1955-03-08

PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Northumberland, N.B.) presented the first report of the standing committee on privileges and elections, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to inform the house that the ninth session of the contracting parties to the general agreement on tariffs and trade is being brought to an end in Geneva. The session, which began last October, has been a long and important one. Naturally, since the discussions are confidential, it has not been possible to inform hon. members of what has been going on. However, I know that members of the house have a strong interest in the GATT and will want to know what has happened as soon as possible.
This ninth session really had two purposes. In the first place, it covered the normal routine business for which the members of the GATT assemble approximately every six months. In addition, however, at the suggestion of quite a large number of the contracting parties, there was a review of the articles of agreement, and consideration of the constitution of a new organization to administer the agreement. By far the greater part of the work of the session was related to these matters.
In addition, the firm binding of the tariff schedules under the agreement comes to an end on June 30 of this year, and recommendations have been made to governments tor the future of tariff schedules. This is one of the matters about which I shall make a full explanation at a later date.
Accordingly, this ninth session has covered a wide range of subjects. This includes the
tariff schedules to which I have just referred. It has also included a review of the basic rules of trade and of the various escape clauses. These escapes include those provided for countries in balance of payments difficulties and also those provided for underdeveloped countries. The review has covered the provisions of the agreement for agricultural trade, and further arrangements have been made leading toward the accession of Japan to the general agreement. Finally, a good deal of attention has been paid to the possibility of putting the GATT on a rather firmer organizational basis; so far, as hon. members will recall, it has only been applied on a provisional basis.
Delegates of 35 countries are now on their way home from Geneva. When they get home they will inform and advise their governments. Some, of course, have a good deal farther to go than others, and it has been agreed that complete information regarding the ground covered in the ninth session will be delayed for two or three weeks in order to give all concerned an equal chance to digest it. At the appropriate time, and as soon as I can, I shall be making a full statement in the house. In the meantime some announcements are being made by common agreement in Geneva. I shall draw them to the attention of the house as they become available.
The information to be released in Geneva in the near future will refer chiefly to the routine items of the ninth session, rather than to the review and amendments of the articles of agreement. These items are all closely interrelated and their over-all effect can best be judged by reviewing them as a single parcel. I am sure hon. members will agree that it would be most satisfactory if I made a complete statement later on, rather than two or three piecemeal statements, even though newspaper reports will be appearing from time to time.
However, I think I should make it clear at this time that the GATT will go on. We already have an agreement which is being provisionally applied by the member governments, and this agreement will continue.
In regard to amendments that have been proposed, I have only one remark to make at this time. This is to say that while they do not add up to as strong and effective a GATT as I had hoped last October when the
1810	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry review began, they do add up to a more satisfactory agreement than I had feared when I returned from Geneva last December. The result is not as good as it might have been, but it might have been much worse. It will continue to be in Canada's interest to adhere to the GATT.


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask the minister if while we are waiting for him to make his extended statement as promised the texts of t'he agreement might be made available?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I understand that the prepared statement will be out well ahead of the texts of the agreements. I will table the texts of the agreements as soon as they come to hand, which will be in perhaps three or four weeks.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Do I understand that the texts themselves are not being issued, like the other information which the minister indicated is being withheld by agreement until all the representatives return to their homes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct; the texts are not being released until then.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Hon W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I am informed that it would be desirable for the house formally to decide upon the proceedings that we have agreed upon for this afternoon. Therefore by consent I should like to move:
That there shall be two sittings of the house this day; one from 2.30 p.m. until 5.00 p.m., and the other from 8.00 p.m. until 10.00 p.m.; that at 8.00 p.m. the house will resume the consideration of government business, and that the provisions of standing order 15 be suspended in relation thereto.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I was not able to give him notice and perhaps he will accept this as notice of the question. In view of the report from Japan concerning the fall of radioactive snow following the latest thermonuclear tests in Nevada, can the minister tell the house if Canada's meteorological service is equipped to make tests to determine the level of radioactive precipitation on this country; and if so, if reports similar to that from Japan have been received from the service since the Nevada tests?
[Mr. Howe (Port Arthur).)


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: I shall accept my hon. friend's question as notice.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister or any of his department received official personal representation from the city of New Westminster in respect to building a new Queens-borough bridge in that city and, if so, what is the result of the meeting?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: I do not understand exactly what the hon. member means by "official personal representation". However, I do understand that the mayor of New Westminster is in Ottawa at the present time. I expect to see him on Thursday.



INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, of which I have given him notice. The United States bureau of labour statistics states as a fact that for the year 1954 the number of workers in industrial production decreased by 4 per cent-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David Arnold Croll: -and production increased by 5 per cent. Was a similar productivity and efficiency in industrial production reflected in the Canadian economy in the year 1954?


Hon. Millon F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I thank my hon. friend from Spadina for having given me notice of this question. The answer is that in Canada although the total number of industrial workers employed remained approximately the same during 1954, nevertheless industrial production increased by about 4 per cent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why do we have unemployment, then?



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ambrose Holowach (Edmonton East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, notice of which has

been given to him. Will the minister make a statement as to when it is expected construction will begin on the new major airport to be built in the city of Edmonton, as officially announced by the minister late last year?


Mr. Speaker:: I must say that I am not at all impressed by the type of questions that have been asked since this question period began. However, once in a while one has to be in a good mood, and since the minister seems ready to reply I will permit the hon. member to receive an answer to his question.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my hon. friend's question I can merely repeat what has been said by myself and my colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) on December 21 last, that instructions have been issued to the district officials of the Department of Transport to proceed with a detailed examination of possible airport sites in the vicinity of Edmonton and to submit recommendations in the course of 1955 as to the most suitable site with a view to an early start in construction. As no such recommendation has yet been submitted, it is not possible for me to state when it is expected construction will begin on the new airport.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege I would like to ask the Minister of Transport if he will look at the answers he gave yesterday to questions on the order paper asked by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and myself regarding the employment situation on the Canadian National Railways to determine whether or not any reconciliation is required between two figures which he cited. In answer to the hon. member for Royal the minister indicated that the total employment on the Canadian National Railways at December 1954 was 106,981. In answer to my question he indicated that the total employment on the Canadian National Railways in January 1955 was 103,434. Would the minister ascertain if it is correct that there was a drop of 3,547 in employment during that one-month period? If it is incorrect perhaps the minister would like to correct the figure. If the figure is correct, perhaps he could ascertain whether that alarming trend is still continuing.
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to comment on the remarks my hon. friend has just made. I would merely submit that in both cases the figures given represent the total employment of the Canadian National Railways at the mid-month; December 1954 in the one case and January 1955 in the other.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister any comment to make on the statement issued last Friday by the United States federal power commission that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines must quickly-and I quote from the report:
*-correct the glaring deficiencies-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot quote from the report nor can he quote from any letters, statements or documents. While I am on my feet I might ask my colleagues to look at citation No. 295 of Beau-chesne's third edition, at page 119. I think hon. members will realize when they look at this citation that it imposes serious limitations upon the type of questions which they are permitted to ask during this period. I am certain that if hon. members want to cooperate they will compare the type of questions they have been asking with this citation and will respect the limitation in framing their further questions.


Carl Olof Nickle: I will rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the United States federal power commission statement issued in Washington last Friday, does this government now intend to get together with the United' States authorities at a high level to discuss the mutually vital question of natural gas in relation to the problems of distribution and marketing?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, a statement will be made by the government at an appropriate time.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 7, 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
[Stage Direction]
Special Committee on Broadcasting 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. Balcer, Beaudry, Boisvert, Bryson, Carter, Cauchon, Decore, Diefen-baker, Dinsdale, Fleming, Gauthier (Portneuf), Gauthier (Nickel Belt), Goode, Hansell, Henry, Holowach, Kirk (Shelburne - Yarmouth - Clare), Knight, McCann, Monteith, Reinke, Richard (Ottawa East), Richardson, Robichaud, Studer, Weaver; that standing orders 64 and 65 be suspended in relation thereto.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the last occasion on which the house engaged in a debate on matters pertaining to radio broadcasting and television was on June 4, 1954, when several of the estimates then before the committee of supply afforded a rather limited opportunity for discussion of this important subject.
Her Majesty's loyal opposition welcomes not only the resolution but the opportunity which it now affords for discussion of this subject. The resolution proposes the appointment by the house of a select committee on broadcasting to consider the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to review the policies of the corporation and its regulations, revenues, expenditures and development.
We consider it most timely that the house should undertake such a study. Similar select committees have been appointed by the house from time to time. Looking back over recent years one recalls that similar select committees were appointed by the house in the sessions of 1942, 1943, 1944, 1946, 1947, 1950, the second session of 1951 and 1953. It is therefore two years since the last select committee was appointed to undertake this task. We have asked for the appointment of this committee and we welcome the proposal. So far as our contribution to the membership of that committee is concerned, we shall do all that lies within our power to make the committee effective for the purpose of inquiring into these aspects of the administration and policies of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and of the government in relation thereto.
In speaking today on this subject it is necessary to bear in mind the fact that the last annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation brings us down to March 31, 1954 and no further. In this debate we are therefore dealing with a report the most recent portion of which is at least 11 months old.
I propose today to have something to say on several subjects bearing upon policy and


administration. I begin with the important subject of the system under which control is exercised over radio broadcasting in Canada. This is not a new subject and what I have to say on the matter today is by no means new, but I put it forward today by way of reassertion of the position which the Progressive Conservative party has consistently taken.
We have in Canada today, in the field of radio broadcasting, the government-owned corporation, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, operating networks as well as stations which operate locally, and we have also 150 privately-owned and operated broadcasting stations. Over those 150 privately-owned broadcasting stations the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, under the authority of statute, exercises the widest powers of control and regulation. I am not at the moment speaking of the extent to which those powers have been exercised but I am drawing attention to the breadth of those powers and their sweeping nature.
It is also a fact outstanding in this relationship that these privately-owned stations and the publicly-owned stations are, to a large extent, competitive. They are competitive, at any rate, to the extent to which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, with its sweeping powers, permits those privately-owned stations to become competitive with the publicly-owned system. It is then a cardinal feature of this system as it now obtains that the publicly-owned system operated by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is not only engaged in the operation of radio stations and networks but is also holding the power and discharging the function of regulator of all radio broadcasting in Canada by some 150 privately-owned stations.
We think that this system is not sound. We think that too much power is placed in the hands of this one government agency. We urge again-as we have consistently urged -that we shall arrive at a much better system of administering control and regulation of broadcasting in Canada if we leave to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the important task of operating stations and networks in Canada and place in the hands of another public body the responsibility for exercising that control and regulation of all radio broadcasting in Canada which this parliament may consider necessary from time to time.
There are important precedents which ought to guide our thinking in this direction. I draw attention to the fact-and I think it can be summed up in a sentence-that today with respect to its competitors the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation can, if it so chooses,

exercise dictatorial power. It is at the same time judge and policeman over those of its competitors whom it permits to enjoy in their operations enough power to come into competition with it. We believe that competition is a good thing. It is a good thing for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as well as for others. We think that the best results will be obtained if competition is permitted and if those powers now wielded by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the field of control and regulation are transferred to another public body operating in the public interest. The public interest will in no wise suffer if those powers to which I have referred are placed in the hands of a different public body.
When two years ago the MacQuarrie committee brought in its report following an extensive review of the operations of the Combines Investigation Act, they arrived at the conclusion that it was undesirable that there should be concentrated in the one official the investigation and then the decision as to whether there should be prosecution. That committee expressed its views in this regard in these words. Speaking of the commissioner it said:
He is given the compromising appearance of being "at one and the same time prosecutor and judge".
And it continued further:
... as long as a single official is placed in the position of being required to perform incompatible functions there is room for a good deal of public misunderstanding.
For these reasons which commended themselves to the government as well as to the house, Mr. Speaker, the house adopted legislation to detach from the commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act certain functions, leaving to him the duty to investigate and conferring on another body then created, namely the restrictive trade practices commission, the duty and responsibility of review. That is a useful precedent to guide the house in this matter.
There is also, of course, the useful and outstanding precedent that we have with respect to regulation of railway transport in Canada. The board of transport commissioners has now been in existence in this country for half a century. It exercises such regulatory functions as are conferred upon it by the Railway Act alike over the publicly-owned Canadian National Railways system and the privately-owned Canadian Pacific Railway. I venture to say that hon. members of this house would view with horror any suggestion that the regulatory and controlling functions now exercised by the board of transport commissioners over the Canadian Pacific Railway should be conferred upon the Canadian 50433-115
Special Committee on Broadcasting National Railways. Yet, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the situation we have in Canada in this important field of communication in the form of radio broadcasting.
Again, the kind of system that we advocate has been introduced in Australia and is operating satisfactorily. There is a five-man board there exercising controlling and regulating functions over both the government-owned and privately-owned stations and networks. I emphasize that the system is working satisfactorily.
I ask hon. members of this house to face up to this question: Is it right or can it be sound policy that there should be vested in this corporation, which has important duties to discharge with respect to the operation of stations and networks, these extremely wide controlling and regulatory powers?
Le Matin, in its issue of June 11, 1954, drawing attention to this situation where the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation exercises dual functions, had this to say in an article headed:
(Translation):
A Threat to Freedom
With regard to private stations the C.B.C. is all at once policeman, competitor, lawyer, judge, jury and executioner.
(Text) :
Now, sir, is there any hon. member of the house who thinks that so many and conflicting and incompatible functions can be discharged by the one body? We of Her Majesty's loyal opposition consider that we would have a much better system if these regulatory powers were vested in a different public body. That was also the recommendation of a very distinguished member of the Massey commission, Dr. Arthur Surveyer, who-and one says this with the highest respect for all other members of that royal commission-was perhaps the man best qualified by technical experience to express his opinion in this respect. His recommendation, as found at page 391 of the report of the Massey commission, is as follows:
That the Canadian Broadcasting Act should be amended to provide for the creation of an independent regulatory body with authority and jurisdiction over the activities of both the privately and the publicly owned broadcasting and telecasting stations, this body to report to the Minister of Transport and to be known as the Canadian broadcasting and telecasting control board.
It is a board of that type that we have in mind and which we earnestly recommend to the house. It is unwise, sir, it is fundamentally unsound, that this corporation, which as I have said is competitor to a large and a wholesome extent with privately-owned stations, should be permitted to rule over them; and whether or not there is an attempt

Special Committee on Broadcasting to engender any form of fear the fact remains that as long as you have a system like that these privately-owned stations are necessarily living under some sense of fear because no licence is granted except on the recommendation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Now, sir, we are not alone in urging an improvement of the kind I have proposed in our system. It has been recommended indeed by important Liberal organizations in this country. The young Liberals of Canada have recommended the very type of system that I am advocating today, not once but several times. They have publicly espoused proposals that an independent body should be established to license and regulate all radio and television stations in Canada.
Under section 21, subsection 1 (c), of the Canadian Broadcasting Act the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation enjoys the power to make regulations to control the character of any and all programs broadcast by the corporation or private stations. Sir, this is just too much power to place in this one body.
The situation has greatly changed in Canada since the present system was first adopted and written into our statutes. At the time that the system was established no one, I am sure, taking part in the writing of the statute foresaw that we would have in Canada today something like 150 private stations operating and giving important and valued service to the public. We must adjust the system that was adopted more than a score of years ago to changed conditions.
This proposal has not been rejected by the committees of the house that have sat in recent years. The last committee in 1953 received proposals to this effect but did not reject them. If you will look at the report of that committee presented to the house on May 9, 1953, and found at page 653 of the Journals of the house, you will find that in the twelfth paragraph of the report the committee had this to say:
Particular reference might perhaps be made to the submission of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters in view of the fact that the committee devoted some time to a discussion of the views of the association on the subject of regulation. The committee detected a more reasonable approach to this subject than in former years in that the association appeared to concede the necessity for regulation and co-ordination of broadcasting in Canada but suggested that such functions should be carried on by a "separate regulatory body". The committee was unable to study this subject with the care which it would appear to merit in the light of the continued interest which is expressed therein and which would be necessary in view of the concept of a national system with control vested in a single body responsible to parliament, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


So far as the last committee which sat two years ago is concerned, therefore, it recognized the proposal I am now advocating as one having considerable merit justifying a more extensive inquiry and consideration than the committee of that year felt it could devote to it. It did not reject the proposal; on the contrary, it indicated that the proposal had merit.
I am not going to detain the house long in discussing the programs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I think all of us are quite happy to pay tribute in many respects to the programs that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation offers to the public. Nevertheless, sir, in recognizing that probably most of the type of programming that the corporation does is of a high order, that should not turn us aside from our duty to criticize where criticism is fair and will have salutary effects. I do not know why it is that the corporation, with all the opportunities that are open to it to conduct programs of a different type, found it necessary on the eve of Christmas to broadcast a program the effect of which is described in the following Canadian Press dispatch emanating from Winnipeg on December 24:
A C.B.C. television program Thursday night, reported to have decried the Santa Claus myth, brought tears to the eyes of some children, a Winnipeg father said today. George Stokes said in an interview he had invited eleven neighbourhood children to his home for a small Christmas party. They were watching T.V., he said, when the program, Press Conference, from Vancouver came on. Mr. Stokes said one of the three men sitting at the "discussion" table was "very haphazardly" dressed as Santa Claus. He and the other two concluded that it was time the "myth" was exposed and taken from the Christmas celebration, Mr. Stokes said. "Two of the little fellows began to cry", Mr. Stokes said. "The whole program was in very poor taste, particularly at this time". He said all the youngsters watching the program ranged from 4 to 7 years, an age when Santa Claus "means a great deal to them".
I am not going to dwell on the more lugubrious features of this report, but I wonder whether any one of us has a good word to say for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation emitting a program of that kind on Christmas eve. They have lots of other programs suitable to the season without sending out that one. It is not many years ago that we had a controversy on parliament hill over a deputy minister who undertook to explode what he regarded as a number of myths, Santa Claus being one, as well as many of the most cherished religious beliefs held by many of us, with which he was prepared to do away. I hope that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will not permit its programs to be used for similar purposes.

