1956-08-14

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Acting Leader of the Opposition),; In view of the fact that this is probably the last day of the session-
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Rowe:: -and especially in view of the keen concern of the Canadian people generally, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he would make a statement as to the Canadian position in connection with the serious situation in the Suez canal area.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I do not think there is anything I could say at this moment that would be helpful. There is controversy, as we all know, over the canal and over the manner in which the situation is being handled. 1 would not like to say anything that would add to the controversial aspects of the discussion taking place.


William Earl Rowe: My only reason for asking is in view of the keen concern of the Canadian people and the conspicuous unconcern of the government.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There is no unconcern in the government, but there is nothing I can say here that would lessen the concern of the Canadian people about the gravity of the situation.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the inquiry been completed by the department into the unfortunate bazooka explosion at Regina resulting in the death of a local resident? If so, will that report now be made public?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: I am not aware that the report has been completed; at least it has not been presented to me. I shall make inquiries.


Hazen Robert Argue: If a report has been received, do I take it then it will be made public?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I cannot say that will be done for certain, because reports of boards of inquiry into unfortunate accidents are not usually made public, but I shall be glad to make the salient facts public.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think the results should be made public.



REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT OF IDEOLOGICAL OFFENSIVE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of a report in the New York Times that the United States has experts designated and a program under way to educate United States troops in Korea and other areas as to communist methods of ideological warfare, and in view of my request made in this house on June 20, as reported on page 5231 of Hansard, that the government enlarge its defence program by adding a great ideological offensive, has the minister yet taken any steps to develop this most important branch of defence?


Ralph Osborne Campney: As far as this department is concerned, the position remains as it was. I have not seen the article to which the hon. member has referred. We have a very broad and extensive scheme of education in the forces, as the hon. member is aware, and it is being continued. The policy I laid down on the defence estimates is being maintained at the present time.


Solon Earl Low: A supplementary question; will the minister give consideration to inaugurating the kind of educational program I have indicated? Perhaps I could supply him with a copy of the clipping to which I have referred so he can see what I have in mind.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am always glad to give consideration to representations made by hon. members.



REQUEST FOR SETTING UP OF ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since the Prime Minister
7560	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry has turned down repeated requests for the creation of a special committee of the house to investigate the charges of Generals Simonds and Macklin, would he consider the appointment of a royal commission to do so?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, if a royal commission is appointed it will be announced in due course. It has not yet been considered.


John Borden Hamilton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker; is the Prime Minister aware that reports of these charges are now being published throughout the foreign press of the world, and that it may seriously affect Canada's position in international affairs?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: 1 would not be surprised to learn that anything sensational is being reproduced in the press throughout the world, but I do not think these reports will affect the status of Canada in world opinion.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I apologize for not having sent him a copy, but I am quite sure he will be able to answer it now. The Montreal Gazette of today's date announces that President Eisenhower has "invited all the American republics to name representatives to an inter-American committee" for "developing nuclear electric power". It does indicate in one place in the report that the invitation was to American republics, but it seems to me it must mean countries. I wondered if the Prime Minister would be able to say whether this inter-American committee would include Canada and, if so, what are the objectives of the inter-American committee?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker. This, I understand, is a meeting that is being called by the president of representatives of the members of the Pan-American union to which Canada is not a party, and that it is to discuss the practical ways of making nuclear or atomic energy available for peaceful purposes. Of course, we have been for many years in close contact with the United States and the United Kingdom in investigating the practical ways of bringing that about, but we have not been invited to this special meeting of representatives of the Pan-American union.
[Mr. Hamilton (York West).!



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue of which I have not had a chance to give him notice, but he has a telegram about it. I would like to ask him whether a decision has been reached with regard to the request of a Winnipeg farm equipment distributor, Mr. Shaefer, in connection with the tariff on metal storage bins for farmers. He has asked that the tariff be reduced, and has communicated with the minister in that connectien. Has the minister any statement to make now?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I had a communication yesterday from Mr. Shaefer, and the matter is under consideration now between Mr. Shaefer and the deputy minister, Mr. Sim. Mr. Shaefer indicated, following our conversation, that he would communicate with the customs and excise division of the Department of National Revenue. My own opinion on this matter is that under the tariff items as they now stand the article has been properly classified by the departmental officials. However, further consideration is being given to the matter. I have not been in communication with my deputy this morning, but I presume that by this time the matter has been determined one way or the other.



LETHBRIDGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a few questions to the Minister of National Revenue, notice of which I have just sent him. Is it a fact that the Lethbridge income tax office has been serving the southeastern British Columbia area, as well as the southern Alberta area? Has the minister read in the Lethbridge Herald of August 8 the editorial entitled "Arguments Silly", commenting upon the proposed closing of the Lethbridge income tax office on September 1? When did the minister first have that editorial drawn to his attention? Did he read that editorial then? Did the minister, then, not know yesterday that this editorial set forth almost completely the evidence embodied in the Holberton letter?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, I have just been handed the questions asked by the hon.

member for Lethbridge, which the page boy gave to me as I sat down. The first question reads:
Is it a fact that the Lethbridge income tax office has been serving the southeastern British Columbia area, as well as the southern Alberta area?
There may be instances when residents of southeastern British Columbia file in the Lethbridge office; however, they are very, very few. All the people of British Columbia have been served by the taxation office either in Vancouver or in Victoria, and it is for the very reason that this particular district, the Kettle valley, is quite inaccessible and far distant from Vancouver that we contemplate setting up an office in Penticton this present summer or fall.
The second question reads:
Has the minister read in the Lethbridge Herald of August 8 the editorial entitled "Arguments Silly", commeting upon the proposed closing of the Lethbridge income tax office on September 1?
The answer is yes; and I think the caption of the editorial "Arguments Silly" applies just as much to the editorial as to the matter that it had under discussion.
The next question reads:
When did the minister first have that editorial drawn to his attention?
The answer is last August 8. The next question reads:
Did he read that editorial then?
The answer is yes. The final question is: Did not the minister, then, know yesterday that that editorial set forth almost completely the evidence embodied in the Holberton letter?
Yes, I was aware of that fact; but I do not give 100 per cent credence to what was contained in the arguments and the statements of Mr. Holberton.



INQUIRY AS TO RUMOURS CONCERNING FALL SESSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hen. W. Earl Rowe (Acting Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in view of the uncertainty in the minds of private members, officials of the house, members of the press gallery and people in the country generally, created by current rumours that there will be another session of parliament before the end of the year, would the Prime Minister advise the house whether or not there will be and what is the intention of the government concerning another session of parliament before the end of 1956?
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, there has been no consideration given to the date for the opening of the next session of parliament.
Inquiries of the Ministry

On the orders of the day:


Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question supplementary to that asked the Prime Minister by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe. Will the Prime Minister assure the house that there will be another session of parliament before the next election?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, I will not give any assurance at all. A decision will be made in the light of circumstances as they develop, and when decisions are made they will be announced. I am not going to make any commitment in advance. I remember one occasion when a commitment was made by my predecessor, and I do not wish to put myself in the embarrassing position in which he found himself as a result of that commitment.


Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has discussed with his colleagues the approximate starting date of the next session of this house and, if so, whether he can inform us accordingly.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, what I discuss with my colleagues is confidential. When there is anything to be announced about those discussions the announcement will be made.


William McLean Hamilton: Is there anything to be announced now about your discussions?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No.



REQUEST FOR ONE WEEK'S EXTRA PAY FOR TEMPORARY STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairciough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister any announcement to make with regard to the request that the staff of the House of Commons be given an extra week's pay as a bonus?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: No. I had assumed that we would be going on for a few days yet and I would have time to come to a conclusion about it.



DELIVERY QUOTAS AT VULCAN, ALBERTA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It has been drawn to my attention that the community of Vulcan, Alberta, is on an extremely low quota for wheat deliveries, I think 4 bushels.

Supply-C.B.C.
There is another crop coming off within a few weeks now. May I ask the minister if he will look into that particular situation with a view to increasing the quota in that district?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that every point in western Canada was on at least a 5-bushel quota at the end of the crop year. However, the situation is now that all quotas have expired and Vulcan is on the same quota as everyone else. It has this advantage, that forwarding arrangements at that point are outstanding for an 8-bushel quota, and those forwarding arrangements will be filled as rapidly as possible. Of course future deliveries will count on the new quota rather than on the old quota. However, I shall look into the situation, and if there is any improvement needed I will ask the board to take care of it.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Onf.):: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago I promised the Minister of National Defence that I would produce particulars of cabinet ministers flying around in government planes to take part in the last federal election. I find now that I cannot produce the photographs I had in mind because the defeated Liberal candidate in the last election bought up all the pictures and also the negatives. Will it be government policy during the next general election to have cabinet ministers flying around at public expense?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That has never been government policy.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-
54. To provide for the requirements of the sound broadcasting service (to amount formerly authorized by chap. 32. R.S.), $6,250,000.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, I should like for just a moment or two to continue with the questions I had started to ask the minister last evening. That will give him time to get his officials down here, and then he can go to work on them and give me the information which I asked for last night and which I shall continue to ask for today.

