles of wilderness.
The second disadvantage is that rock formation extends for most of that 1,000 miles of wilderness. Everyone knows that it is very costly to build pipe lines through heavy rock formation. Third, the cost of maintenance would be high because there is no road along the route, and to build roads through that area would be a rather costly business. We are finding that out already in attempting to build this trans-Canada highway.
I think I can safely say that the economics of this route have not, as yet, been proven sufficiently to make an all-Canadian pipe line feasible, although the minister said the other day that his studies have convinced him that it was feasible economically. I say that I doubt that very much. However, the ultimate economics of an all-Canadian route may be proven to be better than those of a route farther south. If so, then we most certainly favour that all-Canadian route, and let me make that abundantly clear.
At this stage, however, it seems to me to be silly to lay down the requirement that this Mid-Continent pipe line follow an allCanadian route until we know, and until we are sure, that the economics are sound. Now, with all of the disadvantages of the route which I have listed, I think it may be foolish to require that this route should be the only one we consider. Any statement by anyone in this house, minister or other member, that lays down the requirement that this is the only route we will consider-Mr. Speaker, that is not good thinking.
The second possible route is one following roughly the Interprovincial pipe line right of way to Superior, Wisconsin, thence through the area south of Lake Superior in the United States to the straits of Mackinac, and from there by way of Port Huron and Sarnia into the Toronto and southwestern Ontario market. In time, of course, an extension of this line might be made even as far as Montreal. This would not be an allCanadian route, but it could be made to serve an all-Canadian market, which simply means that provisions of the licence and
3032	HOUSE OF
Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited permit might be such as to prohibit the sale of any of the gas carried by the line in the United States. If such in-bond provisions, as the minister called them the other night, are feasible-and I think they are-then this route too could be said to come within the Canada first or Canada always policy. I should like to emphasize that. It could very easily come completely within that Canada first or Canada always policy that has been discussed.
There is considerable evidence that the economics of a pipe line along the southern route would be better than the economics of the all-Canadian route, although I believe not enough facts are yet available to most of us on which to base a final judgment. Two facts do stand out, however, which seem to favour this southern route. The first of these is that the distance to the essential market in Ontario is much shorter, perhaps as much as 350 miles. Hence the cost would be very substantially less. When you start to build a 30-inch pipe line, 350 miles of it runs into a lot of money. This fact was stressed by the minister the other day. The second obvious advantage would be that soil conditions and terrain along the route are considerably less costly to build through. On all of these counts, the route would be cheaper in the end.
I have stressed the economics of the routes in what I have said today, Mr. Speaker, and you may ask why. While it is urgent and essential that markets be found for gas which is surplus to Alberta's needs; while we are anxious for development of resources in that province; and also while we want Canadian markets to have priority over foreign markets, we must not let political or emotional considerations force Alberta gas producers to subsidize either the eastern market or the pipe line that carries the gas from Alberta to that market. I want to make that point abundantly clear.
What do I mean by that? Mr. Speaker,
I mean simply that the field price to Alberta producers must be fair and such as to ensure, first, that they can stay in business in a state of good economic health and, second, that sufficient inducement will be provided for continued exploration and development of that great resource.
The eastern market, as everybody knows, can pay only so much for gas delivered to it. The pipe line will have to charge so much to carry the gas across a vast distance to the market. If the laid-down price to eastern consumers is too high, they will not buy it. On the other hand, they will try to force either the pipe-line company or the producers of the gas to reduce their 

prices. The Alberta government is determined that, under any permits which they grant for the export of gas from that province, the field price to producers must be fair and just, and must remain fair and just. For that reason, and also because we should like to see prairie province and eastern Canadian consumers able to procure their gas supply at reasonable cost, we maintain that the economics of the various possible routes must be most carefully considered and that route be chosen which will achieve the purposes which I have stated. Otherwise we are doing an immeasurable injustice to everybody concerned, and we are not taking action that is in the best interests of Canada as a whole.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, with all these things in mind, may I say this. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said as reported at page 2930 of Hansard:
While the government of Alberta has proposals before it which involve the movement of gas eastward and across the United States border to Minneapolis, or through the United States to southern Ontario, permits to that end will not be granted under the terms of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act.
I think the minister was being just a little bit silly in his statement the other night.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, we shall see.


Solon Earl Low: I just leave that point to the members of the house.


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron Norlh):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the house at any great length. I just wish to state that I was one of the first Ontario members who spoke in favour of this all-Canadian pipe line. I think it would have been of great advantage to Canada had the minister come out a year ago and stated his policy. I do not intend to criticize the policy; I am in accord with it. But I think it would have saved a great deal of time in this house and a great deal of money if the policy had been stated a year ago. It costs money to keep this house going. Why the government did not come out with the policy a year ago-


Mr. Hodgson:: Or two years ago.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: -yes, or two years ago, with regard to this matter is more than I can understand.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We had no gas to export then.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The policy was due to pressure put on from this side of the house, because that is where the pressure was and has been ever since this pipe-line debate started. I only want to stress the point that I was one of the first Ontario members to favour this all-Canadian pipe line.

When I went into municipal politics I thought my attention should be directed to matters within my own township. Then when I got further on and went into the county, my interest was in the county. But when I came into this house I considered that I had to raise my sights and take in all of Canada. I have tried to do that since I came here.
I sincerely congratulate the minister on bringing this policy before the government at this late date. But it certainly could have been brought in much sooner, thereby saving the country a great deal of time and expense.
On motion of Mr. Hodgson the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McCann that 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.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that this debate, which was so abruptly wrenched from the course of dispassionate discussion by the speech delivered here today by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) who is not in his seat this evening, and in fact has not been in his seat since he delivered that speech this afternoon-


Some hon. Members:: Cheap.


John Horace Dickey: Characteristic.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, it is characteristic of the minister to make-


John Horace Dickey: Characteristic of my hon.
friend.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend, the junior member for Halifax, says it is characteristic. It is characteristic, Mr. Speaker-


David Arnold Croll: Senior.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -of the minister-


John Horace Dickey: On a question of privilege-


Edmund Davie Fulton: We had experience in this house three days ago-


John Horace Dickey: On a question of privilege-


Edmund Davie Fulton: -of the kind of points of order and privilege raised by the hon. member.
Special Committee on Broadcasting Mr. Speaker: Order.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will hear the question of privilege.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I submit to you there is no question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: We have not heard the question yet.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have had similar experiences with the same hon. member.


John Horace Dickey: On a question of privilege, I am one of the two members of this house who are entitled to the term "senior member", and the hon. member who has spoken is a junior member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Cruickshank:: Put it on television.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I have inadvertently done an injustice to the hon. member by referring to him as the junior member for Halifax, I have no hesitation in apologizing. I had not intended in any way to do an injustice to the hon. member, but I am interested in the way in which the hon. member arrogates to himself the capacity of a senior member of this house, which I have not yet dared to do, although I have been here longer.
It is obvious, however, and it has been revealed by the course of this debate, that there are sharply conflicting views with respect to the policy which should be followed in this country governing television in Canada. And in my remarks this evening I want to deal in the main with television policy as announced by the government. On the one hand there are those who feel that the government through its chosen agency, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, should be supreme, and not only regulate the television policy which is to prevail in Canada but actually monopolize the television field; whereas there are others who feel that although it is desirable and necessary that there should be public regulation of television in the same way that there should be public regulation of radio, there should not be a complete freeze-out of private television broadcasting, which is now the end and obvious aim of present government policy.
It occurred to me, sir, that surely it should be possible to preserve the principle to which we subscribe on this side of the house, the principle of public control of the air waves in television, in exactly the same way as there is public control of radio, public control exercised in the public interest, and yet to
3034	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting eliminate the feature which we now see revealed clearly in government television policy, namely the feature of government monopoly. And at the same time that we believe it should be possible to eliminate government monopoly, we on this side believe in preventing private monopoly to which government policy at the moment is subscribing; and we believe that the middle course, the preservation of public control and the elimination of both public and private monopoly, can be found, and is in fact found, in the policy to which this party subscribes. We would like to discuss the matter calmly and dispassionately on that basis to try to find a middle course.
In the remarks I have to make I should like to make it perfectly clear that no one on this side of the house is attempting to eliminate the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or to end public regulation of radio or television broadcasting in Canada, and that we are not criticizing so much the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as we are criticizing government policy; that is, the policy of monopoly which in fact is depriving the Canadian people of Canadian coverage in the field of television broadcasting. That is what our remarks and our policy are directed toward. That is what we desire to eliminate, but it has been made very difficult to discuss this matter in a calm and dispassionate way particularly by the remarks of the Minister of Transport this afternoon-


George Alexander Cruickshank: What about your interruptions?