Then there is the question of Canadian content. I shall have something more to say on this subject shortly as applied specifically to television. I am addressing my remarks now also to sound broadcasting. It will be recalled that the minister laid emphasis on this in his statement last night. One of the guiding principles upon which the Massey commission based its report was the necessity for preserving and enlarging the Canadian content of programs. Let us recognize that the privately-owned and operated stations in Canada have done much to develop Canadian talent through the place given to such talent on their stations. Before the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or the government take more credit than is due them in this respect, I should like to quote some views attributed in the press of July 3, 1954, to the Canadian council of authors and artists. As you will see, they are far from satisfied with the extent to which the corporation is making use of Canadian talent, although the corporation is enjoying vast revenues today voted to them for that purpose and on the understanding they would be used for the development of Canadian content in their program. This is the dispatch:
The Canadian council of authors and artists expressed strong disapproval of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's program content at its annual meeting concluding in Montreal last week.
Delegates attending the conference were dismayed that during the most active production period of February through April 1954, only 14-43 per cent of the entire schedule of Toronto's CBLT station involved the services of free-lance artists represented by the council, while only 38-32 per cent of the entire schedule was made up of program material originated in Canada.
The French-speaking delegates also expressed the opinion that the Canadian content on the French outlets was "deplorably low".
On the basis of the survey, old films and imported foreign programs made up the 61-68 per cent of the schedule. Since the 15 per cent tax was declared by the C.B.C. to be for the purpose of developing a predominantly Canadian program service, the CCAA is indignant. The council suspects the danger of a similar situation in radio and hopes that the C.B.C. will originate programs with a more Canadian flavour-and more Canadian freelance artists at work in them, of course.
One of the other purposes that the Massey commission held before us was that there should be a diminution in the commercial content of all programs. It was because the corporation was at that stage dependent to a large extent upon revenues from commercial broadcasts that the commission recommended that public sources of revenue be placed at the disposal of the corporation, obviously in the hope that the commercial element in the programs offered by the corporation would be reduced. But what has been the result, sir? The result has not been a diminution in the commercial element in the 50433-1151
Special Committee on Broadcasting programs of the corporation. The corporation is deriving a much larger revenue today from commercial sources that it did when the Massey commission wrote its report. But let us be fair. Part of that increase, of course, is attributable to the fact the corporation is now engaged in the field of television. But we, as hon. members, had a right to expect there would be a substantial reduction in the commercial element of these programs, and there has not been that reduction.
In the field of talks, one immediately enters a controversial sphere. I wish to say again, as I have said on previous occasions in the select committee in other years, that the talks sponsored by the C.B.C., so far as they range over the realms of economics and politics, are in our view too much left of centre, and in the political realm those talks are much too pro-Liberal government. In this committee we shall ask for detailed statements of those who have participated in these talks and commentaries and the payments made to them. We do not propose, so far as we have the opportunity of avoiding it, to tolerate any reluctance in giving that information to the committee so the public will be able to reach a fair estimate as to whether or not those talks are properly balanced.
I shall mention one other matter before T leave the subject of programs, and it relates-to a subject that is not new. It is the subject of time given to communists. In the last-general election on the national system of the-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation free time' was given to the communists. This was done under regulations promulgated by the corporation and approved by the government. It may be that at that particular stage the corporation, in view of the number of candidates nominated for that express purpose, of course, by the communists in this country, could not deny the communists some time on the air. I believe it was the duty, and is the duty today, of the corporation and the government to amend the regulations to the extent necessary to see to it that free facilities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, maintained at public expense, are not put at the disposal of the communists to spew forth their filthy propaganda across this country. The government has neglected this issue for a long time. This subject has been before successive committees but no action has been taken. We are renewing our demand that action be taken.
Le Matin of Montreal in its issue of July 3, 1954, had this to say on the subject:
(Translation):
In 1944 the Liberals' kindness to the communist party went so far as to include an invitation to Tim Buck to participate in a series of talks under the general title "Speaking as a Canadian", whereas
1816	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting it is a well known fact that neither this gentleman nor the other Marxists are entitled to speak as Canadians.
(Text):
Others have said the same thing. This is an issue that can no longer be ignored by the government.
I shall be very brief in my comments on the changes proposed in the appropriations for the international shortwave operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as agent for the government. The estimates for the fiscal year which will commence on April 1 indicate that the appropriations for this service are to be reduced from this year's figure of $2,464,844 to a figure of $1,807,825, a reduction of 26 per cent. This will mark the first check in a steady ten-year expansion of this service, which in 1953 added Polish as the 16th language in which broadcasts are sent abroad.
The minister has indicated that no reduction is intended in the broadcasts to countries behind the iron curtain, but there will be an elimination of the present daily broadcasts to countries in western Europe, and some reduction in the broadcasts to the countries of Latin America.
We in that committee I think will wish to be very sure that the policy in this regard is closely co-ordinated with the policy being followed by the Department of External Affairs. It is evident that what the government contemplates now is that broadcasts through the international shortwave service are to be intended less for friendly countries than to be a factor in psychological cold warfare. In this respect I think we wish to know what efforts are being made to co-ordinate and to avoid duplication with other services intended for the same purposes, such as the "Voice of America," and the foreign service of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
In this regard I would like to make a specific proposal to the government, that the estimates bearing upon the international shortwave service should be referred to the select committee on broadcasting for consideration.
I now turn to the subject of television. The importance of television cannot be gainsaid by anyone. Last night the minister referred to the tremendous influence of television in this country and, to use his expression, said that it was "one of the biggest developments in the history of our country."
The Globe and Mail of Toronto of January 13 reports Mr. Dunton, chairman of the corporation, as follows:
Mr. Dunton said many Canadians who have taken the attitude that TV is not for them and will have nothing to do with it are wearing blinkers.


Television is fast becoming one of the major means by which people get their impressions, he said, and everybody should pay some attention to what is going on.
Every hon. member in this house must echo those sentiments. Television is enjoying in Canada today a veritably prodigious growth. It is a force which has implications for the home life, the social habits and the thinking of Canadians that I am sure go far beyond the estimates of any one of us in the house today.
Mention was made last night of the tremendous sale of television sets in Canada. Some more direct figures on that subject will, I think, serve more than one purpose in the light of what I propose to say later. Here is an extract from a bulletin issued by the dominion bureau of statistics on February 25:
Canadian manufacturers sold a record 623,856 television sets for $216,451,362 last year as against 366,498 for $148,753,479 in 1953. Since September 1949 sales of Canadian made TV sets have numbered 1,200,561 worth $451,332,214 at factory prices.
There you have the figures for the years 1954 and 1953, laid side by side. They show that there has been an increase of 70 per cent in the number of sets sold in 1954 over those sold in 1953. On the other hand, sir, the dominion bureau of statistics reports that for the same period there was a reduction in the number of radio receiving sets sold. This is the report:
Sales of radios by Canadian manufacturers dropped last year-
That is, 1954.
-to a post-war low of 487,237 sets worth $35,816,274 from 620,860 sets valued at $52,119,381 in 1953.
In other words, 1954 witnessed a reduction of 22 per cent as compared with 1953 in the number of radio receiving sets sold in Canada. And in the year 1954 the number of television sets outnumbered for the first time the number of radio receiving sets sold in Canada.
In the face of this tremendous expansion, and in the face of this evident widespread public interest in television, what is the policy of this government? Here we are talking about no mere regulatory policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We are talking about a policy of the government which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is required to carry out.
There was a lot of fine talk last evening about what has been accomplished. The fact remains that the development of television in Canada was delayed by deliberate government policy. For years they sterilized the development of television in Canada by a paternalistic policy.
The minister offered some figures last night, telling us that Canada is second in the area

covered by television, and second in the number of stations. Surely the minister will not compare a country like Canada with a compact country like the United Kingdom, where a small number of television stations can reach a far larger number of people in a very much smaller area. These figures are very interesting; but on analysis the comparisons in which the minister indulged last night were not very significant.
But while we are impressed by and glad to see this development in television, let us bear in mind that it is the result of a partial opening of the gates by the government, after having walled up its policies against the development of television in Canada for years.
Last night the minister found it within his generosity to pay tribute to those to whom he referred as the pioneers in the development of private telecasting stations in Canada. Well, there are a great many others who would have been quite prepared to enter this field, and to have entered it long ago if, by deliberate government policy, they had not been prevented from doing so. There were willing to be pioneers, prepared to risk their own means, but they were not Permitted to do so by the government.
And now we have still the other feature of government policies with respect to television, the policy of local monopoly. Some, no doubt-perhaps some hopeful souls-had expected that last night the minister would have made some announcement that the time had come for a change in government policy in this respect, an announcement of some departure from the rigidity and the rigours of this monopolistic policy the government has followed with respect to television in Canada. But, no, there is still no indication when the government is prepared to depart from its monopolistic policy. Sir, that policy means simply this, that the government does not intend to allow any privately-owned station to go into an area now served by one of the stations operated by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It does not matter whether they are willing to do so; it does not matter whether it is their own money they are risking; it does not matter that competition is a good thing, and would be a good thing for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
No; the government prefers to follow its general arid policy of monopoly. That policy is fraught with very grave dangers. I make no apology for quoting again in the house an extract from a speech made on May 14, 1954, by Mr. Dunton, chairman of the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Speaking on that date at Saskatoon in relation to this subject of freedom
Special Committee on Broadcasting of expression and freedom of choice-and it is of the essence of freedom that there should be freedom of choice-he said this:
But conditions have changed since the early days of the original fights for freedom of expression. Now a relatively small number of great printing presses turn out a large part of the actual reading material of most people. A few transmitting stations put out all the broadcasting heard effectively by the population of a whole region. A handful of men control the making of most moving pictures seen by millions. In effect a small number of men-publishers, broadcasters, film organization heads-can control a large part of the ideas and impressions and opinions that reach the minds of most people.
I think that if we are realistic we have to admit that an inherent danger to a genuinely free and fair interchange of ideas has developed from the concentration of so much power over means of mass communication in the hands of so few. I am very conscious of this myself because I and others of the C.B.C. belong to the few, together with controllers of publishing, film and other broadcasting organizations.
And then he says further:
There is true freedom in mass communication only if ideas which happen to appeal to lesser numbers of people have a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Then people as a whole have a chance to weigh and choose, and perhaps change their minds, for themselves. The essence of freedom lies in freedom to choose from a variety of alternatives; if there are no alternatives-in kinds of ideas and material presented-there can be no freedom of choice.
Does anyone here think, if in the field of television the source of ideas and opinions expressed is confined to one telecasting source in an area, that the people in that area are going to have that freedom of choice which is so essential to the preservation of freedom and freedom of men's minds? No matter how conscientiously the program authority in that particular station may work, it is a fact that it will be more to expect than anyone with a sound knowledge of human nature would expect, that there is going to be such a variety of ideas expressed as to afford that freedom of choice which is so valuable to us all.
Competition is a good thing for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Mr. Dunton as far back as 1946 in the committee of that year admitted that competition had had a beneficial effect on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. During the proceedings of the committee I asked him, on August 2, 1946, this question, to which he gave a frank answer, as one would expect:
Do you not think that competition as best afforded by the private stations does work to the benefit of C.B.C., and so to speak, keep C.B.C. on its toes?
A. In any reasonable measure of competition between two people a certain stimulus is given to them. That is one reason the board has advocated that a number of private stations be approved. The people have a choice of programs and the element of competition enters into it.
If competition is a good thing for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the

Special Committee on Broadcasting field of sound broadcasting, why is it not a good thing for the C.B.C. in the field of television? Why should it be government policy, as it has been for years, to permit the licensing of sound broadcasting stations in areas where they are in direct competition with C.B.C. stations and yet at the same time to deny any other stations privately-owned an opportunity of entering into competition with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in any area where it is operating a television station? Surely what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If competition was good for the C.B.C. in one case it should be good for the C.B.C. in the television field as well.
You have a pointblank contradiction here in government policy. It was brought out clearly in the 1953 committee, and at page 469 of the proceedings of that committee will be found some questions which I asked of Mr. Browne, the official of the Department of Transport who is in charge of licensing in these matters. I said to him:
You say there is no policy against licensing two or more stations in the same area?
A. There is no government policy which restricts the number of stations, of which I am aware.
Q. In other words, it is not the policy to foster a local monopoly in sound broadcasting?
A. There is no government policy, as I have said, akin to that which at the present time applies in the case of television.
It is time that the policy in television was brought into line with the policy with respect to the licensing of stations for sound broadcasting.
What I have to say in this respect about the beneficial effects of licensing private stations applies with respect to the French language as well as to the English language. Hon. members of this house were shocked on March 17, 1953, when the then minister of transport entered into the debate and said that in order to preserve the position of the French language in television it was necessary that this policy of C.B.C. monopoly in television should be preserved. How could anything be farther from the truth? French language private television stations should be licensed so that they may be brought into beneficial and effective competition with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and give the people in French-speaking areas an opportunity of having alternative sources of television.
At the very time that the minister was putting forward that proposition which was so lacking in any element of factual basis, the policy of the government was to deny an application by La Presse which was then pending for the licensing of a television station in Montreal, and to delay applications for other stations as well. Of course we


should remember that this was just before the election of 1953, and we know well that both before and during elections Liberal political morality notoriously deteriorates.
At this very time the policy in the United Kingdom, which formerly was one of monopoly in television as in sound broadcasting, has been reversed, and the new policy is to allow a number of privately-owned stations to enter the field of television.
What has been the consequence of this policy of monopoly fostered by the government? The result has been that the C.B.C. has picked off the plums of the large urban areas of Canada and has taken a dog-in-the-manger attitude that nobody else shall be permitted to enter those areas and establish stations. What has been the effect on listener interest? People in the city of Toronto have the opportunity of listening to United States programs, whether they come to them over the C.B.C. station CBLT or the stations in Buffalo. You can roam at will over the findings of listener ratings in that area from the time that CBLT, the C.B.C. television station in Toronto, came into operation right down to the present time, and you will find that initially 80 per cent and now two-thirds of the listener interest goes to the Buffalo stations.