Before the minister does take over, I should like to give him just one or two further bits of information which he should have about this incident that occurred on October 1, 1955. On that Saturday evening the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation network carried a drama for one hour 55 minutes. It was a sound production, not a television production, as has been indicated this morning by the minister. The title of the drama was "We Shall Not be Moved." I said last night that this was a communist play. It was communist-inspired; it was communist in every way. The line it followed was communist.
1 asked the minister to hunt up the information about it and provide the committee with that information, because here we are being asked to vote many millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money to the C.B.C., and I said I was speaking for a large group of Canadian people who valued their freedom, people who resented very much having to dig up nearly $2 billion of tax money to fight the communists in the military field and at the same time were being asked to dig up more tax money for the purpose of poisoning themselves, distributing communist propaganda over the government-owned radio. It is just ridiculous under the circumstances that this should be the case, but it is.
Let me give the committee a little more information which I have put together since last evening. I am not going to repeat what I said last night. I want to draw attention to the fact that when this drama was presented the communist press in this country, in the United States and in other places in the world gloated over it. They were full of adulation for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and what it had done. I quoted from communist newspapers last evening to indicate how they had received this play. Furthermore the Tribune, the Canadian communist weekly, on October 17, 1955, carried a letter evidently written by one of their editorial writers to Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, part of which was in these terms:
You were not in your cell-
Referring to Elizabeth Gurley Flynn.
-Saturday evening, October 1. You travelled across the Canadian border. You were in many Canadian homes.
There is no question that Elizabeth Gurley Flynn had travelled across the border, and in that very poignant C.B.C. portrayal she was in thousands of Canadian homes, working as hard as she possibly could be made to work through outstanding Canadian artists to influence the Canadian people along the communist line.

On October 10 this same Canadian Tribune, the official communist publication in Canada, carried a three-column headline, "Three Cheers for the C.B.C.", and in the body of the article under the headline these paragraphs were found:
A new and welcome note was struck on C.B.C. The program drew no parallels to trials of today, but the likeness could hardly be missed. Especially poignant was the role of Elizabeth Flynn, a close friend to Joe Hill, and the original of his song, "The Rebel Girl". Today the same class persecution has imprisoned Elizabeth Gurley Flynn under the Smith act for her part in the fight for the rights of the American people, as Joe Hill was in 1915. For the excellence of this program all concerned must be congratulated. John Reeves, the producer, deserves special applause. He struck a new vein for Canadian radio to work, and it is a rich one.
Let me emphasize that.
John Reeves, the producer, deserves special applause-
By the communists.
He struck a new vein for Canadian radio to work, and it is a rich one.
For whom? Not the Canadian people; the communists. That is why they applaud it. Then it goes on:
We're keeping our ears open for similar programs on Canadian themes. And if you think as we do, why not let us and the C.B.C. know about it?
In those words I quoted last, Mr. Chairman, the Canadian communists took the C.B.C. into partnership and indicated that there was some understanding somewhere by which this nefarious, subversive program would be beamed to the Canadian people, and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn brought into the homes of the Canadian people over the C.B.C. network.
Let me just mention for a moment the build-up this received. It was not just by accident that this thing came about. It was not a spur of the moment decision to portray this great extravaganza that included more than 100 top Canadian artists. It had been played up for weeks in the C.B.C. Times. I have the Times with me. The first notice came in the issue covering the period from September 18 to September 24, and on the front page I read these words:
Next week comes the final "Focus" show; the period has been extended for the occasion by 30 minutes to make time for a mammoth historical drama which has been prepared by producer John Reeves.
A mammoth historical drama prepared by John Reeves, and the time extended to almost two hours. Then the C.B.C. Times for the period from September 25 to October 1 carried this two column build-up on page 3 under the title, "We shall Not be Moved". It has this to say:
Supply-C.B.C.
A two-hour drama feature by John Reeves brings the "Focus" season to an end. "Focus" concludes on October 1, to make way for the winter hockey broadcasts. . . .
This is the part:
For the last program of the series C.B.C. trans-Canada is allotting an extra half hour and the program will extend from 9.05-11.00 p.m. Hitherto most of the programs have included two, three, or even four features, usually linked by some kind of thematic connection, but on this occasion the program will consist of one large feature only, "We Shall Not be Moved". It is a new play by John Reeves, who has served as co-ordinator of "Focus" throughout its run. "We Shall Not be Moved" is a story taken from real life.
That is significant for the committee, Mr. Chairman, it is a story taken from real life.
It concerns the trial and conviction many years ago, in the United States, of a man who was charged with a murder which, in all likelihood, he did not commit.
Notice the clever subversiveness of that; "which in all likelihood he did not commit." The courts said he committed it. The courts gave him a fair trial. He was convicted and his appeals were heard and his sentence was carried out, a sentence of death for murder.


Mr. Winch:: Are you talking about Joe Hill?


Solon Earl Low: Yes, Joe Hill.


Harold Edward Winch: You are not fit to lick his boots.


Solon Earl Low: My hon. friend naturally, being a communist, would say that here. Let me point out what this article which is speaking of this communist play says:
Listeners will have a chance to make up their minds for themselves about his guilt, for all the important evidence will be presented as part of the play.
You see what the purpose is, how they are creeping up on the Canadian people and what they are saying to them. We want you, the public, to be the judges. Throw the verdict of the courts out, and you be the judges. You will be able to tell from what we portray in a drama.


The Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am obliged to advise him his time has expired.


Harold Edward Winch: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I did not interrupt the hon. member while he was speaking, but I must ask that he be asked to withdraw the statement that I am a communist. Sir, I believe in the democratic principles; I am a democratic socialist, and I imagine I am one of the bitterest foes of communism in this country or throughout the world. I must ask him to withdraw that statement.


Solon Earl Low: I would not like to leave anything on the record that would impute untrue motives. I will ask, at the same time that I

Supply-C.B.C.
withdraw unequivocally, that the hon. member withdraw what he said about me. If he has any decency in him he will do it.


William Alfred Robinson: I did not hear the remarks to which the hon. member is referring.


Harold Edward Winch: If the hon. member is referring to the fact that I thought Joe Hill was a martyr to the trade union movement and the fact that I did not think he was fit to lick his boots-is that what the hon. member wants me to withdraw?


Solon Earl Low: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: That I will gladly withdraw, and stand on the record of the trade union movement.


James Joseph McCann: May I at this time reply very briefly to the comments of the hon. member for Peace River. I have read very carefully the debate of last evening in which he asked certain questions. Some of them I answered during the course of the debate and others I shall attempt to answer this morning. Let me say at the outset that I am as much against communism as anybody in this house or as any loyal Canadian. Apparently there are communists everywhere, and they infiltrate into organizations of government as well as into places of industry. Evidently there appear to be communists in this house, because I heard the hon. gentleman a minute ago accusing the hon. member for Vancouver East of being a communist.


Solon Earl Low: That is off the record now, Mr. Chairman.


James Joseph McCann: It is off the record, but it
was said.


William Alfred Robinson: The remark has been withdrawn, and I think the incident should remain closed.


James Joseph McCann: My understanding was that it was a kind of left-handed withdrawal.


Solon Earl Low: No, Mr. Chairman, that is quite unfair. On a question of privilege, I may say that I withdrew unequivocally and it was not left-handed. I am not like the minister; I do not do things in a left-handed manner.


James Joseph McCann: I am sorry, but I did not hear the discussion. The Chairman indicated that he did not hear it, either. Sometimes it is quite difficult to hear accurately up in this corner of the house what is being said over there.
As reported at page 7553 of Hansard for August 13, 1956 the hon. member said:
The second question is this. Does the minister not know that the C.B.C. radio and television services have been used in the not too distant past and doubtless are still being used from time to time by diabolically clever subversive agencies in

this ideological warfare, and that government money, that is taxpayers' money, is being made available to pay the very persons who are attempting to destroy the Canadian people and take away their freedom?
I regret that just as much as the hon. member does. I want to say with reference to the play, "We Shall not be Moved", which was given on October 1, 1955, I was asked last night if I had listened to it and I said no, that I had not. I recall now that on October 1 I was not in Canada at all. I was in New York with the hon. member for Cape Breton South attending a meeting of the United Nations, so it was impossible for me to hear it. I am informed that the play was about the trial and execution of Joe Hill, a labour leader prominent in the I.W.W. movement before the first world war, and was based largely on the actual evidence and documentary material. The corporation tells me that the play was chosen entirely for its dramatic value. Upon a review of it afterwards it was felt the choice had not been a wise one, since the play did recreate some of the agitation and bitterness relating to the I.W.W. movement.
Another question was asked as to the out of pocket expenses for the play. They were $3,500. When I introduced these estimates on Friday, July 27, I made most of the points which I considered useful for their consideration in the house. There are, however, one or two questions on which I should comment, although I recognize that others might equally well be dealt with.
In his second speech on these estimates last night the hon. member for Peace River attempted to make an issue of the fact that a commercial licence has not been granted to station CKUA in Edmonton. This question has been fully explored in the committee of this house on radio broadcasting, and is not a matter for C.B.C. decision. The decision rests entirely with the licensing authority, which is the radio division of the Department of Transport. In 1946 Right Hon. C. D. Howe informed the house that the policy of the government was not to issue commercial broadcasting licences to other governments or agencies of governments.
With reference to the former matter, I wish to bring before the committee the fact that the C.B.C. produces in a year 70,000 programs. It is not possible, despite the exercise of the best judgment that can be taken in these matters, to avoid errors in judgment. I regret as much as the hon. member does this particular feature. I do not think it was a good thing, and the C.B.C. does not think it was good. Because of the fact that it was criticized in the house we

will certainly be, that is the C.B.C. and myself, on guard to see that such a thing does not recur again.
At this time I do not want to take up too much of the time of the committee. We are in a hurry to get along with the balance of these estimates. If there are further questions I shall be glad to answer them. There is one thing I feel rather badly about. Last night the hon. gentleman accused me of making wisecracks. That is not my policy at any time. I consider that as a reflection, unfair and more or less an insult. While I may be curt in my answers in this house, I attempt to answer questions as accurately as possible and in most instances as briefly as I can.