Edmund Davie Fulton: -who, having made those remarks, has left the house and has not appeared since.
The Minister of Transport started out by making an appeal to sentiments of national pride in which we can all join, and in which he was paying a tribute to past Canadian policy although, as I shall show, he gave an incorrect application to the very national policies to which he referred. But his speech very rapidly descended to the level of misrepresentation and distortion of the policies of this party, a distortion which is typical of the tactics of the government when they are confronted with an issue on which they know themselves to be in the wrong, and find nothing better to do than distort and misrepresent the policies which we advance. And that speech ended up by showing a complete disintegration of all regard for truth, accuracy or fairness, concluding as it did with a degenerate attempt to fan the passions of racial prejudice.


Jean Lesage: On a question of privilege- rMr. Fulton.]


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not for a long time-


Jean Lesage: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Jean Lesage: I wish to submit to you, sir, that the hon. member for Kamloops cannot contend that one of his colleagues in the house, the Minister of Transport, raised a question of racial prejudice this afternoon.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is exactly what he did.


Jean Lesage: He did not.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member did say that the Minister of Transport had no regard for the truth. I cannot allow that. The hon. member cannot say that the Minister of Transport has no regard for the truth.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I said that-


George Alexander Cruickshank: You read it.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am not clear whether the point of privilege raised by the hon. member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; on the point I have raised I must ask the hon. member to withdraw the statement he made, that the Minister of Transport has no regard for the truth.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I read the statement I made?


George Alexander Cruickshank: No; withdraw it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I read the remarks which I made; and if Your Honour says that my words go beyond parliamentary propriety I will certainly be guided by your ruling.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You are reading your
speech?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I said that his speech, that is the end of the speech of the minister, ended by showing a complete disintegration of any regard for truth, accuracy or fairness. I said that his remarks showed a disintegration of regard for truth, accuracy or fairness. If you say that is exceeding the bounds of parliamentary propriety, then I shall be guided by what you say.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood the hon. member to say that the Minister of Transport had no regard for the truth.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, he did not say that.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member
made that statement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, he did not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I said the words that I just repeated.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Which I have just reread.


An hon. Member:: You misread your manuscript in the first place.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member for Halifax, who tries to edit everything everybody else says, had better pay some attention to his own speeches and not try to edit other members' speeches. What I said was-


Mr. Speaker:: I heard what the hon. member said; and my recollection is that when he was speaking he said that the Minister of Transport had no regard for the truth.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, he did not say that.


Mr. Speaker:: 


Donald Methuen Fleming: He did not say that.


Mr. Speaker:: That is my recollection of what the hon. member said. That is the impression I got. It is difficult to catch-


Mr. Maclnnis:: On a point of order; in this house I think it is one of the principles in our debate that the speaker's word should be accepted.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You mean the member
speaking?


Donald MacInnis: Yes. Surely if we follow that principle, then the hon. member's word must be accepted as to what he said.


Mr. Speaker:: An hon. member who has spoken does not necessarily recall what he said in the heat of debate. It was not the heat of debate, but during the debate it may happen that he does not realize what he says. I do not wish to press this unduly. But I would not allow an hon. member to make a statement to the effect that any other hon. member has no regard for the truth.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the record of Hansard will show that that is not what I said.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Edmund Davie Fulton: While I know that periodically I would be apt to be provoked by the remarks which come from hon. members opposite, yet I do know the rules of the house. I do not think the record will show that I said the minister had a disregard for the truth, although I submit-and I still submit-that in the implication of what he said there was a distortion of the policy of this party, and a disregard for the true facts with respect to what the policy of this party really is. But I did say, and I repeat, that he concluded by degenerate attempts to fan the passions of racial prejudice; and it was at that point
Special Committee on Broadcasting that the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) took exception and raised a point of privilege.
I do not see that I have in any way exceeded the bounds of parliamentary debate; because that is certainly my impression and my summarization of what the Minister of Transport intended and attempted to do in the remarks he made this afternoon. And I submit to the house-


Mr. Speaker:: I am concerned about the expression regarding a disregard for the truth. I think the hon. member for Kamloops, however, has made it clear that he had no intention of saying that the Minister of Transport had no regard for the truth.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And he did not say it, either.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that correct?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, and without qualification. If I did say it, I did not intend to say that the Minister of Transport had no regard for the truth.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But he did certainly attempt to fan the passions of racial prejudice. And I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house that not for a long time have we witnessed the spectacle in the house of a minister using words, as he did, whose only effect could be calculated to set race against race, and language group against language group, for political advantage.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The suggestion of the Minister of Transport that the policy of the Conservative party is one which will deny the exercise of French rights or, to use his own words, minority rights, in the television field, was one which he would have known to be incorrect, had he stopped for a moment to consider the implications of the reckless and inflammatory statement he was making, which is truly unworthy of the position he holds as a supposedly responsible minister of government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot allow the hon. member to say that a minister has made a statement which is unworthy of the position he holds as a supposedly responsible minister. The hon. member has stated that he knows the rules. I am sure that under the rules he would understand that I cannot allow that statement to stand. The hon. member must withdraw it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Are you then ruling that the statement that a certain statement by the minister is unworthy of the responsible position he holds is unparliamentary?
3D36

Special Committee on Broadcasting


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Under standing order No. 41 and the citations.


Mr. Speaker:: I am ruling that it is unparliamentary for the hon. member to say that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Very well; I will withdraw that portion of my remarks, and say that the minister showed little regard for the responsibility of his position as a minister of the government. Yet you will have noticed that this attempt to create disharmony between the two great races in this Canada of ours was not repudiated by his Liberal colleagues but was, instead, applauded by them, including his colleagues on the cabinet benches.
Fortunately, however, we can be sure that there is no danger that this effort of the Minister of Transport to divide our two races will succeed. It will not succeed in Englishspeaking Canada, and it will fail dismally in Quebec. The people of Quebec will not be misled as to who are their friends in this matter of the preservation of their language and minority rights.
They now know that the greatest danger to those rights is in the policies of this Liberal government, who would centralize all power in Ottawa. They will remember that it was a leading Liberal spokesman in the cabinet who only a few years ago in this house set forth a principle which would sweep away all guarantees of the French language in a single stroke, when he said that the provisions of that section of the British North America Act guaranteeing language rights could be repealed by a simple majority vote in this parliament at Ottawa. They will remember that the Conservatives rejected that statement of principle-


Mr. Lapointe:: You tried that at the last election and it did not stick.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I dislike to rise on a question of privilege, but the hon. gentleman is trying to be as exasperating as possible. He knows that-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is it a question of privilege?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister has risen on a question of privilege.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I suggest that the Prime Minister confine himself to a real question of privilege.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member knows that the incident to which he refers does not bear the implication he has put upon it in the words he has now used. The incident arose on a question that was put to me by the late member for Calgary West, Mr. A. L. Smith, who asked, if I suggested that by a


majority in this house there could be an application made to the parliament at Westminster to amend that provision. I said that I thought that legally that could happen, but that I was convinced it never would happen because there were some things that respectable people did not do.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am interested in the Prime Minister's misinterpretation of what is a question of privilege. If the Prime Minister wishes to make a speech to correct any alleged inaccuracy in what I may have said, I suggest that he should do so. Indeed, I suggest that he should enter this debate and clear up and in fact repudiate the attempt made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) to sow racial division in Canada. The Prime Minister's question of privilege is neither a question of privilege nor well taken, because there is no inaccuracy in the words I have uttered with respect to the statement made by the Prime Minister.
What I said was that the people of Quebec will remember that it was a leading Liberal spokesman in the cabinet, since identified by the interjection of the Prime Minister, who only a few years ago in this house advanced a proposition which would sweep away all guarantees respecting the use of the French language in a single stroke, when he said that the provisions of that section of the British North America Act guaranteeing language rights could be repealed by a simple majority vote in this parliament at Ottawa.
That is what I said and that is what I maintain. The Prime Minister himself has said on other occasions that if this parliament passes an address to the parliament at Westminster, approved by a simple majority vote here, the British parliament will act upon it automatically. That an elimination of language rights would follow is the clear implication of what the Prime Minister said, and that is the meaning of the words that he uttered. It is no question of privilege which he raises, nor did my words go beyond what the Prime Minister said on that occasion.
I repeat that the people of the province of Quebec will remember that the Conservatives rejected that view, and that this party holds that this parliament has no right-


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a point of order, Beauchesne's third edition, page 102, -citation 238, reads:	(
It is a rule in both houses of parliament that a member must address the house orally, and not read from a written, previously prepared speech, for the reason that-1


Mr. Speaker:: There is no point of order. The hon. member for Kamloops.