An hon. Member:: No, no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. There has been some improvement; there has been some increase in that period in the popularity which CBLT enjoys with listeners in the Toronto area. I am speaking this afternoon not by way of condemnation of the efforts of CBLT to give interesting programs in that area, but to indicate why this policy of the government in denying an opportunity to others to have alternative sources of television programs is wrong. This is what happens when people have the opportunity. True, United States stations are available in Toronto for their selection. The government policy has denied opportunities to these people to hear other Canadian stations.
Every now and again when this question is raised the government purports to invoke the Massey commission report in support of their policy. The Massey commission report cannot be put to any such use. What the Massey commission majority report recommended in this regard, as found at page 303 of the report, is this:
That no private television broadcasting stations be licensed until the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has available national television programs and that all private stations be reauired to serve as outlets for national programs.
The government has sought to treat that as the equivalent of a recommendation that

there should be monopoly in favour of the government stations in the urban areas of Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, Winnipeg and Vancouver. However, sir, that attempt is completely exploded by a speech Mr. Massey made to the Canadian Club at Montreal on June 11, 1951, not long after the report of the royal commission was tabled in this house. This is what he said, I take it, by way of correcting the misinterpretation which had by that time been placed upon the report by the government:-
Although our report is long and involved, on only one point does there appear to be some misunderstanding. May I mention it now? My colleagues and I recommended that private television broadcasting stations be licensed only when the C.B.C. has available national programs, some of which the private stations would use. This does not mean, however, that there can be no television in. say. Vancouver, or Halifax, until the C.B.C. has completed a system of national television networks, a long and costly business. We were talking of programs. The national programs would, of course, be in the form of films or of kinescope, which for a long time to come will no doubt form a large part of the program material of television in Canada on all stations, whether private or C.B.C.. until the time when television networks in Canada are possible.
You will see from this there is nothing in the report of the Massey commission which justifies this continued policy of local monopoly.
I do not intend to comment on what the minister had to say last night concerning the establishment of television networks except to say that there was no surprise in what he had to say. His statement was accurately foreshadowed by the press report which appeared on February 25. I hope the committee will have an opportunity of inquiring fully into the proposed arrangements for the operation of television networks.
I should like to return to the subject of Canadian content in the television programs. I need not repeat what I said earlier as coming from the Canadian council of authors and artists in this regard. The reason parliament approved the establishment of the type of national system which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is operating now in television and the reason that parliament has placed at the disposal of the corporation huge sums of money in this respect was, as we were told, to maintain the Canadian nature of television broadcasting. The Massey commission report said this, at page 301:
The pressure on uncontrolled private television operators to become mere channels for American commercial material will be almost irresistible.
For that reason we were called upon to approve this national system and to make available these vast sums of money. What do we find? I have before me what I believe is a sample week taken from station CBLT
Special Committee on Broadcasting Toronto, May 30 to June 5, 1954, based upon the Elliott-Haynes survey, a very competent and reputable survey. Let us ask ourselves the question whether the purpose of providing these funds and establishing the system has been fulfilled by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation under this system approved by the government. The total number of hours covered in this week on station CBLT was 38-5. The hours of Canadian originated material were 15-5 or 40 per cent. The hours of United States originated material were 21 or 55 per cent. The hours of B.B.C. originated material were two, or 5 per cent. I have this analysis of the Canadian material. I mentioned that the total hours of Canadian originated material were 15-5. Of those hours 7-5 were devoted to news, films, remote (sport or actuality), and eight hours were devoted to live Canadian talent shows. In other words, Canadian content was to be found in 40 per cent of the time in this typical week on station CBLT and of that 40 per cent only half comprised live programs involving the use of live talent. Therefore I say the bogey that was held out that licensed private stations would be under irresistible pressure to become channels for United States programs and that the C.B.C. alone could resist that pressure has been completely exploded.
It has been shown that the C.B.C. system is permitting its programs to carry United States material for more than half the time and a relatively small portion of the programs is drawn from live Canadian talent.
As far as advertising is concerned, we know very well that in order to keep up revenues and in order to attract sponsorship for certain of these programs the C.B.C. has resorted to reduction of rates off the card rates for advertising. The taxpayer subsidizes the program.
In the city of Toronto we have witnessed the theft by the government of T.V. channels. The government will not let any private operator have any of the channels there, and they have permitted the theft of one of the channels which has now gone elsewhere. This has been done to the knowledge of all Liberal members in this house representing ridings in the city of Toronto, yet not one voice from the other side of the house has been raised in this house in protest against this theft of channels or in protest against the continued denial of licensing to private stations in that area. Apparently it is popular thinking with the hon. members opposite who come from Toronto that this policy of monopoly should be continued.
I turn now to the final subject of finances. We are witnessing today the inevitable effects of the deliberate government policy of removing from parliament the financial control

Special Committee on Broadcasting over the C.B.C. We see in the last available report of the C.B.C. that that very fortunate government agency is literally wallowing in the wealth that has come from the windfalls from tax revenues put at its disposal by the government. That kind of situation is an invitation to indulge in high expenditure and loose methods of control. It is bound to lead to inefficiency and extravagance. The government has followed a policy of spoonfeeding. It has been pumping millions of dollars into the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation much beyond the digestive capacity of that corporation. Let us look back at what happened.
In 1951 the Massey royal commission recommended that the C.B.C. should have funds voted to it by parliament rather than that it should collect the proceeds of the $2.50 nuisance tax on radio receiving sets. The government was not satisfied to propose a system of annual grants, a system which would have maintained the principle and the practice of parliamentary control. Oh, no. Too much responsibility to parliament would have been involved in any such proposal. That was not for them. So they recommended to the house-and an obedient majority in the house adopted their proposal -that for a period of five years the C.B.C. should have a grant of $6,250,000 a year. That was done. Parliament has no control over that fund. We of the official opposition recorded our emphatic opposition to that proposal because of its inherent unsoundness. We said that in each year parliament ought to deal with the needs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation after thorough review of them. Parliament is surely competent to deal with every situation on its merits; and if the C.B.C. wants to plan ahead, then surely it can trust parliament to realize and to meet its needs in that respect.
This government has a mania for removing from parliamentary control everything that it can put beyond the reach of parliament. So they went a step farther in 1953 when, in that year, one of the most crackpot ideas of all time was foisted upon a submissive majority in this house by the government. The proposal then was that instead of setting aside a fixed sum of money for the use of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or, better still, an annual grant, there should be placed rather at the disposal of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the proceeds, whatever they might be, of the revenues derived under the provisions of the Excise Tax Act from the tax on radio and television receiving sets and tubes. It was a harebrained idea from the beginning. It was the kind of idea that defeats all attempts at parliamentary control and is bound to limit all
lMr. Fleming.]

sense of responsibility to parliament on the part of a government agency.
The first proposal was that the estimated $6 million revenue available from the tax on radio receiving sets would be placed at the disposal of the corporation for development of sound broadcasting. It was estimated that there would be $6 million a year available from the tax on television receiving sets and tubes and it was proposed that that revenue would go to the corporation for the development of television. That estimate looked to be too exact or too precise and so, although that was the first proposal made by the then minister of finance in the session of 1953, before we reached the details of it the government decided that they did not want that line of division drawn; they wanted the fund mingled. So what we have is simply an omnibus provision that total revenue derived under the Excise Tax Act from the tax on radio receiving sets and television receiving sets and tubes of both kinds should be placed at the disposal of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation indiscriminately.
At the time we said that was no way in which to estimate needs and that it would be no time at all before those revenues would bear little or no relation to the actual needs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In that respect our predictions have been justified 100 per cent. Unlike the provision made in 1951 for the five-year grant, this time these provisions were placed at the disposal of the corporation in perpetuity, and, until the government introduces a specific bill in this house for that purpose, the house is powerless to interfere with the allocation of these revenues to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, regardless of whether the amount be small or whether it be, as it is today, very much larger than was originally estimated.
As compared with the estimate given to us in 1953, the revenue yielded in the fiscal year 1953-54 to the broadcasting corporation by the tax on television receiving sets and tubes was $11,703,000, practically double what was estimated in 1953. On the other hand, the revenue derived from the tax on radio receiving sets and tubes was $5 million. They were out by 16 per cent in that calculation. Now T.V. sets are being purchased at a rate where this tax is yielding the corporation currently at the rate of approximately $23 million a year. It is a mistake to follow the figures given in the book of estimates on page 10, where the estimate of revenue from this tax for the year 1955-56 is given as $18 million. It is obvious that last year's estimate of $15 million was much below the actual revenue. This estimate of $18 million for the new fiscal

year will be too low as well. As I indicated, while the sale of television sets in 1954 was 70 per cent greater than in 1953, the figures we have available for 1955 already show an increase in January of 60 per cent in the sales of television sets this year over those in January, 1954. It is therefore obvious that the C.B.C., under this omnibus provision of revenue, is going to derive a much larger figure than that given in the estimates, a larger figure even than the swollen figure of last year.
Hence we see a situation where the C.B.C. is in receipt of lush revenues beyond the control of parliament. In this respect I ask specifically that the estimates on page 10 of the book of estimates under the heading "Canadian Broadcasting Corporation" all be referred to this proposed select committee for review.
I now come to the subject of surplus. In its annual report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1954-which is the last date for which we have any report from the corporation-we find the corporation reporting that it has shown for the fiscal year 1953-54 what it calls an operating surplus of $6,500,000. An operating surplus! What a misnomer! What a fiction, Mr. Speaker! An operating surplus suggests good management, thrift and care. But what do we find here? The revenues of the corporation were $27,431,000, of which 84 per cent was derived from taxation. They spent $19.9 million. They charged up also $1 million depreciation and arrived at this so-called operating surplus of $6,500,000. What that ought to be called is the extent to which, under misleading government policies, there has been placed at the disposal of the corporation far too much money beyond parliamentary control, thereby constituting, as it inevitably does, an invitation to spend.
I hope that hon. members of this house read the press report issued by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in December at the time it made public its annual report, this annual report that shows that the corporation last year had placed at its disposal $6,500,000 more than it could possibly find ways of spending. I would ask them to note, if they will, what the corporation had to say in trying to sound blue and pessimistic in the face of that statement. Here is what they said:
"Revenues based on sales of sets, however, cannot be expected to rise much further, and will probably drop in the future," the report said. "At the same time, however, operating costs will inevitably rise steeply as the system spreads across the country and as program production develops". (Revenues for the current year are expected to just about cover expenditures.)
Special Committee on Broadcasting
Sir, that was put out at a time when the revenues were going up by leaps and bounds as sales of television sets were outrunning those of 1953 by 70 per cent, and now in 1955 are outrunning even 1954 figures by 60 per cent. It is evident that this system of putting unfixed revenues at the disposal of the corporation has just run wild.
Is it any wonder then that all through the years we are seeing a continued rise in expenditure by the corporation now outrunning anything that anybody could have foreseen a few years ago? Back in 1937 the corporation was spending less than $1 million a year. In the years through the war its expenditures rose first to $3 million and then at the close of the war to about $51 million expenditure each year. By 1949 they had reached $71 million, 1950 $8 million, 1951 $91 million, 1952 $111 million, and fop the fiscal year ended March 31, 1953, $15 million, and last year ended March 31, 1954, if you include depreciation, nearly $21 million. Yes, we are in big figures now, big money. For that reason, sir, there is more need than ever before for strict parliamentary control of these expenditures and of the funds placed at the disposal of the corporation.
At the same time the corporation has gone on in these recent years borrowing money from the government. It is the government's fault. Borrowing has been made too easy for the corporation. Over the whole period of time total loans made by the government to the corporation have aggregated $20,900,000. Repayments, and none of them are in recent years, aggregated $1,900,000. There are today outstanding indebtednesses of the corporation to the government aggregating $19 million. Of that total the amount made available by parliament by loans for television development is $15,750,000, and for sound broadcasting $3,250,000.
Even while parliament was increasing by these huge amounts the revenues placed at the disposal of the corporation the government was fostering loans to the corporation. In 1953 there was a loan of $4,750,000, in 1954 another loan of $3 million, at the very time that in that fiscal year the corporation was showing $6| million that had not been spent, over and above its actual outlays. If you take off the $1 million charged for depreciation, the corporation in the fiscal year 1953-54 had enough money available to do everything that it required to do without one cent of these two loans aggregating $7| million.
The government would not listen to us. They chose to encourage this borrowing at the very time when the corporation had all the liquid assets it needed to meet all its

Special Committee on Broadcasting outlays. At the same time there has been no encouragement given to repaying any of these loans when these so-called operating surpluses have existed. Rather, the corporation has gone on paying interest to the government actually in excess of the amount earned on the government bonds that the corporation holds and in which it has invested its surpluses of money. Apparently the policy is to get hold of all the money you can, get hold of it now, get it as far away from parliamentary control as possible and then apply the good old rule-what we have we hold.
Sir, the Auditor General had something to say also about this statement of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to which I have referred. Mr. Watson Sellar, in his report to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) dated August 5, 1954, had this to say:
Having completed the audit of the accounts of the above-noted corporation for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1954, I now report to you, in compliance with the requirements of section 87 of the Financial Administration Act the results of the examination both of the accounts, and of the financial statement forwarded herewith.
Allowance for depreciation and obsolescence.
May I remind the house here that $1 million was charged up for that purpose in the statement to which he is referring, and but for that charge this so-called operating surplus would have been $74 million instead of $6J million. I continue:
Still applicable is the comment in previous reports to the effect that the appropriateness of the accumulated allowance for depreciation and obsolescence is open to question for the reason that the rates used through the years have never been scientifically established or consistently applied.
Weaknesses having been noted in the accounts, this office wrote to the chairman of the board of governors on October 23, 1952 with supporting details and concluding with the words:	. . it is
suggested that the system be carefully reviewed, and appropriately revised and co-ordinated so that there may be no need to aualify the audit certificate in this regard". Subsequent action by the corporation not having been of a nature to remedy the situation, the manner in which the accounts were kept during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1954 was not found to be conducive to satisfactory audit.
Subject to the foregoing. I certify that, in my opinion-
Then he goes on with his certificate. The corporation in its press statement has made a comment on the report of the Auditor General, and in fairness I wish to read it. It is short. It reads:
The letter from the Auditor General on page 51 of the report mentions the "manner in which the accounts were kept". This is understood to refer to the technical system on which the accounts have been based. Since its foundation, the corporation has used a "modified cash basis" for its accounts, as do most government bodies. The


Auditor General is of the opinion that the corporation's cash system of accounting should be changed to an accrual system, as used by most companies at the present time. The C.B.C. is at present studying this suggestion. It has asked a firm of chartered accountants to advise on the practicality of carrying out a change to an accrual basis and the extra costs that would be involved.
Sir, the only comment I have to make on that is to ask this question. Why did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation wait until the fall of 1954 to undertake a study of something that had been drawn to their attention and condemned by the Auditor General away back in 1952? If this matter warranted its reference to an independent firm of auditors for their advice in 1954, why was it not so referred by the corporation when they received the Auditor General's letter back in October, 1952? This is the sort of looseness and carelessness that will inevitably arise, that is inevitably encouraged as long as huge sums of money are irresponsibly placed by the government at the disposal of the corporation.
I have this comment to make with respect to the financing policies that are being followed today by the government, and here I am speaking strictly within the realm of government policy. Last night the minister quite properly drew attention to the realm of responsibility of the government as opposed to that field within which the corporation operates. But here we are speaking about something that is strictly within the realm of government policy. That policy is dangerous and unsound. What we say is that the proper course, the only course that any parliament ought to take that is mindful of its responsibilities to the public and to the public funds, is to meet the needs of the broadcasting corporation annually by an annual grant based upon proven annual needs.
Parliament should never make grants in advance available, as in the case of the five-year program, without further reference to parliament. Parliament should not make available to the corporation or to any other government agency the proceeds of any particular tax which may fluctuate from year to year and which, as is already seen in the case of the tax on television receiving sets, has run now to figures far greater than were foreseen by anyone in the house when that legislation was passed in 1953.
The policy of the Conservative party is to retain and assert strict parliamentary control over these large public expenditures. We believe in the policy of making an annual grant after an annual review. We hold the government responsible for the sad results, the costly results, of putting lavish sums of

money at the disposal of the corporation in a manner designed to further the monopolistic policies of the government and to escape parliamentary control.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to support the motion to set up a committee to study the operations of the C.B.C., and to look into the new problems which are posed by television, as well as to examine, as we have in other years, the details in connection with radio broadcasting. The committee will study the reports of the C.B.C. itself, and I have no doubt will study also such briefs as are presented by the private broadcasting association. I may say I do not take as black a view of C.B.C. television and radio broadcasting as does my hon. friend who has just spoken. I would, at the outset, say that we of the C.C.F. generally-and the emphasis is on that word -support the policy of the C.B.C. and support the policy of the government in its operation of the C.B.C.
I may turn my attention for a moment to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I always envy the hon. member for Eglinton because of his facility with words. If my hon. friend had been a Greek runner and had been running a marathon race, he would have kept on going even if someone had pushed the finish line back five miles. He would never even notice it. I might go so far as to say that if the track were circular he might even run over the same ground without noticing it. However, that is merely by way of jest, and we must discuss this subject sensibly.
I should like to examine one or two of the arguments put forward by the hon. member before proceeding to say what I had intended to say myself. The hon. member for Eglinton made a point of the fact that the private stations are in competition with the C.B.C., or perhaps I should put it the other way about, that the C.B.C. is in competition with the private stations. I shall say a word or two about that later. He asserted also that there is too much power in the hands of this one government agency. Before going farther, I would say, too, that my friend asserted the Conservative party has been consistent in the policy which he enunciated today. I do not believe he would object if I reminded him that in Hansard for May 11, 1932, page 2826, we find this:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the constitution of a commission to be known as the Canadian radio broadcasting commission, for the purpose of acquiring, operating, regulating and controlling radio broadcasting in Canada.
1823
Special Committee on Broadcasting
My hon. friend, of course, has heard that quotation before, because it is a resolution that was introduced by his own party's government.
The hon. member has suggested that we should have another regulatory body, a body which would have control not only over the operations of the private stations but over the C.B.C. itself. My friend did not say who was likely to be appointed to that body, by whom the body should be appointed, nor did he say, as I had hoped he would because I would have been interested, why he thought such a controlling body would be better or more efficient than the body we now have. I feel the hon. member is wrong in assuming a basis of equality when he asserts the C.B.C. is simply a competitor of the private stations. I deny that. So far as I can see, the only justifiable reason one could advance for the appointment of such board as he suggests would be that the C.B.C. now is being unjust to these private stations which my hon. friend asserts are its competitors. I do not believe that the C.B.C. is, as my hon. friend has said, une menace a la liberte. I do not believe the freedom of the individual is interfered with very much because of the fact we have a publicly-controlled corporation in charge of radio and television. On the other hand, I think such an organization protects the liberty of the individual, particularly in regard to freedom of speech, as I shall attempt to show later in these remarks.
I sometimes wonder if my hon. friend-* I have no means of knowing-is perhaps not more interested in the private enterprise interests in radio and television than he is concerned with the freedom of the individual, or indeed with the public good. I make no such charge. I merely put forward the query. My friend then proceeded to find some objection to a particular program. I shall not discuss that because I feel that is precisely the reason this committee is being established, so we may look into these individual grievances and complaints. May I say that I have some of them to offer myself. I suppose most of us will be asking critical questions, and all of us I am sure are anxious that the C.B.C. should be efficient and should be performing those functions for which it was created.
My hon. friend made a good deal of the point that too small a percentage of our television programs are of Canadian content. At this particular stage, with a young organization or at least an organization which is now involved in something new, I doubt if that is a fair criticism. It is hardly fair to expect that overnight, or in the course of a year or