Mr. Nesbiit:: I have one brief question to ask the minister and a brief suggestion to make. The question is, is it the intention of the C.B.C. to allow the advertising of liquor over C.B.C. networks, either television or radio, in the future? I ask this question because I have had a great many letters sent to me on the subject, and I should like to satisfy my constituents one way or the other.


James Joseph McCann: This depends very much, Mr. Chairman, upon the provincial acts. In provinces where liquor advertising is allowed we do, in some instances, allow what we call spot announcements.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a few questions for the Minister of National Revenue, and a suggestion to make to him. I have had, as I suppose all hon. members in the house have had, letters from my constituents from time to time asking me to bring things forward. The one matter that I have received more letters about than anything else, or any other two or three matters put together, is the question of a proposed $15 annual tax on television sets.
It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that a suggestion that this might be necessary at some time in the future was made by Mr. Dunton of the C.B.C. I realize that the government has not announced any such intention at all, but the idea has been put forth and a great many people in the country seem to feel that it is the intention of the C.B.C. to do this. The matter ought to be cleared up now, if at all possible, because the general gist of the objection to such a proposal has been that it would be a tax that would hit the people in the lowest income brackets and one which they could least afford to pay, particularly in view of the fact that there is already a special 15 per cent excise tax on television sets when they are sold, and that any annual $15 tax would be highly objectionable particularly as the very great percentage of people to
Supply-C.B.C.
whom I have spoken on this matter, and others, are not entirely in sympathy with either the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or its programs.
Can the minister give us some little enlightenment on this? I think it might clear up something that is causing great concern in the minds of a very large section of the public.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, that opinion prevails, I think, because of the fact that there is too little reading and too much loose thinking about these matters. The C.B.C., when they made their presentation before the Fowler commission, did not at any time propose a $15 fee. They did indicate it would take the proceeds of the $15 fee on the 2 million television receiving sets to bring in the aggregate amount that would be sufficient, along with the other taxes there are in existence, to finance the C.B.C. That was only an opinion, and it is one of the reasons the Fowler commission is sitting at the present time. One of the particular points they were asked to consider in the terms of reference was the matter of finance.
I have no doubt when they make their report they will come up with some suggestions. I have no idea what they will be, but the C.B.C. positively did not indicate to the commission that there should be a fee of $15 per set.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: One more question and I am finished. Does the minister himself think there should be a tax of this kind on television sets?


James Joseph McCann: That is one of the questions on which the minister does not think out loud.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of attention to the hon. member for Peace River. He gave an expression of opinion as to how he viewed a certain program on the C.B.C. In his answer the minister seemed to indicate that he thought the C.B.C. may have made a mistake in putting on that program. Well, now, this is a question that I feel pretty keenly about, because I know the story of Joe Hill. I sat in union halls in this country when I was a pretty small boy and sang that song. Joe Hill was one of the early American martyrs in the establishment of unionism. I read the story of his trial, and I am convinced that Joe Hill was not guilty of the crime he was supposed to have committed.
The hon. member for Peace River interprets the program as a great piece of communist propaganda deliberately fostered by the C.B.C. I am convinced that you will always find what you are looking for. If
75GS

Supply-C.B.C.
you are looking for mud you look down and you see it; if you are looking for stars you look up and you see them. My interpretation of that play would be this. First, the Joe Hill incident took place before there was a communist party, but the communists are smart in fastening on to anything that has propaganda value.
My view of that program would be that during the period in which the Joe Hill incident took place, certain maladministrations of justice could be perpetrated. People were not allowed freedom of speech; they were not allowed to organize and, as a result, Joe Hill was one of the people who sacrificed his life in order that freedom, the right to organize and democracy in industry should take place. Today in the United States the things he visualized have become legal. It is not possible today in any part of the civilized world to commit what I think was a miscarriage of justice on the same grounds that it was committed at that time. One has only to look back and compare the conditions of those days with progress at the present time.
The communists are very adept at picking up that story and incident which set out injustices in a certain country at a certain time, putting them on the end of a stick and waving it about trying to kid the public that is the situation today. That is not the situation today. They do all kinds of these things. For example, they took the song "The Red Flag". That is not a Russian song. That song was written by a Glasgow Scotsman. It was the song of the labour movement in Europe for a good many years before there was a communist party. The same is true of "The International". This is another song they picked up and took unto themselves. It came out of the French revolution.
The story of Joe Hill is just another example of the C.B.C. wanting to give a real dramatized story of that period and the development of the labour movement. They put on that story for the benefit of the Canadian people. The communist press picked it up and played it up and created in the minds of certain people the interpretation the hon. member for Peace River puts on it. Anyone who understands the background of that particular story will realize that this action on the part of the communists is just another commie trick. They pick up something that is popular at this time, particularly among those who are engaged in the labour movement. The song "Joe Hill" is still sung in congress labour conventions. I have heard it in this province many times within the last few years, and it will always be one of the main theme songs of the labour movement in North America. I look upon the action of the

C.B.C. in bringing it up to date and dramatizing it as a gesture toward the organized labour movement in North America.
It is all a matter of opinion. For example, I can listen for an hour or so to a dramatization of the days of Shakespeare, but I do not connect it with feudalism. I can listen to the persecution and death of Socrates. I have sat and listened to that and shuddered through it. I did not construe it as propaganda, and I did not look upon it as an attempt to try to induce the Canadian people to accept the customs, conditions and methods of justice that existed at that time.
I just wanted to say that because, as far as I am concerned, the Joe Hill story which was dramatized is an old story to me and to anyone who came through the rank and file of the labour movement. While the hon. member for Peace River has every right to place any interpretation he likes on it-that is the way he sees it-yet I am telling him now that as far as I am concerned, and I think I am speaking for the organized labour movement of North America, we look upon that play, dramatized in Canada, as a gesture toward the labour movement, pointing out conditions, circumstances and injustices that existed at that time when people were trying to set the pattern of organization across the continent of North America. They will see it as a story of progress measured against that time to what it is today.
I just wanted to say that, Mr. Chairman, because I do not want the minister to back up on this kind of thing. I think the C.B.C. were right in picking it up and using it as propaganda for themselves, the communists are just repeating their old tactics.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, I am going to reply first to what was said by my friend the hon. member for Cape Breton South, whose sincerity I do not doubt in any way. There is one thing he overlooked and it is the key to this whole story. He completely neglected to deal with it. I was not complaining about the portrayal of the Joe Hill story at all. What I am complaining about is that the C.B.C. producer went out of his way to link the Joe Hill story of 1915 with a very recent conviction in the United States of a communist conspirator, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn. The whole story revolves around the letters that were written by Joe Hill to Elizabeth Gurley Flynn in his adulation of her as a rebel girl.
Let me just inform the hon. member and others who may be interested that Elizabeth Gurley Flynn is one of the leaders of the communist conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States by force. She