George Alexander Cruickshank: 
Edmund Davie Fulton: The house will remember and the country will remember that this party rejected the views then stated by the Prime Minister and held, and still holds, that this parliament has no right to alter the constitution of this country with respect to language or any other minority rights guaranteed by the constitution without the consent of the provinces concerned. So there is no danger that the people of Quebec will believe this government when it says through the Minister of Transport that the Conservative party will deny French language stations in Canada.
They will realize that it is the Liberal government's television policy which even now is preventing the licensing of French language television stations. They would have liked to be here to ask this Liberal Minister of Transport, who is not here now, and to ask the government: Why do you prevent the construction of a French language station in Montreal, for which a request has been made? They would like to ask: Has not an application been submitted for a station in Quebec, put forward by a person whom this government will know very well, which has not been granted? I submit that they would like to ask: Why do you Liberals, why do you Grits whose very policy is preventing the construction of French language stations, shed crocodile tears of hypocrisy and accuse the Conservatives falsely of your own sins?
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Quebec will know that the Conservative party will undertake to facilitate the construction of French language stations in those parts of Canada where the people desire to have French language stations.
I suggest also that the people of Canada know that the Conservative party will facilitate the construction of television stations generally so that Canadian television may be brought to the people of Canada instead of the people of Canada being denied television as they are now by government policy, whether it be Canadian television or any other form of television whatever.
As I have said, it is difficult to discuss this matter with calmness and reason in view of the statements which were made this afternoon by the Minister of Transport. Yet there were certain statements at the beginning of his speech to which I think we can all subscribe. He dwelt on the necessity of national policies being laid down for the development of our nation, especially in' the fields of transportation and communication.
The Conservative party subscribes to that point of view. It agrees with the necessity
Special Committee on Broadcasting for national policies in the fields of transportation and communication. I may say that it is proud of its record in both fields. It is proud of the fact that it was a Conservative administration which was responsible for the construction of the first transcontinental railway, the Canadian Pacific. It is proud of the fact that it resisted the efforts of the Liberal party to have that railroad built for part of its mileage through the United States. It was the Conservative party that insisted that it must be an all-Canadian route.
We are proud of the fact that ours was the party responsible for the taking over of the bankrupt railways which were eventually amalgamated into the Canadian National system. We say that the same policy which now prevails-which was praised by the minister when he was dealing with the policies in fields of transportation, both with respect to the railways and the air lines-we say that same policy of an independent regulatory body, is the policy which should prevail in the field of communication having to do with radio and television. That is our policy. That is not the policy of the Liberal government.
Our policy is that there should be an independent regulatory body in the field of radio and television broadcasting having jurisdiction over both the government and private interests in that field in exactly the same way as the board of transport commissioners is the regulatory body having jurisdiction over the private railroad, the Canadian Pacific, and the nationally-owned road, the Canadian National Railways; and in exactly the same way that the air transport board is the regulatory body having jurisdiction over the publicly-owned system, Trans-Canada Air Lines, and the privately-owned air lines which operate in this country.
It is strange to find the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), under whose jurisdiction both these regulatory bodies come-that is the board of transport commissioners and the air transport board-so disregarding the facts that when we come to the field of radio and television broadcasting he should have suggested that our policy, the policy we advocate of an independent regulatory body, was against the best interests of Canada. Speaking for the government, the minister responsible in the broad field of transportation, both rail and air, who follows that policy and submits to this house every year, and year after year, that it works well and is a desirable policy in that field for political purposes, because he finds himself and his government in an embarrassing position as a result of their hopeless, inefficient and anti-Canadian television policy, disregards

Special Committee on Broadcasting the facts and suggests that that same policy which we advocate for radio and television would somehow or other work against the best interests of Canada in those fields.
The Minister of Transport indulged in some pretty high flying flights of fancy that could be laughed off if they did not have such a complete disregard for the facts which actually prevail. What he said was-I have not as yet an official text of his words, but I took them down as he spoke-that the policy of the Conservative party would be to hand over special privileges to a few of its wealthy supporters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: 
Donald Methuen Fleming: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I point out to you, sir, that in fhe statement of policy of the Minister of
[Mr- Fulton.J
National Revenue (Mr. McCann), the minister in charge of Canadian broadcasting, on January 27, after outlining the way in which the government intended to preserve its monopoly in the heavily populated areas for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-the government-owned and operated system-the minister went on to say that in the lesser populated areas they would permit private television stations to operate on a monopoly basis. He was contrasting the one monopoly with the other when he used these words on page 1357 of Hansard:
That works both ways, of course.
Then he was asked a question by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and, after saying that he would appreciate it if the hon. member would defer his question, he went on to say:
That works both ways. If the C.B.C. sets up a television station in, we will say, the city of Toronto, and will not allow a licence there for a private station at the same time, that, of course, gives protection to the C.B.C. But if a licence were given in the city of Kitchener, serving a community of perhaps half a million people, a similar protection would be given in that no other licence would be given in that area at this time.
There you have the complete rounded picture of monopoly, the government policy of monopoly of television broadcasting. They will preserve a monopoly to the government agency in the populous or profitable fields, and in the less profitable fields they say: We will preserve a monopoly to our friends to whom we will give an exclusive franchise to operate in each one of those areas.
So far has this Liberal party fallen from its self-esteemed but not always consistently followed role of the friend of the average Canadian. To that extent has it become the friend of the special interest-the extent to which it will give preferred, protected, and exclusively protected concessions to individuals whom they will favour by the granting of a television broadcasting licence. That, sir, is the freedom of broadcasting, the freedom of expression which they hold out as an advantage to the Canadian people to follow from their ill-conceived, misguided policy which they have presently enunciated.
Then, sir, we see certain other inconsistencies and certain other ways in which this government's television policy works against the best interests of the Canadian people.


Mr. Cresiohl:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I point out that interruptions have taken up a good deal of my time already, and I hope the hon. gentleman will be brief.


Leon David Crestohl: I think this is a rather significant question. To justify his position the

hon. gentleman has said that the city of Kitchener has a half million people.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No; he was quoting the minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think I can answer the hon. member. I was reading from page 1357 of Hansard a statement by the Minister of National Revenue, and the figures of the population of the Kitchener area are the figures of this government, not mine.


Mr. Fraser:: So if the figures are wrong, the minister is wrong.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I suggest to the hon. members and to the house that if the minister is wrong in his population figures, as he very well may have been, he was equally wrong in the principles which he was enunciating.