Special Committee on Broadcasting two, the C.B.C. should have developed a series of Canadian programs with which it could fill its whole time upon the air. Such is the demand for television today, one would naturally expect that the C.B.C. would he forced to use, in addition to its own programs, such good programs as it could obtain elsewhere. May I say that I, personally, have a good deal of confidence in the judgment of the board of governors of the C.B.C. and of the president of that board, perhaps a good deal more confidence than I would have in certain other people who would like to foe directing the television and radio stations in this country.
I, of course, am completely in agreement with my hon. friend when he states he would like to see more programs of Canadian origin. I do not believe anyone will disagree with that. My hon. friend makes a great point of certain quotations that he gave us, and I suppose many which he did not give us, from the Massey commission report. If one examines the recommendations of the Massey commission as a whole, I believe he will find they are fairly consistently in favour of control of radio and television by the corporation.
There is one point on which I must violently disagree with my hon. friend, and that is when he criticizes the selection of certain talks or programs by the C.B.C. as being too much to the left, or too much in some other direction. I am in favour of freedom of speech; I am in favour of freedom of the intellect; I am in favour of intellectual integrity; I am in favour of hearing all sides of any question. And it is precisely because I am in favour of such things that I favour the existence of a regulatory body such as the C.B.C., responsible to parliament, responsible to the representatives of the people of Canada, who are in a position to insist and to see to it that all sides of any question are placed upon the air.
I hesitate to refer to my hon friend's assertion about the communist party. I have as little use for the communist party as he has; but I am suggesting that when any political party is not given the opportunity to make its beliefs known, then by that very method we are adopting the procedure they would follow if they were in power.
I do not believe, as some of my hon. friends in other parts of, the house believe, that there is at this moment in Canada any considerable communist menace. But I am going to suggest that if hon. members want to create one, or to drive the one we now have underground, this is precisely the very best way to do it.


Those are some of the arguments advanced by the hon. member, and on the spur of the moment I have answered them as best I can. I should like for a moment now to deal with the fact that undoubtedly we will be receiving again a brief from private broadcasters in Canada, in which they will advance their usual assertion that they are cramped, cabined, cribbed and confined by the actions of the regulatory body, the C.B.C.
I think it is perfectly proper that the private broadcasters should be heard, and if they have a case it should be considered carefully. But I do suggest that in my opinion their grievance in the past has always been based upon a wrong assumption, the assumption that, under the law, broadcasting is an industry. So far as I am concerned, broadcasting is not an industry. It is a public service which should be directed and controlled in the public interest by a public body responsible to the people. And the best body I know to do that is parliament.
Apparently that was the way Mr. Bennett wanted it, if the quotation to which I have referred means what it says. It was laid down in the act and, so far as I am concerned, that is the way it should be. I would say that the C.B.C. is not merely a competitor of the private broadcasting stations. It is not merely a commercial rival, as they would like to have people believe. And the C.B.C. must not be reduced to that level in public opinion.
I suggest that my hon. friend's demand for an independent regulatory authority is merely the thin edge of the wedge which would have the effect of prying the C.B.C. loose from the control it now exercises, thus reducing it to the status of a mere competitor; and indeed it might destroy it.
I am not suggesting to the hon. member for Eglinton that the purpose of the Conservative party is to destroy the C.B.C.; but I am suggesting that, if put into effect, the policy he proposes might in fact have that result. I have seen television in several parts of the world; I have seen it in Great Britain, and I like the British system. Of course the system in Great Britain has been established for a long time, and they have had the time to develop those things which we in Canada are only beginning to create. I do believe however that their programming, speaking generally, is superior to ours; and it is manifestly and tremendously superior to that of the United States. When I say that I am speaking in general terms because, of course, some of the finest programs I have ever seen have been put on by American stations.

Special Committee on Broadcasting
In Great Britain they started out with a public system such as we have here. I know my friends to my right will be quick to tell me that there has been some change in that regard, and that private stations are going to take over to some extent. Well, one might expect that with a Conservative government in power.
I see, however, that already the government in the United Kingdom is worried about the regulations which they feel will have to be placed upon the private stations. Only the other day I read a dispatch that said Mr. Churchill was worried about the fact that stations might use their new-found freedom to discuss, for instance, matters about to come up in the House of Commons, or perhaps even matters that had reached the order paper at Westminster. So it would seem that even Mr. Churchill thinks there is need for some regulation, in the public interest.
I do not want anyone to think, sir, that because I say these things I do not believe that private stations have a function to perform. On the contrary, I think they have a very useful function to perform, and that some of them are performing that function very well indeed. It is clear however that some are doing it much better than others.
One of my chief interests in radio and television is their cultural and educational influence. I was glad the minister said last night in his speech that we have the responsibility for what television does to our Canadian homes. I would translate that statement, in terms of education, and say that the cultural and educational influence the radio has upon the minds of our people is our business. And of course television has a much greater influence, I should imagine, than has radio broadcasting, because people spend more time looking at television than listening to the radio.
I believe that having a broadcasting corporation in control of radio broadcasting from coast to coast promotes national unity. I believe it is a good thing for the country to have a corporation of that kind. Perhaps the minister had that in mind when he said in his opening speech that television should join Canadians together in better understanding.
It will be our business in the committee to see that these fine aspirations as expressed by the minister are carried out. I believe the fact that we have an institution like the C.B.C. helps to keep us distinctly Canadian-and that is one of the great arguments that can be used.
I have had some experience in the field of education, and I am well aware of the flood
of foreign-American, if you like-literature, motion pictures, comic strips, radio and television broadcasts that are bombarding us continually from the south side of the international boundary. I have nothing against our fine American neighbours, but we do not need to imitate them in every way in order to respect them. Surely it should be our objective to retain some of our own individuality, something of distinctiveness in our Canadian culture, whether it arises from our English-speaking or our French-speaking background.
I suggest that simply to throw our broadcasting into the hands of commercial interests -because that is what we would be doing if we abandoned the whole philosophy of the C.B.C. idea-would leave no doubt as to where our programs would be coming from. They are all ready for us there, packed up in a box as it were, with soapsuds at one end and culture at the other. We would simply import them here; and because no private interest could afford to create Canadian programs for the sake of creating Canadian programs we would be bound by necessity to commercialism and vulgar commercialism in most cases.
It has been difficult to keep out these United States influences which I assert are harmful in some respects, this because of the greater wealth and influence of our neighbours to the south. As I say, this influence is exerted by newspapers and magazines, but if we could counteract it somehow by the use of Canadian programs then I think we would be doing a good piece of work. We need programs which are inspired not by money or commercial interests but simply by the desire to promote the education and culture of our own country.
There is another thing I want to mention, something about which I have spoken before, and that is freedom of speech. Considering the time I have available I shall not repeat the things I have said before. I am sure my hon. friends to my right are quite sincere, but on other occasions in the radio committee they have objected to certain programs. I am thinking of one scientific program to which they objected. I look upon that as being the same as a program by any political party or any minority group. I believe in hearing all sides of a question. We want to hear every side and have the freedom to form our own opinions. It is a poor cause that cannot stand on its own feet. It is a poor cause which has to be kept in the dark for fear somebody might examine it. Let us bring the thing out in the open. If there is anything good in it, let us have it; if it is bad in our opinion, let us reject it. But let us hear it. I do not care
1826	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting whether it is a certain scientific program or whether it is the opinions of some crazy political party, let us hear them all.
My hon. friend said we should suppress the opinions of a certain political party and not permit them to speak over the radio. I am going to ask him to consider this. If, and God forbid, the communist party ever gained power by the ballot, what chance does he think the Conservative party would have of getting free time on the air over the C.B.C.? I am afraid my hon. friend is following the exact line which he deplores in others. If he will think the matter through I believe he will realize that I am right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does my hon. friend suggest that the communists in this country, the labour progressive party so-called, should have free time on a national network?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: As long as any political party comes within the regulations as set down by law, then I say that party has a right to be heard. If we change the law-and it will be over my dead body that we abandon the principle of free speech-that is another matter. But I am submitting that as the matter now stands and as, thank God, we have freedom in this country, we should try to keep it. That is the best answer I can make at the moment.
I think even those radio programs that we get now have too much commercialism in them. In other words, these corporations or these people who want to sell soap-they first sell us the filth and then they sell us the soap-should not be dictating to us what type of program we are going to listen to. That is why I am glad there is still in this country a body which is to a degree independent of soap, such as the C.B.C.


Mr. Marlin:: May I ask my hon. friend which body in this country is independent of soap?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: My hon. friend reminds me of an advertisement which appeared in Punch. I recommend this to the Minister of National Health and Welfare for use in his clean-up campaign. This showed an old whiskered tramp who was saying, "Last year I used Pears' soap and since then I have used no other". I do not know whether my hon. friend would put me in that category.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Who airs the soap operas in Canada?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Am I also not allowed to criticize the C.B.C.? I am ready to criticize any program which contains too much commercialism. Of course the C.B.C. will say they have to get the financial wherewithal.
IMr. Knight.]

I am hoping that under the new set-up-I am appealing to the C.B.C. on that basis-we will not be victimized so much by having these commercial programs, that we will have more of these sustaining programs, if that is the right term.
I prefer to have the choice of programs in the hands of a body such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is under the control of this parliament, rather than in the hands of commercial interests whose sole motive, or at least whose main motive, is that of profit.
These are some of the reasons I support C.B.C. policy, and why I support this government in this particular operation. I cannot be accused of doing this too often, and it is perhaps a refreshing change for me to be able to rise and not be opposing the government. May I say that I get much more satisfaction from being a member of the opposition. My hon. friend opposite who is sitting waiting to make a smart remark will probably tell me that I shall have that experience for some time. However, I have anticipated him.
I emphasize again that whoever is to control television in this country must be responsible to this House of Commons, as far as I am concerned. We now have a system of public control with the regulation of private stations. We do not want to have a repetition of what has happened in radio and television in the United States, where the programming is largely in the hands of the advertisers and is controlled by them.
I could take time to speak about the development of Canadian talent. I feel certain that under the present arrangement a good many more people will be trained to sing, act and perform in other ways. These are the kind of things people like to hear on the air and see on the screen. More people would be trained in this way than under another system.
The private stations, of course, have been increasing their power. I think possibly there should be some criticism of the C.B.C. in the committee due to the fact that the private stations have perhaps been allowed to increase their power too much. I would remind you, sir, that the increased power and wealth and the increased operation which they are enjoying have come about by an act of grace and not by any right. One only has to study the Radio Act to discover that this is true. I do not propose to argue the point because I do not know enough about the technical aspects of it, but they have been allowed to increase their wave lengths and have been given more power than they had before. I would repeat that

they "have these privileges by an act of grace and not by any right given to them under the Radio Act.
I believe my opening words were to the effect that I have lent general support to the C.B.C. and to the government in respect of its operations. But I suggest there should be no smugness on the part of the minister, the government or the C.B.C. itself. We shall be watching in that committee for any tendencies, as I suggested, to deviate from the path of public control. We shall ask, I hope, critical questions. We shall endeavour to insist upon efficiency in operation in return for support from public funds. We shall hope the operations will be carried out in accordance with the policies laid down by the minister in his speech, parts of which I have already quoted.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: I was rather hoping that the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) would continue to speak and consume a little more of the time left before adjournment so I would not have to start on the quarter hour.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Generosity.


Ernest George Hansell: I would like to be able to finish my speech by five o'clock, and I do not like to ask permission to adjourn the debate. Would you care to call it five o'clock, or shall I proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Proceed.


Ernest George Hansell: I am glad that once again we have an opportunity of carrying on this debate concerning Canada's radio policy. We are happy that a special committee on radio broadcasting is to be set up at this session.
I have listened to the previous speakers with great interest. I listened to the Minister of National Revenue who is sort of a liaison officer between the crown corporation, the C.B.C., and the government, but I do not think I gained anything that was particularly new from his remarks except' that he did bring us up to date on the achievements of the C.B.C. in respect to television.
I listened to the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) who made, I think, a critical but good analysis of the present radio situation in Canada with respect to the C.B.C. I also listened with interest to the hon. member who preceded me, the hon. member for Saskatoon. I always enjoy his speeches, but I must say that he has followed the same line the socialist party of Canada has followed for a good many years in respect to radio policies. It is quite obvious that he is a great supporter of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the policy it follows today. He follows in the footsteps of his leader and of
8,	1955
Special Committee on Broadcasting those in the C.C.F. party who have spoken at any time concerning this matter. They all follow the same line.
I have criticized the C.B.C. in the past and have felt that it has had socialist leanings in regard to its policies generally. I have said that before and I say it again. The fact that our C.C.F. friends to a man lean over backward in supporting the C.B.C. is a dead giveaway. As a matter of fact, the minister listens and appears to me to sit back with a good deal of satisfaction as the C.C.F. appear to be throwing the Liberal spitballs. When asked a question, my hon. friend from Saskatoon rose and with great gusto asked if he did not have the right to criticize the C.B.C. Of course he had that right, but what was his criticism? The only thing he criticized were the soap operas. Well, I do not think the soap operas are as bad as all that. I do not listen to them very often, I must confess, but my wife does and I believe a lot of old women do, but even if they do-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You had better straighten that out in a hurry.


Mr. Pearkes:: What a brave man you are.


Ernest George Hansell: I was not referring to my wife.


George Randolph Pearkes: Now you are trying to hedge.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whose wife were you referring to?	[DOT]


Ernest George Hansell: I am very proud of my wife. She is a very charming lady.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: So are we.