was convicted under the Smith act and is serving a term in jail for her subversion and conspiracy.
Here is something else my hon. friend has forgotten or perhaps did not know, but it is time he and others did know this fact. The current propaganda line of the communists is to portray in the most dramatic form possible the convicted subverters of the communist party as champions of the peoples' rights and victims of class persecution. They use this propaganda for the purpose of trying to destroy any anti-communist security measures that might be taken by governments, and also to work on the sympathies of the masses of the people in such a way that those communist subversive agents who have been convicted and are in jail will soon be turned loose. That is what they are after.
They portrayed Joe Hill and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn as victims of a frame-up; that was the line. That was the purpose of the play. That is what the people got out of the play and that is exactly what I am complaining against. They portrayed them as victims of frame-ups the purpose being, of course, to make the public believe that communist conspiracy and subversion are mere figments of the imagination and not realities; and I am afraid my hon. friend has fallen for the line. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, it is far more serious than any acceptance of the mere portrayal of the life of a trade union leader.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that the selection of this play was not just a matter of a lapse of taste or mistaken taste. Considering the build-up this play had and considering the fact that the Joe Hill story was linked up with Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a subversive communist agent, who was convicted under the laws of the United States, I certainly cannot believe that this was a mere mistake in judgment. Somebody in the C.B.C. deliberately chose that subject and wrote it up for the purpose of putting over the communist line and using the C.B.C. network to do so.
The minister said it was chosen exclusively for its dramatic substance. May I also point out to my hon. friend the minister that this is the communist way of doing things, too. Does the minister not know that today the communists everywhere are dressing up their propaganda and subversive ideas in the most attractive and alluring way, giving them the most beautiful dresses and sending them out to the people expecting them to be swallowed whole because they do contain some beautiful thoughts?
Let me point out to the minister that I hold in my hand two marvelous magazines that
Supply-C.B.C.
are published by the red Chinese government. These magazines are delightful to behold; they are dressed up in a most attractive way. The printing is beautiful, the paper is of a very high quality, and the magazines are full of lovely illustrations. One of these is called "People's China", building up the communist regime in China and spreading it over this country. Why would they spend all that money? Why would they secure the finest artists and the finest printers in the world and employ them in the production of these wonderful magazines to send to Canada?
This is done in order to convince us that the red Chinese government is a humanitarian regime that does nothing but give the people the results they want from the management of their affairs. The other magazine is called "China Reconstructed". I hold it in my hand; look at it. There are some beautiful thoughts in this magazine, and some wonderful poetry. Does the minister say that the C.B.C. would be justified in buying up these magazines with the taxpayers' money simply because they are beautiful, and sending them out to propagandize the Canadian people? That is exactly what he is saying.
The minister spoke concerning the matter of costs and indicated that there was an out of pocket cost for this production of $3,500. Does that mean, Mr. Chairman, that this figure includes the network costs and the artists' charges and the production costs and producers' fees and the 100 people involved and all that sort of thing?


James Joseph McCann: Everything.


Solon Earl Low: Would the C.B.C. allow anyone else to have two hours of time over the entire network for the sum of $3,500? That is absolutely ridiculous. I would not be surprised if $3,500 represented the fees paid to the artists and so on but that certainly does not include the network costs for two hours. The minister cannot make me believe that. In this case again we received a left-handed answer. I want the facts about it. I want to know not only the out of pocket costs paid by the C.B.C. to the artists, musicians, the producer and properties for that play, but I also want to know what the network costs were and that would give us the whole picture.
I am not going to go any further, Mr. Chairman, at this time, but I am relying on what the minister told me just a few minutes ago. I took it from what he said that he will use his influence and his responsibility as the minister concerned with the C.B.C. to see to it that nothing like this happens again. He has to be watchful, because I remind him that not so long before this great dramatic

Supply-C.B.C.
production was put over the air there was another one called "The Investigator" which was written by Reuben Ship, a deported United States communist who came into this country, picked up with the C.B.C. and wrote "The Investigator" as a satire ridiculing the methods of uncovering communist conspiracy. Not only was it put over the C.B.C. in Canada, but tape recordings were made of it so that it could be spread abroad throughout the world. I think the minister should give the house an unequivocal undertaking that he will use his responsibility as minister to see that some monitor service is set up. I get my information but not by listening personally to everything, as I have not the time to do that. It is easy to get a monitoring service to keep you informed. I say to the C.B.C., through the minister, that they had better get their gloves off and go to work with these infiltrators. If they can infiltrate once and cause a serious mistake of this kind, they can do it again. They should clean out the whole mess, because it is a mess.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I usually give an annual speech on this item, and I do not think I should allow this session to be an exception to that rule. I have been a member of the radio committee of parliament for many years, whenever that committee has been set up. I want to say a few words again this session and to pick up a loose end or two.
We are happy, I am sure, to learn from the minister that discussions of this kind will put him as well as the C.B.C. on guard. I am going to take that for what it is worth. For how many years do we have to keep hammering and hammering on these things in order to have the minister and the C.B.C. be on guard? Surely they have known for years, by reason of discussions in this house, that there is resentment toward that type of program.
The minister said they produce 70,000 programs a year and there is bound to be the odd one which people do not like or which slips through their fingers unnoticed. Neither the minister nor the C.B.C. can hide behind statistics of 70,000 programs a year. That would amount to about 200 programs a day and there are not 200 programs of this kind a day, by any means. You cannot hide behind statistics in order to escape responsibility of this kind; not on your life.
As a matter of fact, it is not the odd one that slips through their fingers. As my leader has said, these things do not slip through their fingers. We have seen the build-up this program was given in the C.B.C. Times for more than one issue. That thing did not slip

through their fingers; it was a deliberate attempt to put over a piece of communist propaganda in the softening up process of the Canadian people to receive communism should it ever come. Make no mistake about that. With what the hon. member for Cape Breton South has said with regard to the cleverness of the communists I agree. They are clever; but surely we have clever men in our country, and surely there are clever men in the C.B.C. The clever men in the C.B.C., whether they are top officials, writers or anything like that, never go for that sort of stuff unless they are tarred with the same brush.
It is not only this program, it is a variety of things. There is the talks department, for instance. You can go all through the system and find the same thing happening. Some months ago a gentleman came to me and asked me if I had heard a certain program. I told him I had not, but he went on to tell me that that program ridiculed the Senate of Canada. He described the program as depicting the Senate as being a bunch of doddering old men who did not know where they were going, with a lot of gravy on their vests or something of that sort.


An hon. Member:: A lot of gravy, anyway.


Ernest George Hansell: Surely these programs should attempt to solidify our parliamentary institutions, not to ridicule the Senate. Over the years the socialists in this country have been advocating the abolition of the Senate. The program followed the line; there is no other answer. These people want to break down established institutions.


John Horne Blackmore: Particularly British institutions.


Ernest George Hansell: Then they talk about balance and so forth, but what do they mean by balance? Balance between what? There is no balance between right and wrong. There is only one thing; that is, right. Of course I know what they will say, "Right as you see it." It is right as our free democratic concept dictates. That is what it is. The communist conception is wrong. That is all there is to it. If we have a governmental institution as powerful as the C.B.C. it should be used to help solidify our parliamentary institutions and our free democratic concepts, to exalt and portray our concepts in the best possible light, to exalt the crown. I say the crown because appointment to the Senate is a prerogative of the crown. That was another program.
If they are conscientious about it, if we are to rely upon the little bit of repentance we heard this morning from the mouth of the minister, let them go the whole hog and

say to these writers, producers and others: We have no use for you; never again will you be employed by us; never again will you produce a play for us; never again will we accept a manuscript from you. Fire them all. Fire those who are responsible for letting this slip through their fingers.
There should be a complete housecleariing. I am speaking now off the cuff and from my own convictions, but I fancy that if Social Crediters should get into power we would retain the C.B.C. It has a useful function to perform, but that useful function is not to destroy Canada by playing into the hands of those who would eventually take control. That is what these things will do. Every country in Europe or Asia that has fallen to communism without the firing of a shot has done so after a softening up process iri order that it might be acceptable when it came. Of course that cannot be done unless there is propaganda. There is no more powerful propaganda machine in Canada than the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, with its regulatory and monopolistic authority over sound and television broadcasting.
I want to deal with another point, the financial angle of this thing. I have been an advocate for a good many years of putting the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on the same basis as the independent stations and saying, "Now, get your revenues the same as they do, and operate without coming back on the taxpayers." Of course that may be an extreme view, because we know that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has expenses that ordinarily an independent group of broadcasting stations may not have, but I do say this. They spend money like drunken sailors when there is no need to spend it. I say that conscientiously.
I could give you one or two instances, and I think there are a good many more. They have all the C.B.C. foreign correspondents in these various countries. There is not a thing those correspondents can get that the ordinary news services of the world do not give us. The other night over television- and I am not criticizing these programs- Larry Henderson said in the closing moments of the program, "Now, ladies and gentlemen, I must hurry away and catch a plane to Egypt, and there I will talk with you and give you on the scene news" or something to that effect.
That costs money. When Larry Henderson gets over there I do not know whether or not he will get an audience with Nasser, but he cannot do any more than the newsmen who are there right on the spot. Yet we have spent money on getting this man over there, together with any technicians or equipment
Supply-C.B.C.
that might be necessary. I do not know what is involved, but you cannot do that sort of thing without spending a good deal of money. When you tune in to commentators in the various countries, I suppose it has a psychological effect to know that we are listening to someone away over there, but it is of no more actual value to Canada than getting it from the press wires of the various international news services that are at our disposal.
There is another thing about spending money. Of course it has grown to such proportions now that perhaps they do not want to retrench, but there are many C.B.C. stations for which we have no need. We have no more need for the C.B.C. station at Lacombe, Alberta, than a dog has need of fleas. The whole province is covered by radio without the C.B.C. The same applies to Winnipeg, Vancouver, Watrous, and other stations. The independent stations will do that job. You could close all C.B.C. stations and, as far as the listening public are concerned, they would get just as much for a lot less money.
Take the news services. I am not saying they should be cut out altogether; I would not go that far. As a matter of fact, if I had my choice I would choose the C.B.C. national news bulletin. It is a good broadcast, well put over. I will say, too, that if there is any balance as between political parties, perhaps there is an element there, more so perhaps than in other cases. It is objective, and I compliment them on it. But as far as the Canadian people getting news is concerned, they do not get any more news by reason of C.B.C. news service than they would get by the independent stations putting out news, which goes on almost every hour of the day.
I am talking about the spending of money. As far as the talks department is concerned, you could wipe it right out and Canada would be just as well off. As far as many of their productions are concerned, let me say this. It is useless for the C.B.C. to think it can compete with Hollywood; it cannot, and that is all there is to it. They run around looking for something to produce, something that is new. You cannot compete with that high-class Hollywood stuff. They could save a good deal of money there.
The other day I saw a program on television in regard to the Canada medal. I am not going to criticize it too harshly, but I am telling you that it was obvious to anyone with any perception at all that the program was produced by intent. It was not a chance program with a man going along the street with a microphone, stopping someone and