Mr. McCann:: I said: in the community.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When the hon. gentleman asked his question I was saying that there are other ways in which the government's policy works against the interests of the Canadian people. We were told, and it is repeated ad nauseam, that the object of the policy of the government with respect to television is to make available to the Canadian people television broadcasts of Canadian origin; and secondly, to give the maximum opportunity to Canadian talent. Yet, sir, we can see in the application of this television policy the very antithesis of the object which the government says it is trying to serve.
The truth of that statement will be obvious by the fact, first, that the application of government policy seriously restricts the number of television outlets which are going to be available in Canada. I suggest to you, sir, that it is obvious that the more outlets there are the more scope there is going to be for Canadian talent, and the more opportunity there will be for the Canadian people to receive television programs of Canadian origin. The government does not seem to have appreciated that point and so they restrict the number of outlets.
But more important and more serious, perhaps even more obvious, is another aspect of the application of government policy. Let us take an area such as the Toronto-Hamilton area. As a result of government policy we are restricted to one television station in Toronto, which is a C.B.C. station. This is government policy, not C.B.C. policy. In the neighbouring community of Hamilton we are restricted, also as a result of the government monopoly policy, to one private television station. But so greedy and so determined is the government to protect its own operating monopoly that it lays down a restriction with respect to the Hamilton station, that it must
3039
Special Committee on Broadcasting instal a directional device which will prevent that Hamilton station from being received by television sets in the Toronto area.
In other words the people in Toronto, and on the fringe area between Toronto and Hamilton, will be deprived of the advantage of a choice between two Canadian television stations. They will be restricted to the one television station, the government-operated station in Toronto. Whether they want to or not they will not have the right or the opportunity, which should be theirs as Canadian citizens, of listening to and watching the other Canadian television station operating in Hamilton. Now, sir, if there could ever be a clearer example of the folly of this policy, and the way in which it defeats itself, I am hard put to find one. The result is that the people in that area are restricted to one station; and the station in Hamilton, which would be prepared to employ a certain amount of Canadian talent, will be restricted in its audience and therefore in its opportunity of presenting to the Canadian people the Canadian talent which may be available.
Well, that is the application of this policy which we are told is designed to multiply the opportunities for Canadian talent and to promote the cause of broadcasts of Canadian origin. To such an extent is this government prepared to go that it has no regard for the fact that in the application of its television policy it is def eating the very purpose which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the present television policy were ostensibly designed to achieve.
May I just say that there has been a great deal said here today by government spokesmen and to some extent by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), who I believe fell into a trap because he was inadvertently misled by the extraordinary distortions of the Minister of Transport-to the effect that the policy advocated by this party would hand over television broadcasting into the exclusive hands of private interests. Sir, nothing could be farther from the truth. The policy of this party is that we should have an independent regulatory body. This body could prescribe the Canadian content of, and exercise complete regulatory control over, every radio or television broadcast originating on a Canadian station. To that principle this party adheres firmly. What we are desirous of doing is eliminating this system whereby the regulatory body also operates the government system and, at the same time, controls the operations of its competitors.
3040	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting
The system we want to see is a parallel system to that which prevails in our railway communications, which are still governed by the national policy laid down by a Conservative government and to which the Minister of Transport today paid tribute. We want to see the same system as prevails in air transport, to which -the Minister of Transport also paid tribute. We want to see that policy prevail in the field of television broadcasting particularly, because we believe that policy would preserve the right of parliament through the regulatory body to lay down conditions and regulations -under which television programs might be presented, and to prescribe the Canadian content of the programs. These stations would, nevertheless, be allowed freedom of operation and competition within -those limits, under a policy which would serve the interests -of the Canadian people with respect to building up a television system, and consistent with the building up of Canadian talent and Canadian programs, -but without the dead hand which is now holding back that development as is the case under the misguided government television policy.
(Translation):


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to repeat the arguments which were so appropriately expounded this afternoon by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) and even by the leader of the C.C.F. party, although I do not admit all the principles he set forth.
However, I feel it is my duty to rise at this time to say how grossly unfair the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) was in his remarks, when he laid against the Minister of Transport the accusation of raising the issue of race and language. All the Minister of Transport said was that those in remote districts, particularly our French-speaking fellow citizens, had been assured a radio broadcasting service through the limited control of the government over radio broadcasting. That control was set up by the late Lord Bennett and has been retained so far by successive Liberal governments, with some modifications which, however, have not changed the principle itself.
The Minister of Transport has by no means raised a racial issue. All that he said was that one of the determining factors of Mr. Bennett's policy was precisely the concern with the assurance of broadcasting services to those who spoke another language and especially those who lived in isolated areas. Is that raising racial or language issues?


Continuing his argument, did the Minister of Transport raise those issues further on? All that he said was purely and simply this, that in a field as novel as that of television, conditions, while somewhat similar to those which obtain in the field of radio, are much more difficult. Construction costs of television stations as well as maintenance costs are extremely high. Then, again, the effective range of these stations is far more restricted. He said that that was all the more reason not to proceed too fast and that we should adopt, with a view to the expansion of this new field, a system, which, so far, had given excellent results.
Moreover, no matter what my colleagues from Montreal or from its suburbs may think, I submit that since the citizens of Montreal and of the immediate neighbourhood enjoy the benefits of television in French at present, is it not more sensible and fair for the government to adopt a policy which will allow the poor citizens of Quebec, for instance, or of Montmagny-L'Islet, to have at least one television station, before my good friends from Montreal, to whom I wish so much good, have a choice between two, three or four stations, a few of which, were it not for government control, would merely transmit American programs, those very programs which were described by the hon. member for Spadina this afternoon.
The experience of the C.B.C. in the field of radio broadcasting, even as regards American stations, is possibly old but it exists and until 1929 we were drowned under American programs only and those who lived in isolated areas, even those who understood English, had no radio broadcasting service at all, I need not mention those who lived in outlying districts and could speak only French.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that I shall not be accused of bringing up issues of race or language. I think that I have spoken quite calmly, that I have used the arguments of the Minister of Transport in a reasonable way. I hope that my friends, particularly those from Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) have seen the light.


Mr. Balcer:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Jean Lesage: Certainly.


Léon Balcer: How would the establishment of a private television station in Montreal, for example, as requested by La Presse at present, hinder the establishment of a television station in Quebec city or in the county of Montmagny-L'Islet?


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport answered this question this afternoon and if the hon. member for Three Rivers had been here then he would not have to ask me that question.


Léon Balcer: Answer.


Jean Lesage: I did not want to speak for forty minutes, as did the hon. member for Kamloops, and repeat all the arguments submitted by the Minister of Transport.
I shall only say that the establishment of a T.V. station is a very costly affair, and very few are those who, in Canada, have the capital necessary to establish such stations. If we let the friends of our friends opposite establish T.V. stations where they would be most profitable, that is in the larger centres, there will never be any in Three Rivers. Let the hon. member for Three Rivers remember that.
(Text):


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, just prior to coming into the house this evening I met a group of ladies and in conversation with them happened to mention the topic on which I was intending to speak tonight. One of them said, "What are you going to beef about?" I said, "As a matter of fact, it so happens that this evening I do not intend to beef about anything."


George Alexander Cruickshank: Who were the ladies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: If the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr? Cruickshank) wants to know who the ladies were-and he is always interested in the ladies-I will be quite frank and tell him. It was the dominion council of the widows of the non-pensioned veterans of Canada who are down in Ottawa doing a good job for the people they represent.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I said that it was not my intention to do any beefing this evening. Before proceeding with the matters I want to discuss, I must say that I was one who greatly enjoyed the minister's speech this afternoon, and that I was pleased to hear his arguments and the way in which he presented them.
I am glad to have the opportunity to support this resolution. I am sorry that it has been delayed by the budget debate for so long and that the committee has not had the opportunity to sit prior to this debate on this important question to Canadians as a whole.
68108-193i
Special Committee on Broadcasting
I am glad the committee is or will be instructed by this house to review the policies, aims, regulations, revenues, expenditures and development of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, we in Canada enjoy an excellent radio system. I have had visitors from England, staying in this country for some time, express to me in highly favourable terms their appreciation of our radio system. I have had friends from the United States, staying at my home, who have told me how much they appreciated, on the part of the C.B.C., the more objective approach to news and things of that sort than that of many of the commercial stations in the United States.
In this combination of public and private ownership, Mr. Speaker, I think we have a system that works well and one which experience would indicate we should continue to develop and improve. I must commend the C.B.C. for its objective news comments, its interesting commentaries, its forums of various kinds, and "Stage 53" which is enjoyed by a large number of people. I may say that I personally do not always agree with what the C.B.C. puts on the air in programs, but you cannot have any system functioning in which we find complete agreement. Once we agree with all that is given us in the way of radio and television we shall fail to make progress and, in fact, we shall fail to be a democracy.
I must say at the same time that I think the private broadcasting stations are doing, on the whole, a good job for Canada at this time. I know the stations in my constituency present the community point of view and give a considerable amount of free time for community events and things of that kind. If I remember correctly-and I am speaking only from memory-last year station CJAT at Trail donated something in the neighbourhood of $15,000 in free time for community service, and the station at Nelson, which is a smaller station in relationship to its revenues and listening audience, donated a lesser amount.
But I must repeat, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion-and I think in that of the majority of Canadians-we in Canada have devised a system of radio broadcasting, combining public and private ownership, which is somewhat unique and which I think is proving to be highly successful. As a matter of fact I think the late Lord Bennett-as the minister said this afternoon and as others have said previously-planned wisely and well when he planned the original policies of the Cana-