Ernest George Hansell: I like to see her sit back with a good deal of satisfaction and listen to the soap operas. What is wrong with the soap operas? Is there anything particularly wrong with them? I do not listen to them. I think they are a lot of nonsense. They play on the heartstrings and contain a lot of sob stuff and revolve around the eternal triangle and that sort of thing. Seldom, however, do you find excessive drinking scenes in the soap operas. Seldom do you find bloodthirsty murders taking place in the soap operas. I do not think they are such terrible things after all. If that is all hon. members find to criticize I do not think the criticism is particularly well founded. I suggest that if the soap operas carried the same commercials but consisted of cleverly designed plays slanted toward the left, the hon. members would be praising them as among the greatest programs on the radio; yes, sir.
I should like to speak along a slightly different line this time. I shall perhaps be a bit philosophical in my speech this afternoon and this evening. As a basic question I

Special Committee on Broadcasting should like to ask what is the purpose of radio and television? I wonder whether we have ever faced up to that question and answered it. I think the purpose could be broken down into three divisions. I am going to mention three anyway, for the purpose of analysis. I am not mentioning them necessarily in the order of their importance. One of the purposes of radio and television is to entertain. Another purpose is to impart information and factual knowledge. If you like you can turn that phraseology around and say "factual information and knowledge". Another purpose is to guide and to encourage cultural activities. When you have said that I think you have just about answered the question as to the purpose of broadcasting.
Of course it costs money to broadcast, and naturally it may be a lucrative field. That depends on where the station may be located, the scope of the radio advertising that can be handled and all that sort of thing; but it cannot be done for nothing. I suppose it might be said that some people are in the business of broadcasting because it is a profitable business. But the actual answer to the real purpose of broadcasting-and I think this should be the policy of the C.B.C.-is to entertain, to impart factual information, understanding and knowledge and to guide and encourage cultural activities.
Let me analyse those three purposes for a moment, Mr. Speaker; and may I say that I am only giving you my own philosophical reasoning on the matter. First of all, suppose the purpose is to entertain. In that respect might I say that I believe television is gradually superseding radio broadcasting. That fact may not be too obvious at the present time but I believe that, apart from music that is tuned to the ear, there is perhaps no greater medium of entertainment than either live stage entertainment or that which may be observed over television. Television is a powerful medium. It is perhaps the most powerful medium devised by man for advertising and entertaining.
Right here might I say that this is where the local stations are so important. They are important because all people do not necessarily enjoy the same type of entertainment. I think we should do our best to localize entertainment, and to give the people the type of entertainment they want in their various localities. That does not, of course, do away with network radio broadcasting and television, because there are some types of programs that are enjoyed by everyone. But I believe we do a great service to this country if we pay special attention to broadcasting and television over local stations for the particular enjoyment and entertainment


of local audiences. There are differences in communities. Some communities are perhaps composed predominantly of certain ethnic groups. We do not all enjoy the same thing. We do not all look upon entertainment in the same light or give equal value to all types of entertainment. I therefore say we must pay special attention to the value of the entertainment angle of broadcasting and television on the local level.
In the second place, I stated that I thought one of the purposes of broadcasting was to impart factual information and knowledge. This is a subject upon which I have very definite convictions. Of course nobody knows everything and nobody has all the information. That is why we must analyse as accurately as possible just what we might mean by freedom of expression. I have listened to a good many talks that have been given on the networks of the C.B.C. over the years. I think we can conclude without any argument that opinions are not necessarily facts, but very often opinions can be so stated that they appear to be facts.
I note that Mr. Speaker is looking at the clock, and I might as well break off here as anywhere. I would therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call it five o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Hansell the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Winch:: Mr. Speaker, do I understand
that we are to convene here at 5.30?


Mr. Speaker:: At 5.30 the bells will ring
to indicate to hon. members the beginning of the special ceremony that has been announced. At eight o'clock the bells will ring again for the second sitting of today. Perhaps I might add that the purpose of the motion that was passed earlier today is this. Unless we arranged for two sittings today the mace could not be carried out of the house. We cannot have the mace here while the ceremonies are taking place from 5.30 on. The mace will now be taken out. It will be brought back at eight o'clock. There will be a parade at eight o'clock, just as there was at 2.30.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will there be orders of the
day?


Mr. Speaker:: The motion that was agreed to earlier made provision for the order of business which is to be followed from eight o'clock on.


[Stage Direction]
At five o'clock the house adjourned, pursuant to the motion adopted earlier this day.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 8, 1955


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if I may have leave of the house to revert to motions I should like to move, seconded by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham):
That the remarks of the several speakers, delivered this day In the chamber of the House of Commons on the occasion of the acceptance and unveiling of a bronze bust of the late Miss Agnes Campbell Macphail, first woman member of parliament, be included in the House of Commons Debates as an appendix and thus form part of the records of this parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister leave at this time to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(For text above referred to, see appendix, pages 1845-48.)


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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. Balcer, Beaudry, Boisvert, Bryson, Carter, Cauchon, Decore, Diefenbaker, Dinsdale, Fleming, Gauthier (Portneuf), Gauthier (Nickel Belt), Goode, Hansell, Henry, Holowach, Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth - Clare), Knight, McCann, Monteith, Reinke, Richard (Ottawa East), Richardson, Robichaud, Studer, Weaver; that standing orders 64 and 65 be suspended in relation thereto.
Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner adjournment I was dealing with a question which I asked at the very commencement of my remarks and then attempted to answer in a somewhat philosophical fashion. The question I asked was, what is the purpose of broadcasting? I stated that I thought the
question could be answered in three ways. The first purpose of broadcasting is to entertain, the second purpose is to impart factual information and knowledge, and the third purpose is the encouragement of cultural activity.
At the moment of adjournment I was dealing with the second purpose, the imparting of factual information and knowledge.
I stated that this is a subject upon which I have very definite convictions. I followed that by stating that usually the commentaries and talks that come over the radio-and I must say it appears to me that most of them come over the networks in Canada under the supervision of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-are, after all, opinions, and that opinions are not necessarily facts. I want to make that clear. But when these opinions are expressed over the air they do have all the colour of facts, and as people listen they absorb them and take them to be facts.
I should like to call attention to three examples. I have no particular speaker or speech in mind. Suppose, for instance, the C.B.C. should ask someone to speak on the root cause of unemployment. We may listen to this gentleman. He may be a scholar, he may be from a university, he may be a man holding some high executive post or he may be a big labour man, but when he speaks on the root cause of unemployment he is only expressing his opinion. Who is to say whether or not he is right? Who is to say whether or not it is factual? Yet the listening audience accepts what he says as factual.
Take the matter of international affairs. Commentators and speakers have spoken on the Far Eastern situation. Suppose a speaker should attempt to analyse the Formosan situation. Suppose he should go back into history and try to analyse the reasons for the communist revolution in China, trace the history of Chiang Kai-shek and so forth. That is opinion. It does not follow necessarily that it is factual. Yet those who are listening may easily absorb these opinions as though they were facts.
I have a pretty good illustration of that right here. The other day most of us received a letter from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) who was very greatly put out because something from Dr. James G. Endicott had been circularized to members of parliament, the title being
1830	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting "Canadian Far Eastern News Letter". The Secretary of State for External Affairs was put out, and rightly so, and I want to thank him for the letter. But what did he say? He said that it was a vicious and grotesque misrepresentation of the true situation in Indo-China and simply unadulterated communist propaganda.
I use that as an illustration. As I say, I thank the minister for it. I was glad to get the letter, but I wonder what prompted the minister to send it. Does the minister think for one moment that members of parliament are so gullible as to swallow anything published by Dr. Endicott? Maybe some are. Personally I am not, because I know the source from which it comes. But I am not going to accuse Dr. Endicott of being dishonest. I am not going to accuse him of writing something he did not believe.
That is just an illustration. It did not come over the air, but it greatly agitated the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It could have come over the air. If it had come over the air I am quite certain that the minister or one of his colleagues would have begged for time on the C.B.C. to correct what had been said. However, if Dr. Endicott had spoken in that fashion over the air we could take it for what it was worth and most people would say, "Oh, well, he is a communist; he follows the communist line". But there is a bigger danger than Dr. Endicott on the air. The bigger danger arises because men take to the air whose opinions are half truths, and half truths are worse than lies. Men who are lauded to the skies as great commentators, as great authorities give talks to which no answer is given. If an answer is given it is in a very modified fashion.
So far as I am concerned personally-I cannot talk for my group on this matter-I believe this country would be better off if there were no talks department in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Any talks that come over the air are propaganda talks. The very nature of talk makes that so. For what purpose does one talk over the air? It is to tell something to the people. For what purpose does one tell the people something? It is to inform them or persuade them. There is no other purpose. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the danger I see.
I come now to this matter of factual information and knowledge. We believe in freedom of expression. I am saying to you that if all expression has to be channelled through half a dozen men in the talks department of the C.B.C., with a pint of brains each, before it can go on the air, that is not what I call freedom of expression. If our free way of life means anything it means only one
[Mr. Hansell.l

thing, and that is the freedom of the individual. I know quite well that 15 million Canadian people cannot talk over the air, but we accentuate the problem when there is only one channel of national broadcasting and people have to sit on the sidelines and wait upon the C.B.C.'s pleasure to call upon them to speak. You can count on your fingers and toes those upon whom they call to speak. I say, Mr. Speaker, that we have not reached what is known as individual freedom unless every individual in the country has the right to express himself if he wishes to do so.
Once again I come to the value of the local broadcasting station. We have got into the habit of thinking everything must be done in a sort of mass way. I have heard the phrase used, mass thinking. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as mass thinking. You, Mr. Speaker, are thinking right now, but you are thinking with your own mind and not anyone else's. The minister who sponsors this resolution is thinking with his own mind. He is mighty glad he is not thinking with mine.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: When I think with my own mind, I am not thinking with his, thank God.


Mr. McCann:: Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: There is no such thing as mass thinking. It is individual thinking. There is no such thing as mass freedom. It is individual freedom. In that way we exalt the dignity of the individual, for it is the individual who is man indeed. My friend of the C.C.F. who preceded me said they thought that both sides of every question should be discussed, and intimated that we did not believe that. Of course we believe it, but the trouble is only one side of the question is put forward and the other side is left unspoken.
I enjoy listening to some of these things. I enjoy listening to that program "Press Conference", especially when my leader is the one being questioned because he has the ability to handle himself and others. As I have heard this "Press Conference" I have often thought that if we wanted to hear both sides of the question we should reverse the order on every other broadcast, and instead of having half a dozen newspapermen question one leader we should have six members of parliament question one newspaperman to see what he knows about the problem. These men report the doings of this house-


Stanley Howard Knowles: With whom would you start?


Ernest George Hansell: -and they write articles that are printed on the editorial pages and in magazines, as though those articles were

factual. Why should they not be on the receiving end of the questions occasionally? I should like to see that happen. I do not know whether we would get any truth, but I tell you we would have a lot of fun.
It might be said there are some subjects that are unpopular. Perhaps when giving out information, putting on talks and so forth, it might be said that we should deal with those things that are popular. Well, that might sound nice, but let me say this. All through the ages that which was unpopular was never received. Truth is never popular. The new which is displacing the old is never popular. In this old world righteousness is never popular. Now, Mr. Speaker, I leave those observations with you, and I say I have convictions along those lines.
The third purpose for radio broadcasting and television is the encouragement of cultural activity. Let us not fall overboard, or lean backward on something until we fall over. According to my philosophical thinking culture cannot be produced by any broadcasting company or any broadcasting station. So far as culture is concerned, that is something which is developed over a long, long period of time. By its very nature it is a matter of breeding. There was a lot of culture before we ever had radio. Culture cannot be stereotyped. There are different peoples in this world, all having different types of culture. Culture can only live, thrive and grow in an atmosphere of perfect individual freedom, when the whole personality has an opportunity of expressing itself. It might be in literature; it might be in art; it might be in music, but it is only when the individual personality has an opportunity of expressing itself that we come anywhere near attaining culture.
The Russians attempt to stereotype culture. My hon. friend from Edmonton East (Mr. Holowach) and I were in Montreal the other day, and we went to an exhibition of the works of Matisse. I am somewhat interested in painting, having taken some courses in art in my time, and I must say I enjoyed the exhibition of the works of Matisse. However, we went into another room where there were works that had nothing to do with Matisse. This was a room filled with modern painting-painted by surrealists, I believe they are called. It was a lot of dab-dab stuff, where they put a few lines here and a lot of paint there, and if you look at it long enough you think you see a woman's hand up here, and her foot sticking out somewhere else. I can never see any sense in it.
Finally we came to a picture which was nothing but a lot of daubs of paint. My hon. friend from Edmonton East turned to a lady
Special Committee on Broadcasting standing beside him and, in a jocular fashion -probably she did not know he was joking- he said, "What is that picture?" The lady looked at him and said, "Search me; it looks like a patchwork quilt to me." Another lady said, "I think it is there to express colour." You know, they will not permit that in Russia; no, they will not permit it. And why? Because they say it is degenerate. I do not know why they think it is degenerate; to me it is humorous.
I would not say for one moment that we should cramp an individual's style. If any individual thinks he is an artist, gets a tube of paint and-squish-squirts it on a board,- blobs it all over and then says, "That's modern art"-well, in a free society he should have the right to do it. And if he can get enough people around him to enjoy that type of art, I wish him good luck. He should be able to do it in a free society, if that is the expression of his personality.
I see I have only about five minutes left, and I shall close in that time. Before taking my seat, however, I would reiterate once more what we have said many times in the house and in the radio committee, that the C.B.C. should be placed upon a completely competitive basis, a basis on which it would be competitive with private stations. Let it prove itself; let it administer its affairs just the same as any other radio company, in competition with its competitors. It does not do that today, because it has control of its competitors.
I believe a second network should be operated by independent stations, and that the C.B.C. should be subsidized only to the extent of its services in Canada at points where no other service is given, and where it can be shown that such service is given for the encouragement of the cultural arts. I believe, too, that all regulatory authority should be stripped from the C.B.C. and placed in the hands of a separate regulatory body, or else the regulations should be written into the law.
As reported at page 1803 of Hansard the minister said last night:
Because of the nature of broadcasting the C.B.C. has been placed by statute in a position in which it is not responsible to a minister of the crown in carrying out its activities. It is answerable to parliament itself.
That may be all very well, but the only time parliament has to deal with it is when the special committee is set up; and we know that those committees are weighted with a preponderance of Liberal members. I am not criticizing that, because it follows from the nature of our parliamentary operation. But I will say that, sitting in those committees, one would think the Liberal majority were
1832	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting there to fight for the life of the government. The only conclusion I can reach is that government policy, and the policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in respect of radio, are one and the same thing. If the corporation is answerable to parliament then let us have the committee stripped absolutely of any political considerations, and face the facts of a radio policy which we believe to be right.
In past years I have enjoyed my work on the committee, and hope I shall do so again. In times past I have opposed vigorously the radio policy of the C.B.C., but I must say that I have always been treated with the utmost courtesy by the officials of that organization. I believe they are gentlemen of honour who are operating a wrong policy. We from this group enter upon our work in the committee with a determination to examine carefully and to propose that which we believe is in the best interests of the Canadian people and in conformity with our free way of life.


Mr. A. H. Hollingworih (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to my hon. friend the painter from Macleod (Mr. Hansell) I feel humble in expressing my views in this radio debate. However, in the few moments at my disposal this evening I should like to make some comment on what was said this afternoon by the hon. member for Eglinton.
As I listened to what, on the whole, was an admittedly able, if somewhat blustering, speech by the hon. member, I could not help noticing the rivulets of reaction continually seeping through into his main stream of thought. We heard the C.B.C. described as judge and policeman. By the end of the hon. member's speech, following his violent attack on the government, I felt he would have me believe that the C.B.C. was a hanging judge, sentencing to death the liberties of the Canadian people. The words "dictator" and "regulator" were tossed about with abandon; and we heard, too, the suggestion that in the operation of the C.B.C. there is no adherence to the good old principle of competition.
But, Mr. Speaker, is it not ridiculous to say there is no competition with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation system? The hon. member himself pointed out that we have at least 150 radio stations, and the minister said last night that in a period of two and one-half years we have established 25 television stations of which only seven are operated by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Mr. Speaker, there is fundamental disagreement between the views of the hon. member for Eglinton and those I hold on this question. Two points should be kept in mind when discussing Canadian radio and television. First there is the public interest, which transcends private rights and which means of necessity that broadcasting and television must primarily be run in the interests of the Canadian people, and not primarily by private interests for profit.
Second, the geographical make-up of Canada and the fact that this is a bilingual country, in fact a country of many languages, also dictates the set-up we have today. My hon. friend may protest that he is willing to recognize the primacy of public interest, but a careful listening to his speech this afternoon convinced me that he would like to scrap the present set-up and turn over Canadian radio to the soap operas and the advertising jingles of the commercial hucksters.
I should like to comment briefly upon the hon. member's views on C.B.C. talks. I was particularly interested in his reference to the fact that most speakers favoured the government or represented views left of centre. Personally I have found that talks over the C.B.C. on international affairs are of an extremely high calibre. Consider, for example, a program like "Capital Report" which we hear every Sunday afternoon. Let us consider for a minute some of the speakers such as James McConachie of Time magazine, who speaks from Washington. Anyone associated with Time magazine could not be accused of having views which are anything but centre or right of centre.
Then again when we come to Canada we hear commentators such as Anne Francis, an independent commentator, and Mr. Blakely of the Montreal Gazette, which generally does not favour the government. Then we have commentators like Norman Campbell of the Toronto Telegram. None of these speakers are favourable to the government, nor do they have views left of centre.
Then my hon. friend referred to "Press Conference" on December 24. I wonder what children would be doing listening to "Press Conference". I must conclude that the hon. member for Eglinton shares the right wing view of abhorrence of freedom of discussion. He is ready to defend any shibboleth, to extol the orthodox, but to be careful of free and intelligent discussion. I think the best example of this line of thinking can be found in "Call to Greatness" by Adlai E. Stevenson, and I commend this magnificent series of

lectures to the attention of hon. members. At page 100 Mr. Stevenson has this to say: Unreason and anti-intellectualism abominate thought. Thinking implies disagreement; and disagreement implies nonconformity; and nonconformity implies heresy; and heresy implies disloyalty-so, obviously, thinking must be stopped.
Next the hon. member expressed his views on the fact that there is not enough Canadian talent. I agree with him wholeheartedly, but is it not true that the C.B.C. has proved-


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a question of privilege, I did not say there was not enough Canadian talent; I said that there was not enough Canadian content in C.B.C. prpgrams. There is a lot of Canadian talent if C.B.C. would use it.