Supply-C.B.C.
asking, "What do you think of the Canada medal?" and their saying, "I think so and so should get the Canada medal." If that was not concocted I will eat my hat right on the floor of this chamber, because when you approach so many people on the street with a microphone, somebody on that program is going to stumble. There was not one who stumbled when asked, "You have heard of the Canada medal; who do you think should get it?"
Ninety per cent of the people of Canada have never heard of the Canada medal, and the program started out that way. The question brought up by an hon. member here in the Conservative party, and a debate took place in the house; but I do not think it was such an outstanding debate. But here were these people who were asked, "Who do you think should get the Canada medal?" Of course they had to bring in the Prime Minister. Naturally if I were producing the program I would too. They brought in the Secretary of State for External Affairs and said he should get the medal. I suppose if I were producing the program I would have done the same thing. There was another gentleman who was asked, "Who do you think should get it?" He spoke in rather broken English and said, "I think M. J. Coldwell should get the Canada Medal"-


Clarence Gillis: Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: -because he has done more for the social services of Canada than anybody else of Canada dot I know of." What tommyrot. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has not done a single, solitary thing; he has not been in a position to do anything. He may have gone out stumping and talking about it, but so have all of us. It is just another line; it was stuck in there on purpose.


Clarence Gillis: You are suspicious.


Ernest George Hansell: Perhaps I am suspicious.
Perhaps it pays to be suspicious. I think I have an ordinary amount of common sense.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is nothing wrong with broken English.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not think I have any more than average common sense, but I have enough common sense to detect something. When you are sitting by a television set or listening to a radio without the annoyances and interferences that might come from some other place, you can perceive things and detect things that you could not otherwise do. They may fool a lot of people, but they were not fooling Hansell on that program.
[Mr. Hansell.l
There are many of these things that could be cut out and it would save money, and Canada and the Canadian people would be just as far ahead. They could cut out the international short wave services, and the Canadian people and Canada as a nation would be just as far ahead.


John Horne Blackmore: So would the foreign
peoples.


Ernest George Hansell: So would those in other
countries. I am simply saying that the C.B.C. are always after money. I think they should be given a reasonable amount, by reason of the fact that they operate a little differently and are trying to give a service which perhaps another independent corporation could not do; but it is about time we were considering the taxpayer1 in the matter of revenues going to the C.B.C. and being spent for things that I do not believe are necessary in the interests of this country.
I have looked through the estimates just in passing, and I find that it costs more to run the C.B.C. than it does to run the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. It costs more to run the C.B.C. than it does to run the whole Department of Citizenship and Immigration. It costs nearly as much to run the C.B.C. as it does to run the Department of External Affairs. It costs four times as much to run the C.B.C. as it does to run the Department of Fisheries. It costs more to run the C.B.C. than it does to run the Department of Justice. It costs more to run the C.B.C. than it does to run the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. It costs more to run the C.B.C. than the whole R.C.M.P. force of Canada. It costs more to run the C.B.C. than it does to run the department of the Secretary of State. It costs more to run the C.B.C. than it does the Department of Trade and Commerce. It costs more to run the C.B.C. than it does to run the Department of Defence Production, including the crown corporations coming under its administration.
It is about time the people of Canada knew one or two of these things. It is no wonder we get a little bit provoked when we see the taxpayers called upon to foot the bill for the kind of stuff against which my leader has warned the government. Let it be remembered that we are going to continue to hammer at this thing until our voice is heard and until some notice is taken of what we say. I know the minister is not a communist. I know he is not, but let him come clean; let the government come clean, and tell this country that this sort of thing is going to stop from now on. That is the best way, and I am going to tell you that in doing so they will receive the support of the thinking

public of Canada. Of course they will. They will be admired for the step they take.
We are going to hammer at this thing and hammer at it. I certainly like to look at the stars but I am going to watch the mud beneath my feet when I step. That' is all there is to it. I shall stop there, Mr. Chairman, but this will not be the last word I will have to say as the years go by.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Macleod I like to keep an eye on the mud at my feet, but I do not like to put my face right down into it. I think my colleague the member for Cape Breton South dealt very gently with what was said by the hon. member for Peace River.


John Horne Blackmore: He did not say anything very bad. Don't go building up a mythology. Get his words in Hansard.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I must say that as I sat here last night and listened to the speech made by the member for Peace River I was really shocked to my very roots that it was possible that anybody in this parliament should get up and make a speech like the one he made. I can only conclude that the leader of the Social Credit party, who usually is quite a smiling and urbane individual, was a victim of his own inflamed imagination, and X think the remarks he made amply demonstrated that that was the case.
He admitted during the course of the discussion last night that he had not heard the particular production, "We Shall Not be Moved", to which he referred at some length. I have not heard it either, so that makes us even. But he did say when the minister asked a question: "No, but I have a report of the facts". Then the hon. member proceeded at great length to outline the facts he said he had. I listened to him very carefully, and all the facts that he produced were facts that he had gleaned from some communist publication which he had been reading.
I did not believe the hon. member for Peace River was as gullible as that. Over the years I have seen a number of communist publications in this country, and I have some experience and understanding of the fact that you do not take everything you read in a communist publication at its face value, which the member for Peace River obviously was doing last night when speaking to the house. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, that is why I have to say that I came to the conclusion that the member was a victim of his own inflamed imagination, and I think that also applies to some of the things that have just been put on the record by the hon. member for Macleod.
Supply-C.B.C.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South did put some of the facts on the record with respect to Joe Hill, and I am not going to repeat them. I shall simply say that as far as I am concerned, I, along with a lot of other working people in the country, regard him as one of the early martyrs of the labour movement. Certainly the fact that the communist party may be attempting to make something of it in this day and age is not going to alter the thinking of responsible citizens of this country today.
However, it was not the comments the hon. member made with respect to this particular program that disturbed me so much. As far as I am concerned he is perfectly free to express his agreement or disagreement or his like or dislike of any program that is put on the air by the C.B.C. The thing that does disturb me is the fact that the hon. member, according to his own thinking, seems to consider that the Canadian people should have the right to look only at the kind of programs that he would like to see. That is what disturbs me, that a member of this parliament should get up and advocate that sort of thing in what we consider to be a free parliament.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The only conclusion I can come to-


Solon Earl Low: -on a question of privilege-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -is that what the member is really driving at, and we see in his remarks the true colours and thinking of his party-


John Horne Blackmore: Do some more lying.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -is that he is advocating that we should have in Canada some form of thought control.


The Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member for Peace River has risen on a question of privilege.


Solon Earl Low: Here again we have an example of the disregard for the rights of members of this house that has so often been portrayed here. My question of privilege is this. The hon. member says that in my speech last night I indicated definitely that the only programs I wanted to have on the C.B.C. were those that I wanted to see. Mr. Chairman, that is an absolute, unqualified lie. I never at any time said anything of the kind, and I challenge the member to go to the words of my speech. So it will help him I shall hand to him now the Hansard containing those words, and I challenge him to quote one single sentence that would indicate the truth of what he has just now said.
7572

Supply-C.B.C.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I think the hon. member for Peace River was not really rising on a question of privilege. He was rising on the same sort of personal explanation that we have had so often this session. I think it has been generally decided that the proper time to make such corrections is when the member who has the floor has taken his seat. It is perfectly obviously that time after time one member will misinterpret the intent of the remarks made by another, but unless that misinterpretation includes something in the nature of an accusation it is my opinion that the proper time to correct it is at the conclusion of the speech made by the hon. member who has the floor.
But the expression worrying me at the moment is the expression just used by the hon. member for Peace River, which I think could give rise to a question of privilege. If my memory serves me right, he said that the statement made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni was an absolute lie.
It is, I think, the established practice in this house that a member may say a statement made by a member in debate is untrue; that it is unfounded; that the conclusions are wrong and so forth. But it is my impression that the direct accusation by one member of another that he is a liar or that a statement made is an absolute lie has been taken by this house as implying a deliberate intent to impute a falsehood.
So, while I think the hon. member for Peace River is undoubtedly correct in straightening out any misinterpretation there may have been of the remarks he made, I am going to ask the hon. member now to make it clear that he was not accusing the hon. member for Comox-Alberni of uttering a deliberate lie. I think it is necessary for me to ask the hon. member for Peace River to make that clear.


Solon Earl Low: I certainly do not wish to be out of order. I do not wish to accuse the hon. member for Comox-Alberni of being a liar. I wanted to point out what he said was an unqualified misrepresentation of the facts.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I think the record will show that what I intended to say was that the inference I had drawn from the remarks made by the hon. member last night was that, in effect, he was advocating a form of thought control. I do not expect the member will necessarily agree with the inference I have drawn. If he wishes to argue that my inference is wrongly drawn I am quite prepared to have him do that. I was merely stating that was the inference that I had drawn from his remarks last night. If my conclusions are incorrect-


Solon Earl Low: They are absolutely incorrect. What I am fighting against is thought control.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -he can argue that. I think there is a good deal of ground for the inference.