Special Committee on Broadcasting dian broadcasting system. It seems rather strange to us in this group to find the Progressive Conservatives, as far as we can understand it, actually opposing some of the policies originally laid down by the late Lord Bennett.
Before going on with the rest of my presentation I want to make one comment with respect to voice production on the C.B.C.; that is, with respect to the pronunciation, the enunciation and so on of the announcers. I have no hesitation in saying that I think the broadcasting of the trained personnel of the C.B.C. represents an excellent standard of English and contributes towards better understanding of pronunciation throughout the country. In that connection I should like to quote Professor H. Alexander who is head of the department of English language and literature at Queen's university. He has this to say:
The C.B.C. official announcers are usually well chosen and well trained. Their voices are usually pleasing and their diction is correct. Official pronouncements of the C.B.C. on the question of good English for broadcasters contain sound and tolerant doctrine. On the other hand, some of the announcers heard on the unofficial commercial stations are sadly in need of speech training. Their pronunciations, especially of proper names, are often fantastic; their speech habits in general are unsound. Any influence they might have on their listeners would be definitely harmful.
That does not apply to all broadcasting from the private radio stations, but I think anyone who tries to judge this question fairly realizes that in Canada with respect to voice production on the radio we have a very high standard as compared with a great majority of commercial stations in the United States to the south.
I just want to illustrate the great host of witnesses in Canada who speak in favour of the C.B.C., who support the C.B.C., and the host of witnesses that the Progressive Conservatives to my right go against when they present the arguments they have made in this debate. First of all there is the royal commission on arts, letters and sciences. All hon. members know that in its report the commission made very favourable comment concerning the general administration of the C.B.C. and favoured the continuation of the policy of public ownership of the national broadcasting system.
Then there is the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which has expressed strong support of the policy of the government with respect to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It has one suggestion to offer, which I understand has been recently presented to the cabinet. The federation urged
IMr. Herridge.l
an amendment to the act that would provide for a representative of the farming interests on the board of governors. The official attitude of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is one of support for the policies of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I might say that the British Columbia federation of agriculture has spoken in eulogistic language of the service the C.B.C. is performing in its farm forum broadcasts which are given in that province.
Then we have the Canadian Congress of Labour, which strongly supported the policies of the government with respect to the C.B.C. I understand that the Canadian Congress of Labour represents some 375,000 workmen of this country. Add to that their wives and dependents, and you have a host of people expressing their opinion in that respect. In addition, the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada also support the government in its policies with respect to the C.B.C. These are large mass organizations of farmers and workers. Then we have the Canadian federation of university women passing a resolution which I think they forwarded to hon. members quite recently, and which reads:
Be it resolved that the Canadian federation of university women express their approval of the position taken by the "special committee on radio broadcasting" in its reaffirmation of the national policy of the C.B.C. and its basic principles which are:
1.	The air belongs to the people who are entitled
to hear the principal points of view on all questions of importance;	*
2.	The air must not fall under the control of any individual or groups of individuals by reason of their wealth or special position;
3.	The right to answer is inherent in the democratic doctrine of free speech;
4.	Freedom of speech and the full interchange of opinion are among the principal safeguards of free institutions.
That is the opinion of the Canadian federation of university women, a group of women who have received higher education and who are well capable of expressing intelligent and informed opinions on such subjects ini this country.
Then we have the United Church of Canada, which has expressed its support of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the government's policy with respect to broadcasting in Canada. Co-operative organizations have repeatedly given evidence of their support for this policy. These organizations which I have mentioned represent large numbers of Canadians. I think we can safely say that they represent the rank and file, as

I say the great mass of the rank and file, of farming, working and professional people in this country.
We have many prominent Canadians who have expressed their opinion of the operation of the C.B.C. For instance, Sir Ernest MacMillan, dean of the faculty of music of the University of Toronto and conductor of the Toronto symphony orchestra, has this to say when writing an article in connection with the royal commission on arts, letters and sciences:
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has done much to bring Canadian works to light within our own borders. Its international service has been helpful in paying for and disseminating abroad recordings of Canadian works.
Then Mr. B. K. Sandwell, now editor in chief of Saturday Night, Toronto, had this to say:
The whole direction of the progress of culture in Canada (as in other "western" countries) will thus in future be largely in the hands of the operators of certain mechanical devices of large-scale diffusion. The operation of these devices is extremely expensive. To the extent to which they are in private hands, they must be operated with a primary eye to revenue.
Everyone knows that when these things are operated with a primary eye on revenue the public interest comes second. Then Professor Hilda Neatby, associate professor of history at the University of Saskatchewan has this to say:
Talks on historical and related subjects are a regular part of the C.B.C. program, and during the last few years at least such talks have been given on Sundays. It may be assumed, therefore, that they have been found acceptable by a fairly wide audience.
It is a fact that C.B.C. script writers have shown very creditable energy and enterprise in their exploitation of colourful and relatively unfamiliar material.
I doubt, Mr. Speaker, that we would have these talks on historical and related subjects which are of such great value if we had a commercial radio system in Canada. Then Professor J. W. T. Spinks, professor of chemistry and head of the department and dean of graduate studies, University of Saskatchewan, had this to say:
Steps should be taken to make science a part of our common culture through the radio, the press and films.
I could quote many other prominent people who have given this subject some thought and who are willing to affirm without any qualification that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation serves Canada better than any privately-owned system would at this time.
The major opposition to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation policies comes from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. I can understand that. They represent private
Special Committee on Broadcasting broadcasting stations in this country. In addition to that, there is the more or less small group of the larger businessmen who fear that government activity in the field of broadcasting is another encroachment by government upon the field of free enterprise as they understand it.
I want to draw to the attention of the house the booklet "The Case for Freedom of Information" which I think all hon. members received. I would judge, after reading this booklet carefully, that it was actually drafted by Mr. Allard, who I think is manager of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and a very clever gentleman. I might say that this booklet is well worth reading. I suggest to all hon. members who want to view both sides of the question, and the committee, that they read this booklet through because Mr. Allard presents in a very clever way the best possible arguments that he can find in support of the policies of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. No one should underestimate the thought and the ability that has gone into this small booklet, but in my opinion Mr. Allard fails to be convincing because he bases his argument on what, from our point of view, are entirely false premises.
As opposed to the position taken by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters we have the royal commission on arts, letters and sciences, which I mentioned before. I just wish to quote one paragraph from page 300 of that report, where it says:
Obviously, Canadian radio has not yet achieved all that we hope for in a national system. It is still young. It has had to struggle against poverty, inexperience, and the physical obstacles of this difficult country. But, as we have suggested in part I and have stated here in language as clear and unambiguous as we can command, we are convinced that the existing Canadian system of broadcasting has served the country well in the past and offers the greatest hope of national unity and enlightenment in the future. We urge that the national broadcasting system be given the power and resources sufficient for its great national responsibilities.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, in presenting their arguments, are naturally doing the best they can to support their case. We would not expect them to look at the subject from the same objective point of view as these gentlemen who were members of a royal commission honestly seeking to find a solution to the various questions that had been brought to their attention, and to make recommendations which they thought were to the advantage of Canada as a whole.