Allan Henry Hollingworth: I should have added "on the C.B.C.", as the hon. member has stated. As I was saying when the hon. member interrupted me, is it not true that the C.B.C. has proved to be the best vehicle for a nascent and now vigorous Canadianism, both in radio and television? Is it not true that private stations, both radio and television, by the very purpose of their existence, which is the laudable one of course of making a profit, will air and view only so-called canned programs because the cost of developing live talent is prohibitive?
The hon. member lives in Toronto, and he can listen to CKEY for one-half hour. Is there anything Canadian there? It is equivalent and very similar to the worst type of New York station. Therefore the hon. member's contention that privately-owned stations have done much to develop Canadian talent is, I submit respectfully, incorrect. I submit that this government has developed Canadian television growth, and this rapid growth is a tribute to the Liberal administration. Canadian radio has won awards throughout the world, and so will Canadian television.
If I may I should like to allude briefly to one suggestion I should like to make to the minister about Canadian radio. I am not a member of the committee, and I ask your indulgence. I am very much interested in classical music, and I know there is considerable good classical music sent out by C.B.C. There is a C.B.C. FM network in Toronto, and a private station carries FM programs. Rather than have an FM network duplicate ordinary broadcasts, would it not be advisable to carry programs of classical music for those people who have FM sets? That is just a suggestion I should like to make to the minister.
Special Committee on Broadcasting (Translation) :
Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few brief remarks in French on the subject of television and the C.B.C. This afternoon the hon. member for Eglinton censured the former minister of transport with regard to certain comments he had made last year in this house concerning the French network of the C.B.C. Personally I share the former minister's views.
Does the hon. member for Eglinton feel that American networks are in a position to offer private stations plays or films in the French language? Of course not. The only thing private stations could import from American sources are English-speaking programs.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that television and radio in this country are a bulwark of national unity. It gives me great pleasure to hear French-Canadian songs over the radio about the voyageurs and coureurs-des-bois of earlier days. These songs bespeak a distinctive Canadian culture.
That is one of the reasons why I support government policy regarding the C.B.C.
(Text):


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, all hon. members taking part in this discussion thus far have indicated their pleasure that once again members are going to have an opportunity of peering into this very important avenue of public service in Canada. Because the C.B.C. operates as one of the numerous crown corporations I feel it is essential that parliament should have every possible opportunity to make a thorough examination and analysis of what has been going on since the committee last met.
In all the crown corporations which have been developed in Canadian government circles in recent years we find that we are faced with a definite tendency toward increasing secrecy. From time to time in this house we hear complaints that it is becoming increasingly difficult for private members, particularly those outside the government group, to obtain complete information as to what is taking place in these corporations. This is especially dangerous in the field of communication.
It is a well known truism that whenever autocracy or authoritarianism raises its ugly head the first move made is to take over, with very rigid control, the various media of communication in the country. Because of this, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of once again seeing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's policies and activities brought under review by the parliamentary committee.
1834	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting
Broadcasting in Canada as well as in other countries has developed quickly. The first broadcasting licence was granted to the Marconi corporation in the year 1919. Since that time there has been a tremendous and almost revolutionary development in this important media of communication. Unfortunately in Canada the pace of development has been so rapid that it has been hardly possible for parliamentary and governmental policy to keep abreast of the technological changes.
Several hon. members in this debate have referred to the fact that the pattern for broadcasting was laid down by the Aird commission in 1932. I believe it was the hon. member from Saskatoon who referred to the position taken by the leader of the Conservative party at that time. I would like to suggest that the policy which applied to broadcasting in the year 1932 does not necessarily fit the reality of the situation as we find it in Canada at the present time. Indeed, if we had continued along the lines of the policy established by the Aird commission we would have been very backward in the development of broadcasting in Canada.
The Aird commission visualized the complete domination of the broadcasting medium by the C.B.C. or the Canadian broadcasting commission, as it was called at that time. It also visualized the eventual withering away of private broadcasting, which had already appeared on the scene in Canada. Instead of that we have seen a rapid and remarkable growth in the activity, the influence and the contribution of the private broadcasters in Canada. The hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Hollingworth) suggested that the very geographic circumstances in Canada necessitate a continuing governmental monopoly on broadcasting. Rather, I would suggest, those geographic factors have worked toward a gradual whittling down of the domination of broadcasting by state monopoly.
In the few remarks I wish to make in this discussion tonight I want to underline some of the extremely helpful contributions by the private broadcasters that have been made to the past two parliamentary committees on broadcasting in which I have been privileged to participate. I have listened to the presentations of the C.A.B. on these two occasions, and I am convinced that they bring sensible opinions and ideas before the parliamentary committee.
The hon. member for Saskatoon spoke very strongly this afternoon in favour of maintaining a complete state monopoly on broadcasting. That is to be expected from the group he supports, because state control is basic to socialism. The private broadcasters
[Mr. Dinsdale.l

are in the position of beggars in the area of Canadian broadcasting. I sometimes feel they lack the prestige and influence which their demonstrated contribution to Canadian broadcasting activity merits. For example, the criticism has often been made that private stations have not made a worth-while contribution to the development of Canadian talent in the technical field, the field of programming and in the artistic field of Canadian broadcasting.
I am certain that if we were to examine the personnel rosters of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation today, we would find that a great many of the top level personnel in broadcasting had their beginning as announcers and participants in programs in the private, local community stations. This, of course, is as it should be.
Actually the small community stations operated by private broadcasters have been the only source for the development of technical skill. This is mainly due to the fact that in Canada we lack facilities for formal technical training by which young Canadians can be prepared for service in this important medium.
If it had not been for private broadcasters we would have been deficient in radio service in the smaller local communities. Without exception the small communities are served by private broadcasting stations. Because they are restricted to the local community and surrounding area they tend to reflect real Canadian life more accurately. I feel that because the C.B.C. has restricted its operations to the larger centres and has established its stations in cities such as Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver, it has become farther removed from the actual, cultural reality of Canada, and that the private broadcasting stations are closer to this reality.
There have been changes during the past two decades since national broadcasting was established in Canada. It is fortunate that these changes have gradually been following the right direction. The rapid development of broadcasting has made this necessary. When I first became interested in this problem there was tremendous antipathy toward what we call crass commercialism in Canadian broadcasting. That subject has been discussed from time to time during the debate today. It seems that soap operas are the bete noire of modern broadcasting. The last speaker, the hon. member for York Centre, seemed to imply that the monopoly control of the C.B.C. has saved us from a deluge of the type of emotional bilge which comes over the air waves in these soap operas. No doubt he is aware, as was brought out in

the question I put to the hon. member for Saskatoon, that any soap operas aired over Canadian radio today are broadcast by the C.B.C., and therefore any argument in that regard is without effect.
Actually we are not so much afraid of crass commercialism now as we were in the days of the infancy of broadcasting. Radio commercials are considerably removed from the earlier primitive forms. In some instances radio commercials have been elevated to somewhat of an art. I suppose the only real survivor of the early primitive form is the soap opera type of commercial which is aired regularly and daily by the C.B.C. stations.
A second interesting development has taken place in Canadian broadcasting. It would appear that the resistance to programs of United States origin has diminished to a certain extent. This is something that has happened particularly since the advent of television, I suppose mainly because C.B.C. television has been obliged to depend rather heavily upon United States sources for its program material. I also like to feel this is an indication that Canada has become more secure in its nationhood.
From the very beginning of broadcasting development in Canada the danger of saturation from United States sources has been raised as a bogey. It was felt that the United States, with its early start in broadcasting and with its huge financial and population resources, would completely absorb any purely Canadian expression of broadcasting north of the 49th parallel. The complaint of cultural adulteration by United States materialism has often been raised and is still raised as a red herring technique to obscure the real state of affairs.
Actually those who have given serious study to the influence of broadcasting and telecasting on the national mind have come to the conclusion that its effect is relatively superficial, and that the basic social institutions are still the chief source of cultural development in Canada. In fact one of the great authorities-I have raised this point before-the late Harold Innis of the University of Toronto, came to the conclusion that radio and television were essentially mechanized means of communication, and as a result had little effect on the development of real culture in the nation so long, of course, as the basic social institutions were strong.	.
There has been another shift or gradual change in Canadian broadcasting policy. It is related to the one I have just mentioned. The chairman of the C.B.C. board in a press interview recently, I was interested to note,
8, 1955	1835
Special Committee on Broadcasting subscribed to this same opinion. The C.B.C. seems to be abandoning its attempt to elevate and to dictate taste, a project which was one of the early rigid policies laid down. In fact, in this press interview the chairman of the board, Mr. Davidson Dunton, said something to the effect that he is not particularly interested in this matter of elevating and dictating taste; he maintained that the primary function of the C.B.C. in this regard is to present a balanced program.
I think that is coming to a more common-sense and reasonable approach. After all, how can any centralized medium of communication, particularly when it is concentrated in urban areas, satisfy the variety of cultural and entertainment tastes that exist in this tremendous geographic territory we call Canada? Certainly there must be a fundamental cleavage between the urban and the rural areas. There is also the regional problem. As I have already indicated, it is because the private broadcasters operate in the local communities that they have tended to meet the real needs of those communities more closely than have the C.B.C. studios which are concentrated in the huge industrial cities scattered across Canada.
Finally, as to the changes that have gradually, almost unconsciously, taken place, may I say that there has been a moving away from the viewpoint that broadcasting is a natural monopoly. This viewpoint was reiterated tonight by the hon. member for York Centre, but there are few specialists in the field today who will subscribe to the belief that there is a natural monopoly because of the limited facilities for broadcasting, particularly since the advent of frequency modulation. Actually in Canada today there are more radio outlets than newspaper outlets. I am sure that in the not too far distant future we shall see the proliferation of stations in the telecasting field. It must be conceded that the C.B.C. or the government have not yet admitted the invalidity of the argument supporting a complete monopoly in broadcasting by this natural monopoly theory, but the fact is that the circumstances of broadcasting are moving inevitably toward a breaking down of this continuing monopoly position. I believe the persistence of the private broadcasters, as they have appeared time and time -again before parliamentary committees, is in good part responsible for the gradual change in thinking on the part of the Canadian public as well as on the part of the government and parliament as a whole.
As we come to another parliamentary committee on broadcasting, there are two changes that I think might well be considered during its deliberations. These have already been mentioned by several hon. members who have
1836	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting spoken. In fact they have been mentioned in debates in the house during past years. As I refer once again to this subject of an independent regulatory body I want to emphasize at the outset that because this group is advocating such a body, that does not imply that we are advocating the removal of all regulation. That was the inference drawn by the hon. member for Saskatoon this afternoon.
Of course that is far from the truth. Any modern state, whether it be the United Kingdom or the United States-and the United States has the maximum of freedom in broadcasting-has of necessity found it essential to set up a regulatory body. The point we are putting forward, that is being put forward by an increasingly large number of individual citizens as well as citizens organized in groups, is the appeal for an independent regulatory body.
The hon. member for Eglinton referred to the recent resolutions of young Liberal organizations across the country. I should like to suggest to the government that the younger wings of political parties in Canada today tend to be very much closer to public opinion than the senior officials of political organizations. That applies particularly to a party that has been in power over a long period of years. When the young Liberals begin putting forward the suggestion, quite vociferously and enthusiastically, that the time has come in the development of Canadian broadcasting to take another step away from state domination of broadcasting, I think it is time for the government to pay attention.
The hon. member for Eglinton referred to some of the myths that have been shattered by certain C.B.C. television programs. As he was speaking it occurred to me that one myth that has not been shattered by C.B.C. operations is the myth of the infallibility of the Liberal party. I am not going to say there is any direct control or influence over Canadian broadcasting by the party in power, but it seems logical to assume that state domination of any mass media of communication offers very dangerous temptations indeed. In fact the temptations and dangers should be obvious. Certainly none of the important mass media, press, radio or television, should come under the control of politicians. I believe that is why public opinion in Canada is gradually being aroused in favour of an independent regulatory body.
As to the dangers of state domination of mass media, I had occasion recently to have some visitors come to Ottawa, and of course they wanted to sit in the gallery and watch parliament in action. They were particularly interested in seeing the members of the


cabinet. I asked them why they wanted to see the members of the cabinet in action, and one of the ladies in the group said it was because she thought they must be such wonderful men; they were always in the newspapers and always on the radio. I took my visitors to the gallery and they began their observation with a good deal of enthusiasm. As the evening wore on they became increasingly bored, and when they retired from the gallery said sadly; "They are only human beings, after all".
One reason, of course, why any authoritarian state wants to control radio or mass media of any kind is that they can so work on the attitudes and the minds of the citizenry as to almost establish the superman idea in the thinking of the public. There is no room for supermen in a democracy. I am reminded of an old adage that has been changed somewhat; some are born great, some have greatness thrust upon them; some achieve greatness, and some hire a press agent. In our modern, complex society it is amazing what you can do with a good press agent. Day after day as the leaders of Canadian public life have their speeches quoted in the press and repeated over the air, as their statements appear in the newsreels and finally in the week-end analysis of the news, the stereotype becomes established in the minds of the public that indeed these people must be exceptional and wonderful men.
Reference has already been made in this debate to the famous speech of the chairman of the board at Saskatoon last year, and rightly so, because it dealt with a very important subject pertaining to broadcasting. It seems that the chairman of the board is very keenly aware of the dangers of too much monopoly, particularly state monopoly, in the realm of radio broadcasting and telecasting. But I do not follow his argument all the way, because he feels that we in Canada are completely protected from any such dangers owing to the nature of the relationship between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the cabinet. However, because the corporation is a creature of the government, and particularly because the personnel of the board enjoy their tenure of office at the pleasure of the governor in council, there is a subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, control.
For example, so far as information is concerned, the minister responsible to the house for C.B.C. operations obviously is dependent upon the personnel of the C.B.C. for such information, and no doubt his thinking is shaped by the recommendations and suggestions that are put forward. I obtained a copy of a speech by the chairman of the C.B.C.