Solon Earl Low: I challenge the hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I did not take the trouble to go through every word of what was put in the record last night.
I should like to go back to the main point which I was attempting to make, and that is that I do not quarrel with the hon. member for disapproving of that certain program. I have seen lots of programs on the C.B.C. that made me froth at the mouth, but I never had the feeling the C.B.C. should not be allowed to put on those programs. There may be other people, perhaps the hon. member for Peace River or the hon. member for Macleod, who may enjoy those plays. That is not the issue at stake in the discussion we have had.
I have listened to a number of these discussions in which the members of the Social Credit group and in some cases the members of the Conservative group have participated. This is the first time I have ever had anything to say about it. I think the crux of this matter was very well summed up in the plea which the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Macleod were making to the minister this morning. The hon. member for Peace River two or three times urged the Minister of National Revenue to use his responsibility as a minister to see that the C.B.C. did such and such. I do not think the members of the Social Credit group quite realize what they are saying when they make that remark. What they are, in effect, advocating is that the government of this country should take unto itself the power to dictate what the Canadian people shall or shall not listen to.


Solon Earl Low: That is what they are doing now.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: As I understand it, that is the complete negation of the whole concept of setting up the C.B.C. So far as I am concerned I would fight, as long as I am a member of this house or a Canadian citizen, against turning over to one minister of the crown the responsibility for stating what I may listen to. So far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that would be the beginning of a fascist state in this country, and that is something I am against.
It seemed to me rather peculiar to hear an hon. member interject at one point in the discussion this morning, "particularly

British institutions". If there is one thing which, in my opinion, is typified by that term "British institutions" it is the right of free speech; the right of the people of the country to express opinions and to listen to opinions free from the dictates of any governmental authority. So far as I am concerned, one of the main bulwarks of the tradition of British institutions in this country over a period of a good many years has been the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, set up as it is, as something separate and apart from any control by the government of the day. So far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that is something for which I am going to continue to fight and continue to advocate. If the hon. member for Macleod wants to oppose me on any platform in Canada on that question I shall be willing to take him on any day.
I do not think many people in Canada are going to fall for the line of propaganda whis was given to us this morning about the C.B.C. by the hon. member for Macleod. I do not think the majority of the Canadian people are that gullible, nor are the majority of the Canadian people prepared to submit tamely to a form of thought control. The hon. member for Macleod I thought made it very clear during his speech, when he used the phrase, "if we retain the C.B.C.", just what would happen to the C.B.C. if they gained power.


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member had better read that again. I said that no doubt if we ever were in power we would retain the C.B.C.


Hazen Robert Argue: You have the "if" in the right place this time.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I tried to get those words down and I believe the hon. member said, "if we retain the C.B.C.", and then he proceeded to qualify it at some length. He said he was only expressing his own view. I think the hon. member doubts whether he would get very much support from the people of this country if he went out directly advocating the abolition of the C.B.C. The hon. member can check the record of his speech on that point.
In any event, I think the discussion that was led last night by the hon. member for Peace River has clearly indicated that there is a trend of thought in this country today which is very dangerous. There is a trend of thought advocated by these people which, if allowed to spread, would strike at the very roots of our British institutions, of our free parliamentary traditions, of our right to free speech and our right to have a broadcasting agency across this country 67509-4814
Supply-C.B.C.
which belongs to the Canadian people and not to any particular group of individuals or any particular government that may be in power from time to time. I think I have said about enough to indicate to the members of the Social Credit group that I do not fully agree with the remarks they have been making on this subject.
But before I sit down I should like to add that I appreciate the fact that the Minister of National Revenue has consistently refused to be drawn into a compromising position in respect to his relationship with the C.B.C., even though there has been a good deal of provocation thrown in his direction. So far as I am concerned, as long as the minister forms the liaison, as he says, between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and this house and maintains that position, I have not too much concern that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is going to be subverted to the will of the government.


Mr. Monfeilh:: I shall be very brief. I was going to say a few words, but I think I shall limit my remarks to the form of questions. Evidence was given in the radio committee last session to the effect that the bookkeeping system was still on a cash basis, although the accrual and commitment bases were being studied. It was also indicated that P. S. Ross and Sons were being consulted as to the adequacy of the system. I wonder whether the minister can enlighten the committee a little on that situation?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, the royal
commission is looking into this matter, and probably it is not one that it would be well to discuss here. We have the report of the Auditor General, and he says:
The accounts and the financial statements of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have been examined and a set of the financial statements is attached.
It goes on to give figures, and then he says:
In compliance with the requirements of section 87 of the Financial Administration Act I report that in my opinion-
Subject to certain comments that he made.
- (a) proper books of account have been kept by the corporation;
(b)	the financial statements of the corporation
(i)	were prepared on a basis consistent with that of the preceding year and are in agreement with the books of account,
(ii)	in the case of the balance sheet, give a true and fair view of the state of the corporation's affairs as at the end of the financial year, and
(iii)	in the case of the statement of income and expense, give a true and fair view of the income and expense of the corporation for the financial year; and
(c)	the transactions of the corporation that have come under my notice have been within the

Supply-C.B.C.
powers of the corporation under the Financial Administration Act and any other act applicable to the corporation.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have read the Auditor General's report, and it is identical with what has been presented by him in former years. He has had some qualifying clauses in addition in other years which are omitted this year, but I would like to know whether more detail has been actually received from P. S. Ross and Sons, or suggestions by them for improvement of the bookkeeping system of the C.B.C.?


James Joseph McCann: I am informed that the
financial investigators of the Fowler commission are going into this matter very thoroughly, and I presume it is not likely that we shall have a report on that particular phase until the general report is given when they have completed their investigations.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am quite willing to wait until the Fowler commission has reported. However, I ask, has there been any change whatsoever from the cash system which had been in vogue for so many years, or are they still completely on a cash basis?


James Joseph McCann: I am informed that there have been some gradual changes made up to date, and that finally they will get to the system where there will be a combination of both the cash method of accounting and the accrual method.


Ernest George Hansell: I have just this remark. We in this corner of the house, the Social Credit party, believe in and are very conscientious in respect of our free way of life. All we have done is to attempt to defend it and to get rid of the elements in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that would destroy it. Those who have taken part in the debate this morning and have opposed us are the members of the C.C.F., the socialists of this country, who have defended those elements in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. That in itself speaks volumes.
I have a story in my scrapbook somewhere, Mr. Chairman, of Daniel Webster, who was pleading a case in one of the United States courts. It happened that the decision would hinge on a wagon wheel. Daniel Webster's opponent went into all the technical arguments to try to prove that this wheel was not the actual wheel involved. He had measurements made of the spokes, the hub, the rim and the diameter. He went into all the technical arguments trying to destroy the evidence that this was the wheel. Daniel Webster rose; he turned to the jury and said, "Gentlemen of the jury, there is the wheel; look at it".


An hon. Member:: Did he win the case?


Ernest George Hansell: The story says he won the case. All I am saying is, we have attempted to defend our free concept of life and get rid of these elements. Our socialist boys have protected those elements. In the voice of Daniel Webster I say to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the people of Canada, just look at it.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, all I have to say in answer to the hon. member for Macleod is that we rest our case with the Canadian people; let them take a look at it.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with considerable interest to the discussion of our C.C.F. friends. What I would say it amounts to is an attempt-I hope I am not using too strong words-to cast reflection on the hon. member for Peace River and build up a mythology which would indicate with crocodile tears that this "horrible man declaimed against the trade unions", because he mentioned Joe Hill. The important thing is that the hon. member for Peace River says he did not even mention Joe Hill. The important thing is, if these men are so much in love with Joe Hill-and I have nothing either for or against Joe Hill, because I had never heard of the gentleman before-if they hold him in such adoration, and I am not questioning their right in so doing, certainly I would imagine that they themselves would be somewhat angry about a play which connected Joe Hill with a convicted criminal under the Smith act in the United States. How can you cast greater reflection on Joe Hill than by doing that very thing?
The hon. member for Peace River points out to me that this is what he said. "This play was built around Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, who is a Smith act criminal in jail in the United States because of her activities under the act". Does the minister not know that this was picked up by the C.B.C., how, nobody seems to know; but I am going to try to prove it during the course of my questions. This extravaganza must have cost the taxpayers of this country a large amount of money. It attracted tremendous attention from the communist press the world over.
I have in my hand a photostatic copy of page 7 of the Daily People's World which the communists circulate in the western United States. They say in great headlines, "Joe Hill, Gurley Flynn vividly depicted in Canada radio show". According to what the hon. member for Peace River says, that is the only mention he made of Joe Hill.
Now, imagine the attitude of a man who sees a thing like that and gets up on the floor of this house and endeavours to build up a story which he knows his constituents