Edmund Davie Fulton: All good Liberals.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I might say that the Liberals seem to be a bugbear to the hon. member for
3044	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), when he suggests that members of the royal commission were all good Liberals.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Except those who brought in the minority report.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am not aware of that; but I think the Canadian people owe them a debt of gratitude for the comprehensive nature of their work and the completeness of their report.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But they need not agree with the recommendations of the royal commission.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: By way of further reply to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters I would say that in my opinion they underestimate the value of Canadian culture in contrast with that of the United States. I think they are rather inclined to underestimate how much Canadian people treasure their culture as distinct from the culture of the United States, and as distinct from that of Great Britain, It is my belief that if the C.B.C. lost control of broadcasting in Canada the French section of our population would receive little consideration, because the great majority of the programs would be coming from the United States. One could not expect much consideration, because the French-Canadian population would be but a small part of the total population of the United States and Canada.
Then we believe that broadcasting is a public service, whereas the Canadian Association of Broadcasters believe that it is an industry. I believe I am correct in saying that the United States broadcasting associations are the only people who consider that broadcasting is an industry. In Great Britain, as in Canada, it is considered as a public service. While in the United States it is considered an industry, in Canada, as I say, it is a public service; and this has much to do with one's approach to the question. As a privately-owned system, broadcasting in the United States must be generally and particularly concerned with profits as a motive; the national welfare and the public interest under those circumstances must necessarily receive only secondary consideration.
In the booklet I have in my hand I find broadcasting compared with press services, and things of that sort. I do not think the comparison is at all fair. The position of the advertiser on radio and television is in my opinion not the same as the advertiser in the newspaper. In the newspaper he buys space; on television he buys time and an opportunity to invade the public domain. On radio and television the national advertiser acquires a very dominant position. So much
IMr. Herridge.]

is this the fact that in the United States they are able to control the policies of networks, and in so doing mould the thinking of the people as the years go by.
Radio channels are limited, and there must be some regulation over permission to use those channels. On the other hand, so far as printing is concerned, anyone with sufficient capital can buy a press.
I should like to quote briefly from a brief presented by the Canadian Congress of Labour to the radio committee in 1950. I do this because I think it answers in a very few words some of the arguments advanced by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, and also the criticism of the minister made this evening by the hon. member for Kamloops. Quoting from page 3 of the brief I find this:
The Canadian Congress of Labour, like the Canadian Federation of Agriculture-
And may I say, before proceeding, that the Canadian Congress of Labour and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture hold almost identical viewpoints on this subject.
-believes that present public policy in regard to radio broadcasting is basically sound. It believes that the C.B.C. should continue to enjoy its present powers of regulation over private stations. It strongly opposes the creation of an independent authority to regulate both the C.B.C. and the private stations. It is convinced that the creation of such an authority would sooner or later, and perhaps rather sooner than later, mean that Canadian radio would be swallowed up by American. The effect of that on the development of the arts and letters in Canada needs no elaboration. If we want a genuinely Canadian culture to flourish and grow strong, we must preserve our genuinely Canadian radio. Weakening the C.B.C. is not the way to do it.
The development of television only reinforces this argument. The private broadcasters are trying to secure recognition of a privately owned radio system, operating on an equal footing with the C.B.C., and treating with the government, the regulatory authority, the C.B.C. and the public de puissance en puissance. If they can get that, it will be easy to do the same thing for television. But the amount of capital required for television is so large that in fact there cannot be two competing systems. The economic waste would be colossal and flagrant.
Just one more short paragraph having reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops, who spoke prior to me.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Do I understand that their remarks or your remarks have reference to my remarks?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am quoting from page 4 a paragraph that will have particular reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops, who spoke just prior to me.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But they prepared their brief before I spoke.


Donald MacInnis: I think you can understand it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Truth never loses its value. They say:
It would be more correct to say that Canada has two cultures of her own, English-Canadian and French-Canadian, interacting, we hope, to their mutual enrichment. Outside control of radio and television would be bad for our English-Canadian culture; it would be infinitely worse for our French-Canadian culture. English-Canadians have a big stake in the survival and strengthening of the C.B.C., and its control over television. But French-Canadians have a much bigger one. Their special interests, institutions and traditions would, necessarily, get short shrift from outsiders operating solely for profit. Under a publicly controlled system, on the other hand, those interests, institutions and traditions are bound to receive careful consideration and to carry great weight, if only because of the great, and often decisive, political power of the French-speaking electorate.
The minister this afternoon presented the same argument in somewhat different words. I do not think it is at all fair to suggest that he was trying to create disunity in Canada in saying that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Read his words.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Do you accuse the Canadian Congress of Labour, in presenting these arguments before the radio committee, of trying to create disunity in Canada? Yet the Canadian Congress of Labour used exactly the same argument before the committee as the minister used before the house this afternoon.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But not the same words, at all.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think the argument of the hon. member for Kamloops is somewhat invalid in that connection.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The words were very different.


Mr. Laing:: Are you making a speech over there or playing bridge?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to deal with one or two more items before concluding. I saw an interesting article in the Montreal Gazette of March 10 which I thought was quite apt. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters held a convention in Montreal quite recently and in the Montreal Gazette of Tuesday, March 10, 1953, I read this among other things which I have not the time to go into:
Harold E. Fellows, of Washington, president of the national association of radio and television broadcasters, meanwhile, expressed sympathy for the C.A.B.'s. "struggle for freedom", terming it "a matter of the highest public interest."
I think it is nothing but gross impertinence for someone from the outside to suggest sympathy for the private broadcasters in Canada in their "struggle for freedom". I think they have been treated fairly under the law. I am sure they will be treated fairly by the committee when it is established and by hon.
Special Committee on Broadcasting members of this house in the future. 1 should like to give some evidence of the freedom that exists in this respect in connection with broadcasting in the country from which this honourable gentleman came, this gentleman who is head of the national association of radio and television broadcasters.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Who said he was honourable?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) asks "who says he was honourable?" If I said that it was a slip of the tongue. When I look at the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) the word "honourable" keeps coming into my mind. Mr. Peter Morrell had this to say recently in his book:
The broadcasting companies and the radio advertisers have made a consistent record of exploiting radio solely for profits at the expense of the consumer.
Then Jack Gould is reported in the New York Times, as reprinted in the Ottawa Citizen of December 20, 1952, as follows:
The medium is heading hell-bent for the rut of innocuity, mediocrity and sameness that made a drab if blatant jutebox of radio. The success of TV is proving a hollow and disheartening jest; television apparently can't stand prosperity.
One more quotation in answer to the gentleman who questioned the freedom of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and indicated his sympathy toward their fight for freedom in Canada. The following is from the Ottawa Journal of February 24, 1953:
Freedom of Speech in U.S. Theatre Imperilled-Cronyn
Hume Cronyn, Canadian star of stage and screen, said Monday the United States theatre is in danger of losing its freedom of speech.
Addressing the Canadian Club, Mr. Cronyn, a native of London, Ont., said the pressure of advertising and politics is creating narrow opinions.
"Today we are in danger of losing our prime freedom-freedom of speech", he said.
"In the American theatre-and by that I mean the stage, movies, radio and TV-you have to play Little Red Riding Hood if you wish to ignore the obvious.
The more broad our means of expression, the narrower our opinions. The effort is to please everybody all the time lest we lose one sale of junior's favourite breakfast food.
It has got so that anyone who dares to have even mildly liberal views nowadays is the object of wild accusations, even those people who are miles away from being even parlor pinks. It is a frightening thing and I am disturbed to hear that it is happening in Canada, too."
Anyone who has read the press recently and the worth-while magazines in the United States and the book "The Judge and the Judged" will realize the immense power over thought and education which these sponsors of national broadcasting programs have obtained. I again reiterate that we in this
3046	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting group are glad to support the government policy in this respect because we believe it is in the interests of the Canadian people.
I should like now to say a word or two on television, and then a word or two by way of complaint concerning matters in my own constituency. I am pleased personally that the government has gone somewhat carefully and -cautiously in the development of television in Canada. In my opinion the Canadian treasury has been saved millions of dollars which might have been expended in necessary experimentation. We have benefited from the results of experiments carried on in other places.
In my opinion television is cultural dynamite. We have a cultural serpent by the tail. We must develop it carefully. It can be an important force for good or it can be an important force for evil. I think the experience in the United States indicates -that it is wise indeed to retain control over television in a similar manner to the control we have over radio broadcasting in this -country. I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the Christian Science Monitor of February 10, 1953, as follows:
'Crime for Children
The vice-president of a major broadcasting company^ has stated that crime programs on radio and television "can be used to impress upon millions of Americans that lawbreaking is a sordid business in which the criminal cannot win."
The Journal of the American Medical Association, writing about a survey of the deleterious effects of TV crime and horror programs on children, declares:
"The over-all impression gained by the monitors from the majority of television programs for children was that life is cheap; death, suffering, and brutality are subjects of callous indifference; and that judges,, lawyers, and law officers are dishonest, incompetent, and stupid."
When is the industry going to face up honestly and constructively, without Pharisaical platitudes, to the "sordid business" that crime for children has become on the air waves?
I trust that in this respect government policy will protect Canadian children from the dangers that have been evidenced in the United States. I have here an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of February 12, 1952 entitled "T.V. for Canadians". I shall not read it all, but I think it puts the case very well. One short sentence reads:
Mr. A. D. Dunton, chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, has some sensible words. As he remarked to the Ottawa Canadian Club:
"You can't insulate against it. You can insulate your home by not having a set, but you won't be able to escape its effects as it will be influencing the society in- which you live. Our nation will be not a little affected as T.V. develops.
I think that presents a real argument for care in developing television in this country.
[Mr. Herridge.j