made on December 24 last over the C.B.C. in the form of a year-end report to the public of Canada concerning the activities of the corporation. In reading the speech and comparing it with the statement by the minister last evening one sees that there is a great deal in common, which indicates that there must be a rather close connection between this public corporation and the cabinet minister to which it is responsible.
I think the time has come, as indicated by the rising protest of public opinion, for the establishment of an independent regulatory body to supervise and regulate the activities of both the C.B.C. and private broadcasters in Canada. Today we cannot deny the fact that, contrary to what was expected when the broadcasting policy was first laid down, the private broadcasters have survived and have made a contribution to broadcasting in Canada which is of increasing importance to the development of our Canadian nationhood. I am sure they would be in a much more comfortable and certainly a much more creative position if they could be allowed to operate free from the shadow of rather close coercion by the group with which they are competing, because of the fact that the C.B.C., in addition to being their competitor, is also their adjudicator.
The other change I think is necessary in Canadian broadcasting is the extension of network facilities. As I have indicated, most programs still originate in urban areas. It should be noted that urban areas tend to be the source of the influences against which the Massey commission warned Canadians, these so-called American materialistic influences. So long as most of our programs originate in the big city studios of the C.B.C. we are going to be exposed to this dangerous materialism that is supposed to be of United States origin.
I know, of course, the difficulties of giving the small, local broadcasting stations access to the networks. They, perhaps, have not the same studio facilities. Still if we are really going to have a nationally representative broadcasting policy in Canada-and the minister in his statement last night emphasized that broadcasting has to take the national viewpoint-we must allow the local, private community stations easier access to the networks. The small station on the prairies, with its attempt to satisfy the cultural and entertainment demands of the area it is serving, is just as important to the total cultural picture in Canada as is the big C.B.C. studio operating in the populous and wealthy urban setting.
I have not made any direct reference to television in these remarks because while there is much in common there is also a degree of separation between the two media.
Special Committee on Broadcasting As television has developed during the past two and a half years it seems to me that it is paralleling the development of radio. Unfortunately it is moving into some of the same errors that radio committed in its earlier stage of development. The tendency in television has been toward complete monopoly of this important communication media whereas, as I have indicated, in radio we have been moving gradually away from complete monopoly and domination by the C.B.C.
I believe any argument we use for an independent regulatory body for radio has equal significance for T.V. broadcasting. There was some very interesting evidence of the indirect and subtle control that can be imposed upon private operators in this field in the last committee on broadcasting. The private broadcasters were making a very determined stand to do away with monopoly in telecasting at the very outset of television activities. But for some strange reason the resistance that had developed in the country prior to the meeting of the committee on broadcasting suddenly disappeared, and there was acquiescence in the government policy of monopoly. Perhaps it is only a coincidence that a good many of the private broadcasters at that time had applications for licences before the government. I say it might be only a coincidence, but it is also quite possible that they were afraid that if they defied government policy in reference to monopoly in telecasting they might run into difficulties in obtaining television channels.
That is merely one example of the subtle influence that can be exerted when the state medium of broadcasting and telecasting is both competitor and adjudicator. This unfortunate state of affairs would be completely removed if we had an independent regulatory body as they have in the federal communications commission in the United States, for example, supervising both these important activities in the broadcasting field.
There is another incident that comes to my mind as I consider this problem of a developing monopoly in T.V. Last evening the minister indicated that he felt a duplication of services in T.V. would weaken the strength and growing power of the national system as a whole. It is hard to see where competition between two stations in an area large enough to support a private station as well as a C.B.C. station would weaken the strength and growing power of the national system as a whole. I feel it would tend to strengthen the programming and general excellence of the activities of both. But applying this policy to its limits, of course, produces a ridiculous situation such as occurred in Hamilton, where the station has
1838	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting been prohibited from telecasting in a direction that would interfere with the C.B.C. programming. In other words the government, instead of providing broader facilities and improving programs for the Canadian public, is deliberately narrowing the choice of Canadian citizens by subscribing to this monopoly program. Of course such a philosophy has very serious implications for a free society.
Television is just moving into network facilities. I was interested in hearing the minister's announcement that there will be microwave relay services available across Canada in the very near future. But, again, if we do not watch it, there is going to be a danger of concentration in urban areas. The monopoly position adopted by the C.B.C. up to the moment has meant that we And their operations restricted to the large, populous and wealthy urban communities. The smaller, less populous and less wealthy communities are privileged, if they behave themselves, to have private television operations.
I feel that if the private broadcasters were free of the continuing threat of competition and adjudication under a government controlled body, we would have more realistic ideas presented for the solution of these problems, and as a result we would move much more quickly to a telecasting program that would be truly representative of the national picture in Canada.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to reemphasize-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am afraid I have to advise him that his time has expired.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have just one sentence, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo.


Colin Cameron: I have such a rooted objection, Mr. Speaker, to finding myself upon any occasion on the same side as the government that I decided not to speak in this debate until some things were said that I felt had to be answered. Since apparently the government supporters are not prepared to answer them very effectively, we shall have to do so from this side of the house.
I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Macleod, and particularly in his suggestion that we would do well to do away with the talks programs on the C.B.C. Now, that was a statement of quite remarkable significance, it struck me. I do not always agree with the people who speak on the talks programs of the C.B.C. Very
	.

often they cause me acute discomfort; nevertheless I think we are going to move very far toward a thought-controlled state if we do away with the talks programs of the C.B.C.
The hon. member for Macleod suggests that if it were possible to confine all talks to the imparting of factual information, then that would be all right. In the first place we have to decide what constitutes factual information, and even when we have decided what are facts, then we have the next problem of interpreting those facts. And if, as my hon. friend would have us do, we abandoned all talks except those which imparted factual information, then it would mean we would abandon all attempts to present ideas to the Canadian people.
I suggest to the hon. member there is only one thing that distinguishes us from the animals, and that is our ability to conceive ideas and express them. Certainly I would think the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is one means by which we should seek to have ideas of all sorts presented to the people of Canada. I cannot help but view with certain apprehensions the spectacle of a spokesman of a political party in a democratic parliament suggesting that it is dangerous to have ideas presented to the Canadian people. That seems to me to express very little faith in our democratic ideas in Canada- that is, if we are afraid to have other ideas presented.
The hon. member referred to the Far East letters circulated to members by Dr. Endicott, and went further and said that in expressing his convictions, Dr. Endicott believes everything he circulated. I would not care to go that far at all. But, on the other hand, I have far more faith in my ability and the ability of other members of parliament, as well as that of other intelligent Canadian citizens, to reject the falsifications of history that are contained in Dr. Endicott's letter. I think we can only deplore this tendency to shy away from ideas, even from ideas that we are convinced are completely wrong or, if you like, completely wicked. This fear of ideas of any sort is to my mind something that should not be entertained by people who believe in a democratic society.
Now I, for instance, as an agnostic find many of the religious programs quite hard to take; but I would not think for one moment of suggesting that, because of my views, those programs should not be put on the air. There are people to whom they are very important. They present ideas for people to think about. I happen to reject them, myself, but that is entirely my business; that is my reaction to the ideas presented.

I think we must uphold the rights of various organizations and individuals to present those ideas to the Canadian people.
At the same time, of course, we should uphold the right of people to present other ideas to the Canadian people. I think perhaps it was no accident that from the same quarter came objections two or three years ago to the series the C.B.C. put over the air by such eminent people as Dr. Chisholm, Bertrand Russell, Dr. Anna Freud, and Fred Hoyle. Again this was a fear of unwelcome ideas, a fear of upsetting and disturbing ideas. That is something we have to avoid in our democracy if we are going to produce anything worth while. Certainly in the light of modern developments in the communication of ideas, in our broadcasting system we should set our faces firmly against any attempt to curb the free expression of ideas to Canadian people.
I quite agree with my hon. friend from Macleod that culture cannot be produced by any broadcasting corporation or by any particular system of radio broadcasting. But I do suggest that a desire to develop culture may very well be promoted by the skilful use of these modern means of communication, of entertainment and of edification. I think we should use them to the utmost. We should not fall back on this idea that by presenting difficult ideas to the people and by presenting different goals to them for cultural attainment, we are departing in any way from democratic principles. I do not think we have always to appeal to the lowest common denominator of intelligence in order to be democratic, and certainly I do not think anyone can suggest that on occasions the C.B.C. does not stoop very far to appeal to the lowest common denominator. So when on many occasions the C.B.C. appeals to the highest common denominator, I think we can only be thankful that they do so.
There have been some programs on the schedule of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of which I think all Canadians should be very proud. I mentioned them last year-the various radio plays and the radio dramas which, incidentally, I believe are unequalled anywhere in the world. Certainly they are unequalled on the North American continent.
I would say this, though; that I have noticed in the last year that the quality of many of those radio dramas has tended to decline somewhat, and I have wondered whether some of the extremely brilliant talent we had in the C.B.C. has been lured away by the higher incomes across the border. I do not know whether that is so, and I have
Special Committee on Broadcasting no reason for making the suggestion; but I have wondered-particularly when this admittedly extremely high standard which is so difficult to maintain has been falling a little in the last year or so.
I have not mentioned anything about television because I do not know anything about it. I suppose it is a sign of hardening of the cultural arteries that I find television very hard to take. I have tried it here, in the United States and in the United Kingdom; and I must say that in all three places it leaves me completely cold. But, as I say, that may be a sign of the hardening cultural arteries. I think the same arguments for having controlled radio apply equally to television. In fact I was interested last year in Great Britain to notice that there is widespread misgiving over there at the present time about the results of the recent move to place television at least partly in the hands of private commercial interests in that country. I think we may very well view with a certain amount of misgiving and suspicion any too-wide diffusion of television by private commercial stations.
I would point out that in the United States, where they have nothing to correspond with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation but have, on the other hand, several very large commercial chains of the type our friends to the right and left of me apparently would like to see established in Canada, the people who seek high quality in radio programs have been forced to establish private subscription radio stations in order to get some better quality programs. I am referring to programs of the kind the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation frequently provides to us in Canada.
I suggest there would be no possibility of private radio stations being able to produce programs of a quality similar to that of the best C.B.C. programs, unless in this country they were established in the powerful lucrative and monopolistic position in which they are established in the United States of America. The history of the type of programs produced by those chains would not encourage us here to imagine that things would be any better in Canada.
I would conclude by urging the minister and the government not only to protect the position of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the field of broadcasting in Canada, but to protect also the quality of our programs by making sure that we are not losing the talent we have to private interests across the line; that we are not perhaps failing to give every encouragement to the development of brilliant native talent because of the shortage of funds. I am sure no hon. member in this house, or certainly not many,
1840	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting would object to larger appropriations for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I should also like to say that I was rather shocked, to be quite frank, to hear the hon. member for Brandon-Souris suggest that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation must be suspected of being completely under the control of the Liberal party because in the last 20 years we most unfortunately-I agree with him that it is unfortunate-have not been able to rid ourselves of a Liberal government. I think enough crimes can be laid on the doorstep of the Liberal government without attempting to lay there the charge that they control for their own political purposes the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I think perhaps they are not smart enough to do it, and I do not think they do it.
I am only too ready at any moment to throw any well-founded charge into the teeth of the government but I do not wish to associate myself in a case where I do not think a charge can be established. Certainly I have looked, and with great care, to find traces of that control in connection with C.B.C. programs, and I have not yet been able to find any. If the hon. member for Brandon-Souris can help me and we can find traces of this I shall be only too glad to hurl the charge at the government.
Because of the remarkable services that the staff of the C.B.C. have given to the Canadian people I think they should be exonerated of the charge of being subservient to the government in political matters in their broadcast programs. I hope the government will continue its present policy, and will ensure a high level of programs even if it is necessary to seek added funds for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Ambrose A. Holowach: Mr. Speaker, may I make one or two corrections before I proceed to discuss the subject matter before the house. I believe the hon. member for Nanaimo misinterpreted the remarks of my deputy leader, the hon. member for Macleod. The hon. member for Macleod did not say that we should do away with the presentation of ideas, but he did say everyone should be at liberty to present his ideas, and not just a select few. He said also, as I understood it, that in his opinion we could perhaps scrap the talks department of the C.B.C. without suffering irreparable loss to the nation.
The introductory remarks of the Minister of National Revenue with respect to the setting up of a committee to investigate the policy and aims as well as the functions of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation were


studied carefully by the members of this group, because we considered it to be an important matter since it involves government-owned mass communication media. In Canada we are fortunate to enjoy a free society, but such a society places responsibilities upon all its members.	One of the
social responsibilities of members in such a society is to be alert to the need of constantly re-examining all phases of a government-owned corporation which has such great powers over the minds and thinking of our Canadian people. No committee can render useful service and deny that radio has a great influence and moulds the thinking of people.
This is nothing new; it was established long before this time. We have but to consider what is happening in totalitarian countries to see with what diabolical effectiveness radio can be used to distort and falsify facts respecting economics, religion and political philosophy. It is interesting to note that in the 1925 constitution of the U.S.S.R., the premier, Joseph Stalin, attached a great deal of significance to the press, and by inference to the radio. I do not remember the exact text, but I do remember the inference was that the press and radio must function to strengthen the social order of that country. When we examine the success they have had in various parts of the world we certainly must confess that they have developed propaganda to a very fine science by using the medium of radio.
I believe that in a free society the press and the radio have a great responsibility in ensuring the freedom of individuals and of our institutions, and strengthening the Canadian social order. Along with the press, radio has the responsibility not only of imparting truth and information to the general electorate, but they should function as the watchdogs over all aspects of government policy. In the case of the C.B.C., which is owned by the government, I am afraid I cannot see that watchdog barking at its owner or biting the hand that feeds it with such juicy grants from the public treasury.
A word about the committee. There are to be some 26 members on it, and naturally most of them will be from the Liberal party. That is only right. I am pleased to note that most of them are experienced members. It will be a wonderful opportunity for the new members to acquire knowledge of the workings of such a committee. I believe the C.C.F. have two members, the Conservatives four members, and the Social Crediters two members. My point is that if the committee is to make a worth-while contribution to Canadian society it must approach all problems

concerning the C.B.C. without political regard, completely objectively, and without regard to the fact that it is a crown corporation which has been backed in the past by government policy.
I think it would also be advisable for the committee to consider all aspects of the problem which was aired by the hon. member for Eglinton, as to whether or not the C.B.C. should be removed from the strange position it presently holds, namely that of being a competitor with privately-owned stations and at the same time possessing extraordinary powers over those privately-owned stations. In the case of the privately-owned stations we know they must give proper programs, they must satisfy public opinion, they must meet criticism or they will fail to survive and go out of business. No such acid test must be met by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which can always fall back on substantial grants from parliament.
I am not criticizing the C.B.C. as such. I believe it has a valuable and important role to play in the development of this country, and it must be admitted that it has made valuable contributions toward that end. However, I am dubious about the wisdom of allowing the C.B.C. or any other corporation, for that matter, to have unlimited power. Unlimited power, we all know, gives it monopolistic control in the transmitting of news over Canadian networks. In addition to that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is the official authority in the issuance of all licences. In other words it is not only a competitor, it is a censor and a regulator.
As I pointed out before, the press and radio serve only one purpose in a totalitarian country, in that they become the mouthpieces of those in power. It is not necessary for the press or radio in a totalitarian country to search out the truth because they are given an interpretation of truth by those who are in power.
When we consider the amount of authority which we keep delegating to various boards and commissions it seems to me that we are making a dangerous retreat from what is commonly accepted as the democratic and exclusive right of parliament and the various legislative bodies in our country to make our laws, rules and regulations. I know the Canadian people would never tolerate the abuse of such powers, but who in this house can predict with any certainty that the power presently possessed by the C.B.C. will not some day be abused, either consciously or otherwise? I refer of course to the power to control who says what, and the power to decide what news and what version of
Special Committee on Broadcasting the news will be transmitted to the people. Such power lends itself to abuse, and gross injustices could result.
I would like to see the government induce private enterprise to operate a network in competition with the C.B.C., and I think there is ample scope to make this possible. As a matter of fact, I believe that such competition would not only improve our programs but would strengthen the very structure of our Canadian society.
The argument has been used that the C.B.C. is motivated by a noble purpose, namely the fostering of Canadian culture. It seems to me that argument is growing somewhat thin. As the hon. member for Macleod indicated, I do not believe culture is something that is stored in a deep freeze in the vaults of the C.B.C., which can be taken out and imparted over the air waves for the people of Canada to consume. If the government of Canada is interested in fostering cultural activities I am certain that many suggestions can be made as to how it could be accomplished.
I wish now to say a word about the international service. I consider the international service of the C.B.C. one of the most vital branches of that corporation. It is true that this service is not glamourized or publicized, but I am certain hon. members will agree that it is important that we maintain this service today. Why is it important? In the first place, I believe it is the only way in which we as Canadians can reach out to the great masses of peoples in other lands. I believe it is one of the finest ways in which to foster cultural and commercial relations with these people, and to achieve a better understanding of them. I believe it is the only way to sell ideas and wage an aggressive campaign in the cold war in order to persuade, convince and correct the various distortions of truth and the falsehoods that are being spread by vicious propaganda from other countries. Broadcasting in the native language is the only way to encourage and show understanding to those who look to Canada for encouragement in their fight to enjoy some of the blessings which we enjoy as a free people.
I notice that for the year 1955-56 the estimates call for $1,614,625 to be expended for the international service of the C.B.C. In 1954-55 the sum was $2,199,150. This indicates a decrease of $584,525. We should remember that our nation is spending in the neighbourhood of $2 billion for defence. We have no other choice in that regard. Let us bear in mind that we are spending that vast amount in order to keep our freedom because we have lost the war of ideas. Despite this,
1842	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting we are prepared to spend only one and a half million dollars in order to carry on the battle for men's minds.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Why don't the private broadcasters do it?


Mr. Blackmore:: Well, how could they?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: You want the government to do it.


John Horne Blackmore: You want individual people like yourself to do it. Have a little sense.