will read, and will never have a chance to read the words of the member for Peace River. Just imagine that! If I were to call that absolute dishonesty probably I would be a little bit out of order. I cannot at the moment think what to call it, but it certainly is not what you would call honourable behaviour on the floor of this house.
I have followed the activities of the C.B.C. with great interest for several years. I have spoken out against programs which have appeared on the C.B.C. during the past two years or more, because, being a school teacher with 21 years of experience, I know the kind of influence which can be exerted on young minds by very subtle and veiled remarks. It has to be borne in mind that the people who are going to listen to our C.B.C. programs are mainly young minds.
Two years ago I pointed out that although I may have taught my children very carefully the fallacies of evolution, they might listen to a play in which evolution was built up without my knowing they had done this and without my having a chance to answer the arguments. My children could therefore be subtly indoctrinated in the fallacies of evolution, and could begin to lose their faith. I have no desire to prevent all sides of a story being heard, but since the hon. member from Comox-Alberni endeavoured to make such a story of the whole matter, indicating that he wanted free speech so that every side of a matter could be heard, I shall just mention one little thing first. I propose to speak at some length on this matter because I think it is just about as important a matter as any we have ever had before us, and indeed it may very well be the most important. I am not going to attempt to limit my remarks simply because of the fact that we are nearing the end of the session.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: If you compare the number of words that have been spoken in this house during this session by members of the C.C.F. and Conservative parties with the total number of words spoken by the Social Crediters you will find that we have been very restrained and moderate in our use of the time of this house. If we choose to use some time now in order to put our point of view and beliefs before the country at what is perhaps the most critical time in the history of Canada and the British empire, I think we are completely justified.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni spoke about having free speech. I have in my possession a list of speakers who have been indoctrinating the people of Canada with the communist line over the C.B.C. and have been
Supply-C.B.C.
speaking against the British empire, which kind of speaking is a part of the communist line. This list must consist of 65 or 70 speakers. The minister in his innocence thought an occasional communist might have slipped in, but he will be astounded when he conducts a thorough examination and finds many speakers have made pro-communist speeches over the C.B.C.
After listening to the C.B.C. for some period of time I wonder whether or not we should be quite honest with the Canadian people and advise them that this is no longer the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation but rather it is the communist broadcasting corporation, so that people who listen to what goes over the air will be on their guard.


Solon Earl Low: It would still be the C.B.C.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, that is right. Let us just get some of the facts that are worth having. According to the records I have there have been four great anti-communist speakers who have been called on to perform over the C.B.C. These men are Dr. Watson Kirkconnell, William Rowan, Jack Brayley and Leonard Shapiro. The last speech Dr. Watson Kirkconnell gave was on January 18, 1955. Since that time this man has not been called on to speak over the C.B.C., according to my records. Why? Because on that occasion he gave us a smashing talk against communism, and he is a man who knows all about communism. No wonder he was not heard again over the communist broadcasting corporation.
You can listen to the C.B.C any week, and almost every day somewhere or other someone sneaks in a little insinuation that suggests the pro-communist line. I do not wish to take too much time before one o'clock in dealing with this matter, but I would like to give one example in order that the people may give some thought to some of the things that have been said. I am going back over several years, because the speaker I have in mind, although he is an inveterate and continuous offender, is still employed by the C.B.C. On February 22, 1953, this particular man encouraged the breaking up of the British empire, using these words:
It has been a marvellous story, the British empire. But it could not last forever.
That is very subtle, is it not? It suggests the breaking up of the British empire, which is one of the major objectives of the communist organization. Karl Marx when he founded communism said, "In order for me to put across and establish the ideas I have in mind I must destroy two institutions, the British commonwealth and the Christian church" and so everything that is antiChristian and anti-British empire at the

.Supply-C.B.C.
present moment follows right along the communist line. See how skilfully this was done. Anyone listening to that program would begin to doubt regarding the British empire and might say, "Where are we going to turn? Shall Canada separate herself from the British commonwealth?"


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. It being one o'clock I do leave the chair.


Walter Edward Harris: As I indicated last night, Mr. Chairman, there are certain public engagements that have to be kept today. I would suggest it would perhaps be as convenient an arrangement as any if we could continue until two o'clock and then have our lunch hour from two o'clock until 3.30. I think we could get through our business better.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is that agreeable to the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy  Chairman@: Is it agreeable that this debate continue and the committee shall rise at two o'clock for lunch, resuming at 3.30 p.m.?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Horne Blackmore: Here is another remark made by the same commentator, and I am not going to reveal his name at the moment. On May 2, 1954, he said:
Perhaps the most Important event in recent centuries-except the development of the new weapons is the emergence of China out of her long pacific sleep and sloth, into a mood of dyamism, revolution and expansionism. And now here was this new China on the world stage at Geneva.
Could a man in a few brief words build up more strongly in favour of red China than this man did? He did not stop to say that before these red robbers came into China with Russian and United States help, Chiang Kai-shek was establishing a great nation in China, that he had had to throw back the Japanese from 1931 on and had had to fight the Russians during most of that time. He did not tell us that Chiang Kai-shek was a great reformer following Dr. Sun Yat-sen in his heroic effort to throw out the Manchu dynasty and throw out people like the British, French and Americans, who had a strong influence in China, rendering it almost impossible for the man who ruled China to really rule the country because of the influence of these foreign peoples.
He did not say a word about that. He referred to the fact that this was the first time China had shaken off her sloth, and he mentioned the revolution. What happened in China was not a revolution, in the main; rather it was a conquest by Russia. I know there are many people who think that just
[Mr. Blackmore.l
is not so, but it is so. All those who know the facts know it is so. I find it close to impossible to get people to read books like "The Iron Curtain over America", by Dr. John Beaty, and "The China Story" by Freda Utley and other books that actually have the facts. The people are being influenced by men who say just this kind of thing. The people are never told about China; that Stalin stalked China for 21 years, and then with the aid of a United States administration under the control of communists he finally was able to cause Chiang Kai-shek to withdraw to Formosa. They never tell these things.
I ask why these things are not brought out. Why do we always have things like I have quoted which give a wrong and distorted view concerning the whole matter? That is the point. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni says the people have a right to hear every side. Of course they have, but the point is that they do not hear every side. The C.B.C. sees that they do not. That is where the trouble lies. And what is the result of propaganda like this? When it goes on for months and months it gradually indoctrinates, particularly our youth, with false ideas.
Now let us refer to the British empire. I ask the minister to examine into what the C.B.C. has done in that regard. I ask him to tell the committee of one program which has been put out over the air during the past year which has built up the British empire, just one. Oh, no; we never get anything like that, not at all. In connection with Cyprus we are told that the British are oppressing the Cyprus people, that they will not let the Cypriots have self-determination. But this dishonest rascal never takes the trouble to remind the people that Stalin never paid any attention to the right of people to selfdetermination; not at all. Did the people in the Balkans have the right to vote to determine their own destiny? Can you see any way in which they will ever get it unless we with the help of the Lord can thrash Russia and force them to give these people their freedom? Did they ever have a vote? No. Did red China ever have a vote, even the vote of one man to say whether or not this would be a people's government? Not at all. We do learn that when Chiang Kai-shek withdrew there were 150 million loyal Chinese right behind him ready to die for him. How about the right of those people to self-determination? All down the west border and all down the south border these people were to be found.
I have put before the committee in brief some of the considerations which we have to bear in mind. I could go on and run through a whole list of things that were more than just subtle. All we have to have is just one

remark like that in a very fine speech, and what do the listeners get? They get the one remark which sows the seed of doubt and anxiety because they never get the facts. I have spoken in various places, and I have not found one single person who knew the facts about communist and nationalist China and about Chiang Kai-shek.
I think I have said enough to deal with the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. Of course my remarks here will never be put into the hands of his constituents. His remarks will be there with all the reflections he can throw into his words against Social Credit, with no attempt whatsoever to make a correct appraisal.
There are several things I wanted to put before the committee, but I shall make this remark. I do not believe there is a well informed person in the Dominion of Canada who is not filled with dread that we are going to lose the war against Russia. I doubt if there are very many people in the United States who are not filled with dread, and who, as the hon. member for Peace River said last night, do not realize that their very existence is at stake. Can we afford to have an organization like the C.B.C. constantly and incessantly indoctrinating our people in an effort to win supporters for the Kremlin? Can we afford to have that when already our position is almost desperate.
Everybody realizes that if war comes the first thing we do is prevent people from saying anything that would be comforting to the enemy. It is considered a serious offence for a man to say things which are comforting to the enemy. Is not this cold war a war? Can we afford to have the C.B.C. with speakers on the air giving comfort incessantly to the enemy with never a word of protest? There will be some who will think my words are extravagant, but do not think for a minute that I cannot back up every single thing I am saying. I have the evidence right here, almost volumes of it.
Wherein lies the source of the trouble? Generally people do not realize what is the communist line. Anything that is said, such as what the minister of external affairs said here on the floor of the house in January, 1955, that we ought to neutralize Formosa, falls within that category. The average person would not think that was offering comfort to the enemy, but if we lost Formosa or if Formosa went out from our control and into the hands of the enemy we would immediately be in a position where it would be utterly impossible to defend the west coast of North America. We would be doing just exactly what Russia wants done, because the whole object of this propaganda to have China recognized and allowed to come into
Supply-C.B.C.
the United Nations is to make stronger red China's claim to Formosa, so China can get Formosa which means that Russia will have Formosa. That must never be allowed to happen.
I am going to speak in a little more extended way with a little more documentation. I do not want to be unfair to the minister, because I know he has an almost impossible task to find out just what is going over C.B.C., but I am telling the minister he has to assume that task. The minister cannot listen to all these programs but he can have them monitored by a competent person and the truth given to him. But let me suggest that when that is done it not be done by any graduate of the London school of economics.
Somebody will say, "Why be so hard on the London school of economics?" I shall give some reasons. Men will be horrified to know that the Rockefeller interests, the people who own Standard Oil, are subsidizing the London school of economics with the definite object of having them use all their efforts to destroy ^.the British commonwealth and empire.
Some people will say that sounds ridiculous. I know it does; the truth always does. But here is the evidence right here. I have a book here the author of which, E. M. Josephson, judging from the quotations and the way he goes about is, is a master of the subject. He does not need any recommendations except the way he writes this book "Rockefeller Internationalist, the man who misrules the world". Yet he positively declares in this book, copyrighted in 1952, just what I have said. This is serious; it is more than serious.
I say to the minister, be sure you get men who are loyal to Canada, loyal to the British crown and loyal to the union jack, and do not trust a mother's son who is not and has not proved himself, because we cannot take any chances now. Many of the programs that go over the C.B.C. go into the United States and help to indoctrinate the people there, just as did the play to which the hon. member for Peace River referred.
The first thing, I think, that we have to ask ourselves in respect of the C.B.C. is this. I do not intend to imply what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni considers as controlling men's minds, with all the evil connotations that go into that expression. Let me ask him if he does not think the C.B.C. is controlling men's minds today, considering the things I have brought up here. How can he say that a government that is resisting evil tendencies in the C.B.C. to keep false doctrine from coming to the people is controlling thought? If we take a man up when a war is declared