Some people are complaining about the slowness in the development of television in Canada, but I find that in Australia the majority of people will have to wait another two years for television programs. I think we are coming along just about as well as any country with our economic resources, with our population and things of that sort.
Before concluding I should like to suggest to hon. members that they would be well advised to read an article which appeared in the Canadian Unionist tor February this year entitled "Television in Canada". This dealt with an address by A. D. Dunton, chairman of the board of governors, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to the Rotary Club of Ottawa on January 5, 1953. I think there is considerable food for thought in that article as Mr. Dunton presented the situation clearly, logically and in very lucid terms.
That is all I have to say on this question. As I said when commencing my few remarks, I am a general supporter of the broadcasting policies of the government, the policies of the C.B.C. and its administration. I do not agree with all of -the programs and, like any other citizen there I have some complaints to make in -connection with reception in my riding. These are more complaints of mechanical arrangements, and I welcome the opportunity provided by this debate to bring to the attention of the house certain complaints that come from a large number of my constituents. I represent the -constituency of Kootenay West from the North Arrow lakes to the North Kootenay lakes, and I think they have legitimate grounds for -complaint.
We have had, radio in Canada for over 30 years, but there are some thousands of people in the northern part of my constituency who still cannot listen to a Canadian station after nightfall and, on many days, reception from Canadian stations is very poor. They get very weak and poor signals there. In my district we have thousands who have to depend upon United States stations for news and entertainment. That is exactly the position which I am in at my own home. We live in a very isolated spot and have to depend entirely upon United States stations for our news and our entertainment in the evenings. I am not very keen, nor are my neighbours, no doubt, to receive the news according to Sperry's pancake flour, reported in a very nasal voice and dramatized so that some minor incident becomes a catastrophe before the broadcast is completed.
I am speaking now for the North Arrow lakes, the North Kootenay district, the

Lardeau country, and also certain sections of the boundary country. I told those people that I would voice their complaints at the first opportunity I had. Those people are primary producers-farmers, ranchers, lumbermen, prospectors, and trappers. They are men more or less out in isolated spots in the mountains producing real wealth for this country and paying a high rate of taxation on the production of that wealth. As a matter of fact- and this might have some influence on the government-in my constituency of Kootenay West production last year was more than $200 million in value. Look at the immense taxation on people in that area.
I have received complaints not only from residents of the area but from boards of trade, trade unions, legion branches, farmers' organizations and women's institutes. As I said before there are thousands of individuals who are deprived of the opportunity of enjoying Canadian programs and listening to Canadian news. In addition, Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of interference in our district. I think it is caused by gadgets and power equipment used there without proper adjustment or without contrivances to prevent interference.


Arthur Laing: Or the member from Kamloops.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I hope the officials or inspectors of the Department of Transport will visit that district more frequently to assist those people in trying to overcome that difficulty.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we in the North Kootenay district believe that we are not going to get satisfactory radio service until we have a powerful radio station in the interior. I think most of the people in the district-not only in my constituency but in the other constituencies surrounding it-have been suggesting that. I am not a radio technician and I do not know what the solution is, but I do want to bring the state of affairs in the northern part of my district to the attention of the house, to the attention of the officials, the corporation, and the committee when it is established. I do hope that this committee will give particular attention to those few districts-and I understand there are only a few left in Canada-which have poor radio reception. In the case of the district I represent a large portion of the population has to depend upon the United States for news and other programs.
I think that is all I have to say at this time, Mr. Speaker; but once again I express my complete support of the resolution and of the policies of the government announced by the minister with respect to radio broadcasting and television. I trust, however, that when 68108-194
Special Committee on Broadcasting the radio committee sits it will give particular attention to the problems and complaints of those who live in the northern portion of Kootenay West.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members will agree, after listening to the discussion today, that it is high time the committee got together to discuss the problem of broadcasting in Canada. Broadcasting and telecasting, as we know today, deal with a means of communication that is very important. It seems to me, as I have listened to the discussion, that there is an unfortunate lack of communication of ideas in this chamber. It is either a semantics problem, misrepresentation of the meaning of meanings, or it is a deliberate attempt to obscure the issue.
On several occasions today we have been discussing the problem as if it is a case of C.B.C. or no C.B.C.; control or no control. Since I came into this house I have had the privilege of sitting in one series of committee meetings on broadcasting, and I have not gathered the impression that it was a case of that kind. No one is presenting the proposition that Canada would be much better off without the C.B.C. We all recognize the excellent job it has done in the establishment of a suitable broadcasting medium in this country. Particularly no one on this side can be accused of that viewpoint, because it was the policy of this party that first initiated the present organization and started it on its successful career in Canada.
I say too that it is not a matter of control or no control, as some have attempted to present it in this chamber today. We all acknowledge that there must be some form of control over a communication medium as important and significant as is the broadcasting and telecasting field. I do not think we are getting very far when we discuss this problem in an emotional tone as it has been discussed today.
I suppose I should regard myself as a junior member. That is a category that was given expression to by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) the other day; although I did think, until I came into the chamber and became aware of the atmosphere of discrimination, that regardless of seniority, as far as the number of years or length of time was concerned, we were all equal before the Speaker of the house. As that category or designation has been used, as a junior member perhaps I should not be too critical; but I will go this far and say that there have been some strong emotional expressions in this chamber which do not reflect very creditably upon the statesmanlike deliberations of the house.

Special Committee on Broadcasting
I do not think this will be unparliamentary, but I would like to say that some of the techniques that have been used in the house today are like the Russian techniques. They tell me that as you enter East Berlin from West Berlin, although I have not had that privilege, there is a sign just at the border: "You are now entering the democratic part of Germany". From our viewpoint, of course, we believe that just the reverse is the case, that as soon as you cross from west to east you are entering the totalitarian section. However, our totalitarian friends, the Russians, are very clever in the use of both the small lie and the big lie to put their opponents on the defensive. We know what they have done with the meaning of such words as "democracy" and "peace". They have completely obscured the issues by drawing red herrings across the trail and by distorting the traditional meanings of words.
We have heard today accusations thrown across the chamber that the Conservative party is against the C.B.C. I think it is an attempt to obscure the issue and place this group on the defensive, so that it has to begin from a position of disadvantage. In the first instance, we do not have to apologize to anyone, because it was during the Conservative administration that the present broadcasting policy was established. I have been interested to hear members or groups, including the C.C.F. group, giving due credit to the late Mr. Bennett in this regard. It is just unfortunate that they would not give him as much credit for his other efforts as they do for this particular policy.
While recognizing that broadcasting is a very important medium of communication, and while recognizing that communication is basic to the successful continuation of our democratic way of life, I do not subscribe to the viewpoint which seems to be expressed from a number of sources that broadcasting and telecasting are the beginning and end of the solution of communication difficulties. The late Dr. Harold Innis, who has dealt extensively with the problem of communication in relation to civilization and can be regarded as an authority in the field, summed up a lifetime of thinking on the subject in his book called "Communication and Empire." He pointed out that each succeeding civilization which had achieved notable progress and development, the Babylonian, Egyptian, Grecian and Roman, had its success largely conditioned and determined by the medium of communication used most frequently. The Babylonians were limited by the use of the stylus and the clay tablet; the Egyptians by the quill and papyrus; the Romans were restricted by almost the same medium. So far as the flourishing Greek civilization was
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
concerned he points out that they developed the oral medium to a new high level, so that the golden age of Greece was largely a reflection of their successful adoption of a more flexible oral tradition.
He goes on in the development of his theme to deal with modem media, particularly mass media of communication. He points out that, rather than stimulating civilization or encouraging true creative cultural development, it would possibly have the effect of discouraging that development because in dealing with the cinema, radio and television we are dealing with a mechanized media. Instead of creativity, you have rigidity. You have robots produced rather than responsible creative individuals. I am inclined to agree that there is a lot of truth in what he says.
When we approach this problem, therefore, from the standpoint that television and broadcasting are going to solve all the problems that we find existing in Canadian cultural development, I think we are taking a theme that has no essence in reality. Actually, we do not solve any of our problems unless we deal with the basic institutions that are responsible for forming citizens' in a democratic society, for developing their ideas, for developing their conscience and their outlook on life. Those basic institutions are the home, the school and the church. If they are doing their job, none of these hair-raising murder stories, none of these so-called dangerous influences that have been criticized here tonight, can make their impact on the developing mind of the individual because the pattern of the personality is established in the matrix of these other more important institutions.
Perhaps we are dealing with a straw man. It is repeatedly put forward in magazine articles, and you can read it in many speeches, that we are dealing with the most important media of communication that has ever confronted man. It is said that the way we use it is going to determine our future destiny. This sounds impressive, and it sounds convincing, but it cannot be substantiated if you examine the thesis critically.
I turn now to the Massey report on the arts, letters and sciences, that very famous document which is often used to support this viewpoint. The Massey commission has made a great contribution to Canada by pointing out the problem of cultural development in this country. We were aware of it in a vague way; but by bringing together in one volume all the thinking of the various leaders in this field they have brought the problem into focus. Actually the briefs presented to the Massey commission came largely from