Ambrose A. Holowach: It is not the budget alone which is being trimmed in the international service of the C.B.C. I think there has also been a trimming of the policy of that vital department. In 1953 there appears to have been real punch in the policy of the international service. I quote from the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the standing committee on external affairs of Thursday, March 12, 1953. The witness, Mr. Jean Desy, director general of the international service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, said:
The basic aims of the international service are briefly: (1) To expound and develop the aims and policies of the western democratic powers and particularly of Canada. (2) To combat communist ideology and Soviet imperialism. (3) To project as far as possible a picture of Canadian life with special reference to social, cultural and economic development.
I do not know what the policy is today, but the trimming that has occurred would indicate that the policy has become mellow and has lost much of the punch it once had. The question arises, why? Is it because of coexistence? If so, why not invite the script writers from the other side to come and write our scripts, and thereby indicate that we really mean friendship and coexistence when we speak of them?
It seems to me there are other reasons for this. Possibly one reason which has not been considered is that the international service is not effective. If that is true the question again arises, why? I understand that some of the section heads of the international service were selected because of their rich background and knowledge of the psychological characteristics and history of the various people in their sections. Under the circumstances, they have done a good job. I do not believe they are responsible, but if there is ineffectiveness in the international service of the C.B.C. I would say that somewhere along the line there are back-room strategists and policy experts who are handcuffing the effectiveness of this vital department.
The reason I say this is that I had an interesting experience last summer when I met some people who had recently arrived


from Europe. Amongst other things, they gave me some information on the type of program the international service has been transmitting to those countries. I was astonished. They told me of broadcasts to countries behind the iron curtain on such subjects as Eskimos, our northern lands, dog-sled races, the St. Lawrence seaway and reindeer herds. Imagine someone behind the iron curtain crawling into the loft of a barn or into a haystack where a radio is hidden, tense with anticipation, tense to receive a vibrant message. He turns the radio knob and what does he get? Talks on reindeer and on the St. Lawrence seaway.
Mr. Speaker, I charge that there is and has been inefficiency in the matter of a realistic policy with respect to the international service and that, whether consciously or otherwise, there has been a serious crippling of the effectiveness of that vital service. For this reason I believe that the international service should be strengthened, not weakened. It can best be strengthened by changing the type of policy which has prevented it from carrying on a realistic and effective operation in keeping with the best interests of Canada and the free world.


Mr. Elmore Philpoit (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the house for more than a minute or two. I must say that I am a little bit confused by hon. members of the Social Credit group who have spoken. As I understood the hon. member for Macleod, he was in favour of cutting off all talks on the C.B.C.; and if I understood the hon. member who has just taken his seat, he is complaining because there are not enough talks going over behind the iron curtain.
As far as I am concerned, I think the people of my constituency and the people of Canada as a whole are fairly well satisfied with the general service given by the C.B.C. Over the years I think the C.B.C. has done more to make this country one nation than any other single agency I can think of. While I do not always agree with all the talks I hear on the C.B.C., I think the talks are doing a fair job.
I for one would not be in favour of cutting off any talks, either over the C.B.C. or over the private stations. I would not even be in favour of cutting off that most astute piece of political propaganda known as the "Back to the Bible" hour which comes over so many stations every Sunday morning. If the Social Crediters are against the idea of political talks I think they arrived at that conclusion rather late. If my memory serves me correctly, there never would have been a Social Credit government in Alberta had not that great master of radio in that province, the

late William Aberhart, talked himself into power over the radio networks of Alberta.


Mr. Low:: Not over the C.B.C.


Elmore Philpott: I rose tonight, however, simply to raise one point. I do this not by way of criticism of the government but simply to ask for further enlightenment. I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of the people of my constituency when I say that we are looking forward to the day when we shall have competitive television service. I think we were all pleased when, almost precisely two years ago, the Minister of National Revenue, as reported at page 3393 of Hansard of 1953, said this:
It is anticipated that, in due course, private stations will be permitted in areas covered by C.B.C. stations, and the C.B.C. may establish stations in some areas originally covered by private stations.
I think we are all in support of the general idea that the C.B.C. television network should be solidly established from coast to coast before we have competitive television in the great centres. But I must confess that I was just a little bit mystified when last night, when the minister was speaking, I heard him say this, as reported at page 1805 of Hansard:
I suppose that most television viewers, if asked if they would like to have another station to choose from, would naturally tend to say yes.
Then he goes on to say this:
I think we should be careful about moving too quickly in some special areas to permit duplicate service which would inevitably tend to weaken the strength and growing power of the national system as a whole, consisting of public and private stations stretching all across the country.
If that is true I am quite sure the overwhelming majority of my constituents would be in favour of delay in the setting up of private television stations, because we certainly do not want to do anything that is going to weaken or cripple in any way the great national service that has been performed by the C.B.C. But for the life of me I must admit in all candour that far from weakening the C.B.C. it seems to me that competitive services in great cities like Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal would improve the services of the C.B.C. When the committee sits I certainly hope it will hear from the competent authorities and get them to explain just why it should be thought that instead of listening to one publicly-owned station in Vancouver, with the alternative of listening to about three or four United States stations, we in Vancouver should not have the choice of listening to our one C.B.C. television station plus perhaps two or three private television stations owned, manned and operated by Canadians and operating in the service of the Canadian people.
Business of the House
I want to point out to you that at this very moment in the city of Vancouver there are seven salesmen soliciting advertisements for the television station which operates in Bellingham, Washington, just over the border in the United States, entirely directed toward our market in Vancouver and operating almost entirely on Vancouver revenue.
So without being critical in any way, I am simply asking for enlightenment. I certainly hope the committee will make it clear just why competition should weaken the C.B.C. Far from weakening the C.B.C. we think anything that is in the interests of Canada as a whole and of Vancouver as a whole is in the interests of the C.B.C. Certainly I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of my constituents of all political parties when I say we want competitive television, and that the sooner we can get it, the better.
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Noire Dame de
Grace): Mr. Speaker, in moving the adjournment of this debate, as it is now ten o'clock, may I just say that the hon. member for Edmonton East should not be surprised at the C.B.C. for trimming their international service budget. They have been trimming the public for years. I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace) the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Angus MacInnis: I was wondering what the business would be for tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. I realize that according to our order paper tomorrow is private members' day. According to my memory, a week ago tonight we were debating the question of unemployment. At that time it was thought the matter was so urgent and so important that we should continue the debate the next day, which was also a private members' day. We obtained the unanimous consent of the house to do that.
If unemployment was an urgent and important matter a week ago, I think it is equally so tonight. I think by unanimous consent we should proceed tomorrow with the debate on the motion to go into supply and the amendment on unemployment, in order to try to put the government in a position where they may be able to do something with regard to the present unemployment situation. I suggest we have an opportunity to get the views of hon. members on that matter.



L844 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Business of the House
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Harris:: Mr. Speaker, I am astonished at my hon. friend making such a suggestion, because it was not by any request of the government that they took away private members' day a week ago. It was at the request of all the opposition groups. If all opposition groups feel they can give up their last and final private members' day for this session, and they so advise me at the moment, I shall be glad to consider their request.


Angus MacInnis: May I suggest that it is not necessary to make a decision on whether we
are ready to give up the last private members' day. All we have to do is be ready to give up tomorrow, and let the other private members' day after that take care of itself.


Walter Edward Harris: I quite realize that. I know that no agreement is necessary, but I do want it understood that the motion on the order paper under which a week from Wednesday will be a day for government business will not be postponed because we happen to take tomorrow for government business.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Distinguished guests, Mr. Prime Minister, honourable Senators, honourable members of the House of Commons, ladies and gentlemen: It was my pleasure a few days ago to announce that on this date, the 8th of March, 1955, would take place the unveiling of the Macphail memorial. Thirty-three years ago, on the 8th of March, 1922, the first Canadian woman elected to our House of Commons took the oath, signed the roll and then claimed the right to take her seat. She was Agnes Campbell Macphail, M.P. This was an historical event of the greatest importance to men and women of Canada.
Miss Macphail's election had followed, as soon as had been possible, the granting of the franchise to Canadian women in federal elections. Although she served a few years in the legislature of her province she spent most of her public life in our own House of Commons, for which we are thankful.
It is worthy of note that while we recall the presence in our midst 33 years ago of only one woman, five women senators and four women members of the House of Commons are witnessing the present memorable event.
Having opened the way, and having during her many years of public service contributed so largely and so effectively to the welfare of the nation, it is proper and fitting for us to recognize that she has well deserved the rare distinction of having a memorial unveiled in her honour in this parliament.
(Translation) :
In paying tribute to the first woman- elected to the House of Commons of Canada, we wish to emphasize a particular contribution to our political life and to honour women, whose role in the life of a nation is of incalculable importance.
Throughout her long parliamentary career, Miss Macphail had striven to promote economic and social progress and showed particular interest in two classes of people to whom we are greatly attached: farmers and the working class.
French-speaking parliamentarians are happy to pay her this tribute. On their behalf I am pleased to accept this bronze bust of Miss Macphail, graciously offered by her two 50433-117
sisters and their husbands, who are with us today: Mr. and Mrs. Meredith Reany and Mr. and Mrs. Hugh Bailey.
(Text):
I am happy indeed to accept here, officially, the bronze bust of Agnes Macphail, graciously donated by her two sisters, Mrs. Meredith Reany and Mrs. Hugh Bailey. On behalf of parliament I wish to thank them both and express our satisfaction that they can be with us, accompanied by their distinguished husbands.
May I add that this bust is the work of the sculptor, Felix Weihs de Weldon, a longstanding member of the commission of fine arts of the United States. I wish to thank him also for the donation of a silver plaque which will be affixed to the pedestal, and which will serve to remind us and others who are to follow of the great achievements of Agnes Macphail.
Those of us who have been her colleagues are best qualified to pay her tribute on this occasion. I now call upon four members, deans of their parties, the Hon. C. G. Power, the Hon. Earl Rowe, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, Mr. Angus Maclnnis, and the hon. member for Lethbridge, Mr. John Blackmore.


Hon. C. G. Power (Quebec South):: Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen: It is indeed an honour to participate in this ceremony of tribute to an outstanding parliamentarian, Miss Agnes Campbell Macphail, the first woman member of the House of Commons of Canada.
The very fact that Miss Macphail was the first representative of her sex to sit in this chamber would have placed her in the public eye, irrespective of her personal qualities. But her unique position alone does not explain the respect she won and the influence she played in Canada's national life. Personal qualities of intelligence, courage and unselfish industry were the real factors in her rise to prominence.
At the outset the position of Miss Macphail was difficult indeed. She was at once breaking a tradition and, at the same time, pioneering an advance in the political mores of a nation. Sensational headlines were anticipated: her native dignity precluded the roles of the shrinking violet, the flapper hoyden or the crusading virago.

(Text):


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, members of the Senate and House of Commons, relatives and friends of the late Agnes Macphail: It is a privilege for me, as one who sat in parliament with Miss Macphail, to express on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal opposition our respectful memory of a sincere and devoted public servant.
Elected in the general election of 1921 to represent the constituency of Grey Southeast, she was the first woman member of the Canadian House of Commons, and she will always hold a unique place in the parliamentary life of our country. As a fearless champion of the political rights of women she will forever be held in distinctive regard by all who read the history of this dominion. In the forum of parliamentary debate she had the flare and the wit that enabled her in the heat of battle to rank with the foremost debaters of her time.
I feel that my own association with Agnes Macphail was probably a little different from most because of the fact that we came from the same part of Ontario and, for a time, represented adjoining constituencies. As was only natural, she was well known in the county I represent, and her sparkling wit on the hustings is still remembered and quoted throughout that district. After leaving this house she entered the provincial legislature of Ontario, where she served her country in the same fearless and conscientious manner.
Not only for her contribution to parliamentary tradition will Agnes Macphail be remembered, but also for her contributions to the deliberations of the various associations and societies to which she lent her support. While she often doubted the wisdom of those charged with the responsibility of government, she never faltered in allegiance to principles that she believed would serve her fellow men and particularly the rural communities with which she was always proud to be associated.
It is fitting and appropriate that today we should do homage to this outstanding representative of Canadian women whose name will long be remembered in the halls of parliament as well as in the homes of the countryside.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, members of the Senate, members of the House of Commons, relatives and friends of Agnes Macphail: I consider it a distinct privilege to have the opportunity today of taking part in this ceremony. It was my good fortune to know and work with

Agnes Macphail for a period of more than 20 years, for 10 years in this house and for more than 10 years outside this house.
Although Agnes Macphail was the first woman member elected to this house, I am convinced that she was not elected because she was a woman. I am glad this is the case. I am certain that the hard-headed and practical farmers of Grey county had no such romantic or chivalrous ideas in mind when they elected Miss Macphail to parliament. They elected her because she was interested in and understood their problems. They knew she would devote her energies to trying to find a solution to those problems, and they were not disappointed.
Agnes Macphail was not, however, a person with only one interest, important as that interest was and, perhaps, claimed her first attention. She was a person of warm human sympathies. She was anxious that everyone should have the opportunity to make the best of his or her life. In this house she pleaded for better social services, pensions for the aged, the blind and the disabled, and for a greater interest in education. More than anyone else in the house at that time, and indeed perhaps more than anyone else in the country, she was responsible for the appointment of the Archambault commission on penal reform. Consequently she was responsible for the beneficial results which have flowed from the recommendations of that commission.
Her wide human sympathy was never better illustrated than during her first term in parliament when, although she was representing farmers in Ontario she made a visit to Cape Breton to look into the plight of the coal miners and their families who were suffering intensely in the Glace Bay area, at a time when that subject was being aired in this house.
As has already been said, Agnes Macphail was an able parliamentarian. When she spoke she was always given the attention of this house, not because she was a woman and the male members were anxious to be on their good behaviour, but because she always had something worth while to say and she said it in a striking manner.
I am glad today on behalf of the group with which I am associated in this house to have the opportunity of paying tribute to one who will always be remembered not only as the first woman member of this house but as a great humanitarian and an outstanding Canadian.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, members of the Senate, members of the House of Commons and relatives of 50433-1171
Memorial to Miss Macphail Miss Macphail who are present here today: It gives me much pleasure to have this opportunity of saying a few words in appreciation of Miss Macphail. When in 1936 I first came into the House of Commons I found Miss Macphail, already a thoroughly seasoned member completely at home and at ease, respected by every member, and by many members fondly spoken of and spoken to as "Aggie".
Through the years of her service in the house she had come to be a frontbencher in her own right, sitting immediately to the left of the C.C.F. group led by that great parliamentary battler, J. S. Woodsworth, whom she evidently greatly admired, encouraged, and often coached in relation to his strenuous, frequent and various clashes with governmental personalities from Mr. Speaker down. Obviously her judgment was respected by Mr. Woodsworth; her suggestions were by him welcomed and frequently acted upon.
I was the better able to observe since I, having been chosen leader of the 17-member Social Credit group, was, of course, a frontbencher from the opening day of my House of Commons career; and. because of the seating position of Miss Macphail, I was assigned to sit beside her, just at her left.
It was one of the great pieces of good fortune in my life that I was thus brought into close proximity with Miss Macphail. From her I learned many, many things I needed to know as a member of parliament and as leader of the Social Credit group. She was tolerant, courteous, tactful, sympathetic, understanding, humble, sincere and frank. She was unusually well informed. She was a reformer, and a progressive through and through.
As a parliamentary debater she was highly effective and active. She had a strong and not unpleasant voice, and clear positive delivery, vitalized with strong conviction. Her choice of words and phrases was apt and ready. She was at the same time witty and quickwitted. She was a master of repartee.
Miss Macphail spoke extemporaneously and always briefly. Practically everyone enjoyed hearing her speak. Hardly a speech of hers failed to receive ample and wide publicity in the press. Out in the country she was much in demand as a speaker, not only in Canada but also in the United States.
As I said at the beginning, I am delighted to have the privilege of aiding in honouring Miss Macphail.


Mr. Speaker:: Mrs. Meredith Reany, sister of Miss Macphail, will now speak to us on behalf of her distinguished family.

Memorial to Miss Macphail


Mrs. Meredilh  Reany@: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen: On behalf of our sister, the late Agnes C. Macphail and her family, I should like to say thank you to all those responsible for the placing of this bust in the parliament buildings at Ottawa.
Today, as our thoughts go with her back through the years, I feel sure she would be very happy to know she was being remembered by the people of the country she loved and served throughout the greater part of her lifetime on this earth.


Mr. Speaker:: In thanking you and in bringing our remarks to a close, I am reminded
that Lady Astor, who was the first woman to be elected to the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, once said:
I can conceive of nothing worse than a man-governed world except, perhaps, a woman-governed world.
But I can see the combination of the two going forward and making civilization more worthy of the name of civilization based on Christianity, not force, a civilization based on justice and mercy.
I invite you now to proceed to the northwest corridor where Mrs. Reany and Mrs. Bailey will officially unveil the memorial in honour of their sister, the first woman member of this house, the late Agnes Campbell Macphail, whose ideals were also based on justice, mercy and Christianity.

Wednesday, March 9, 1955