professional sources, those who had a professional interest in culture. It may be that their emphasis on the difficulty does not get down to the grass roots difficulty. I do believe that in dealing with the contribution that broadcasting and telecasting can make toward the solution of the relatively slow progress of the development of a distinct Canadian culture, the commission missed one fundamental point. I have already mentioned this point, but I repeat that mass media are not necessarily the solution to this difficulty.
As I have pointed out, mass media are impersonal. They make mass impressions on a non-responsive audience, an audience that is sitting inert and not necessarily reacting to the impressions that are made upon their minds. It is as the late Dr. Innis described, a mechanization of knowledge which is more likely to turn out a generation of robots than a generation of intellectual and cultural giants. It is a basic truism that in order for communication to be effective in shaping the thinking of a people or shaping the personality of a people, there must be interaction. You cannot sit unresponsively and absorb impressions. You must react. There must be a mutual reaction and impression, and this is the one big deficiency both in the fields of broadcasting and telecasting. If radio and television in Canada are going to make an even larger contribution to this important field than they have in the past, we must develop machinery for inter-action to a more efficient level than we have up to this time.
For example, one of the attempts of the C.B.C. to keep in touch with the public is through the C.B.C. Radio Times, a little publication that is circulated monthly. I believe the subscription fee is $1, and I understand the total circulation of that magazine is something like 12,000 copies, not a very large circulation. It might be necessary also to have some sort of advisory council which is constantly in touch with the reactions of the public to the programs being presented by the C.B.C., and in turn indicating these impressions to the board of governors so that a closer contact might be realized. That policy, I might say, is already in effect with regard to British Broadcasting Corporation activities.
Moving on in this discussion, today we have had several specific difficulties presented with regard to broadcasting in Canada. It has been pointed out that one of the purposes of the establishment of the C.B.C. was to assure that broadcasting would have a distinct Canadian flavour. Of course, when we say that we are thinking of the possible impact of the more populous and powerful United States nation to the south 68108-1941
Special Committee on Broadcasting of us. I might suggest one or two criticisms in this regard. They will be coming up for consideration, when the committee meets. One of the programs that is most obnoxious from my standpoint and that comes over the C.B.C. are these perpetual emotional binges, the soap operas, that grind relentlessly on day after day. I note that it is the C.B.C., not the private broadcasters, which is the chief offender in this regard. Apparently the revenue source in advertising is substantial and has been necessary to maintain the C.B.C. programs.
So far as the idea of putting up a screen against United States influence is concerned, I think it is going to be even more difficult in the television age mainly because Americans have a head start in the field; they have developed techniques that are in advance of ours and they have a large number of people skilled in the use of the television medium. Hence they are inevitably going to make their impact upon us.
I have not seen much television. Recently when I was in the city of Toronto I had my first opportunity to see C.B.C. television. 1 was interested to note that already United States programs are being used over the C.B.C. television station-I think it is CBTL -in Toronto. Actually we are again dealing with a straw man with regard to this business of promoting Canadianism by broadcasting only. It is much like the panacea viewpoint that is held with regard to all broadcasting and telecasting activities. Canadianism is not going to be established by mass media of communication. Inevitably we are going to be subjected to outside and so-called foreign influences in this modern age of communication and speed of transportation, which brings us closely together as neighbours not only with the United States but with every part of the world.
If I may, I am going to quote from an expert in the field of culture who does a little bit of leg pulling on this score. Actually we all tend to be ethnocentric. We tend to view the world from our own standards and to believe that everybody is crazy but ourselves. We are a little bit ethnocentric in this emphasis on Canadianism in the mass media. The gentleman I quote is speaking from a United States viewpoint but we might well apply what he says to the Canadian viewpoint as well. He is a man called Ralph Linton and writing in the American Mercury he says:
There can be no question about the average American's Americanism or his desire to preserve this precious heritage at all costs. Nevertheless, some insidious foreign ideas have already wormed their way into his civilization without his realizing what was going on.

Special Committee on Broadcasting
He now proceeds to go through a typical day in the average American's life.
Thus dawn finds the unsuspecting patriot garbed in pajamas, a garment of East Indian origin; and lying in a bed built on a pattern which originated in either Persia or Asia Minor. He is muffled to the ears in un-American materials; cotton, first domesticated in India; linen, domesticated in the Near East; wool from an animal native to Asia Minor; or silk whose uses were first discovered by the Chinese. All these substances have been transformed into cloth by methods invented in southwestern Asia. If the weather is cold enough he may even be sleeping under an eiderdown quilt invented in Scandinavia.
On awakening he glances at the clock, a medieval European invention, uses one potent Latin word in abbreviated form, rises in haste, and goes to the bathroom. Here, if he stops to think about it, he must feel himself in the presence of a great American institution; he will have heard stories of both the quality and frequency of foreign plumbing and will know that in no other country does the average man perform his ablutions in the midst of such splendor. But the insidious foreign influence pursues him even here.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Will the hon. gentleman tell me what this fairy tale has to do with the setting up of a committee on the C.B.C.?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It resembles the government's policy on television.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am dealing with the argument supporting the viewpoint of the effective impact of mass media upon Canadian culture.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member does not want a committee on broadcasting.


James Sinclair: He just wants to make political capital.


Alphonse Fournier: If the hon. member does not want a committee, let him just say so.


James Sinclair: Ten o'clock.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is fairly effective stuff, I must admit.


Alphonse Fournier: It affects the hon. member but nobody else.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: If the minister is not interested, that is all right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Hees:: They just do not understand. Carry on.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: To continue:
Glass was invented by the ancient Egyptians, the use of glazed tiles for floors and walls in the Near East, porcelain in China, and the art of enameling on metal by Mediterranean artisans of the bronze age.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member can read that for another minute.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: To continue:
Even his bathtub and toilet are but slightly modified copies of Roman originals. The only purely American contribution to the ensemble is the steam radiator.
Mr. Speaker, there have been some objections because this quotation explodes that inflated notion in a rather devastating fashion, and points out that to hope to establish the summum bonum in Canadian culture by resorting to mass media is a little bit farfetched.
On motion of Mr. Dinsdale the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall continue this interesting debate. I am still hopeful that we can set up a committee on broadcasting, if it is the wish of the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have waited seven weeks since the last date on which the matter was discussed.


Alphonse Fournier: It will take more than that, at the rate this discussion is going on, with the reading of books in extenso. Then we shall take the resolution to introduce a measure to amend the Emergency Powers Act; Bill No. 105, respecting the liability of the crown for torts and civil salvage; Bill No. 44, to protect the coastal fisheries. I hope we can pass all those measures tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 18, 1953