Supply-C.B.C.
and put him in jail because he comforts the enemy, we are not seeking to control thought, not in the evil way the hon. member suggests but in a common sense way. Is that not correct? The hon. member would not favour allowing people to run around the country giving comfort to the enemy in war, because he knows the existence of the state would be at stake then.
Let us ask now, concerning this C.B.C., what have Canadians a right to expect of the C.B.C. for which they pay with their hard-earned money, those tax dollars they can so ill spare? Have the Canadians a right to expect the C.B.C. to be an agency working for Canadianism rather than communism? I shall ask the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that. For democracy rather than anti-democracy? I ask him that. For Christianity rather than anti-Christianity?
While we are on this matter of Christianity, in the time I have known the C.B.C. I have not heard a sermon put on by the C.B.C. or a talk put on by the C.B.C. that would give anybody any faith in Christianity, and I have heard plenty that would do the opposite. I have not heard a speech, for example, in which the man talking to the Canadian people has said that there is in the library of parliament a book called "The Bible is True" by Sir Charles Marston, published in 1934, or "The Bible Comes Alive", by the same man, published in 1937. The set of arguments that man Marston adduces is utterly unanswerable in establishing the truth of the Bible. I have never heard anyone, again for example, say over the air that there is a book called "The Origin of Mankind" published in 1935 by Sir Ambrose Fleming, who was the leading scientist of his time. This book brings forth arguments against the evolution theory that no man on earth can answer. We never hear anything like that which would cause people to believe in Christianity instead of all the false evolutionist doctrines that we hear.
I think I have conveyed fairly clearly the kind of thing I have in mind. People ask, "Have you any right to indoctrinate people with Christianity?" I answer, "Has Brock Chisholm any right to broadcast over the air destroying people's faith as much as words can possibly destroy it? Has he any right to do that?" The C.B.C. thinks he has. What a lot of inadequates they are. This all just indicates either that, or that they are tools who are obediently working for the communist objectives of destruction of Christianity and destruction of the British empire. That is all; it is just as simple as that.
Have Canadians the right to tell the C.B.C. what they want the C.B.C. to be, or must

Canadians permit the C.B.C. to tell Canadians what the C.B.C. wants Canadians to be, as they do today? Which does the Liberal party want? I know enough of the Liberal party to know that the great majority of its members are loyal, sincere, true men who do not want subversive doctrines. Which does the cabinet want? Which does the minister want? I had drafted that question before the minister made his fine statement here today.
I greatly appreciate the minister making the statement that he made today, that he does not want communism, and I know he does not want anti-Christianity, coming over the air waves in this country. I do not believe he wants anti-British doctrine, because certainly he realizes that if the individual units of the British commonwealth hold together, having the economic strength they could have if they used imperial preferences and the pound sterling; if they all pull together, each contributing its full share as they could do, the British empire is going to be a power that the Russian communist conspiracy would not dare even to look in the eye. I think the minister realizes that; I am sure he does as a responsible man, individually. Then why allow the C.B.C. to do things which would disrupt the British commonwealth and make us feel cool toward the Queen and Britain?
I ask this question. Is it the government's desire that the British commonwealth be disintegrated and destroyed? The C.B.C. would make one think that is what is desired. Does the government believe the Canadian people desire that the British empire be disintegrated and destroyed? The C.B.C. would make one think that is what they thought.
Does the government believe that the Canadian people ought to be indoctrinated with the desire that the British commonwealth be disintegrated and destroyed? That is what the C.B.C. seems to think. Does the minister believe the C.B.C. management desires that the British empire be disintegrated and destroyed? I do not suppose he is in a position to know, but I suggest it is high time that he found out by just as stern and rigid a screening process as he can possibly put into operation.
Does the minister know that the disintegration of the British empire is one of the two major primary objectives of the world communist conspiracy, and has been, ever since Karl Marx declared that in order for him to attain his objectives, the British empire and Christianity would have to be destroyed? Would the minister suspect that the C.B.C. management would employ or continue to employ speakers who definitely appeared to be seeking to indoctrinate the

Canadian people with the idea that the British empire and commonwealth is to be, and ought to be, disintegrated and destroyed?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must advise him that his time has expired.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take about two minutes of the time of the committee to deal with this matter. Certainly no one questions the sincerity of the speaker who has just addressed the committee but I, like himself, have listened to the radio. In fact I am one of those few people, I presume, who do not have a television set and who therefore appreciate radio all the more. I listen to it as carefully, I think, as do most Canadians, and I think I have some appreciation and am in a position to indulge in criticism of the programs which the C.B.C. carries.
There is no doubt, as hon. members have said this morning, that certain programs can be criticized and have been criticized, and probably justifiably so. But I think that criticism has gone to the extreme limit when we have the suggestion here that the C.B.C. apparently is an organization for the propagation of communism in this country. Certainly if it is I would suggest to the minister that he close up shop immediately, because I cannot imagine where more money has been spent to less effect than has been spent on that organization. I do not think communism has gained a tremendous foothold in this country. If the C.B.C. is busy propagating it, certainly it is a terrible thing; but I personally cannot accept that it has been a source for the propagation of communism.
More than that, if the propagation is done by subtle hints, such as the last speaker says -and I do not question for a moment that undoubtedly there have been subtle hints to that effect-and if subtle hints are going to affect the Canadian population, then either one of two things is true. Either we have a race of morons who are going to be unduly influenced by these subtle hints and there is not much good in saving them from communism anyway, and we do not believe that, or we have not much faith in our own way of life. I think our way of life is such that it can withstand subtle hints which undoubtedly emanate from time to time from the C.B.C. and also from some private radio stations. I have heard private stations sometimes using spokesmen who have engaged in propaganda of which I did not approve; nevertheless I think you have to have a balanced distribution of views if you are going to carry on a radio system at all in this country.
Supply-C.B.C.
In so far as the position of the commonwealth and the empire is concerned, and I am sure I am second to no one in the house in my allegiance in that regard, I do recall the broadcasts every Christmas which I think tend to bring the commonwealth and empire together. I can recall the death of our late sovereign and the three days of programs carried at that time. I can recall the royal marriage.
Coming to more secular programs, the hon. member asked if anyone could name one program this year meaning, I presume, the last 12 months, certainly not 1956, which would help towards building or establishing commonwealth or empire sentiment. I want to commend the C.B.C. for one little program that my wife and I listened to last spring. I do not imagine it was a very expensive one. It was really mostly reading, although I do not know the mechanics and I presume there were actors in the background. It was a recreation of the book "The Reason Why". I think the program was spread over 12 Sunday nights, or it may have been Wednesdays; I have forgotten which. It was one of the finest things I have ever heard done on the radio. I think the C.B.C. certainly deserves credit for it and I would hope that there would be many more like it.
It was not entirely laudatory of the empire. I know it dealt very harshly with my own native country, Ireland, and the Irishmen who starved to death at the time of the potato famine. Nevertheless the picture created of the British army in the Crimean peninsula, starting back in Ireland, coming up through the purchase of commissions and finally ending with the charge of the light brigade, and the simple unaffected manner in which it was done, were something which I, in my own home by my own fireside, would not have missed for anything. I believe my wife and I missed one out of the 12 programs given, and I am sure there were thousands of Canadians who felt the same way about it.
I did not want this opportunity to pass without saying that in my opinion the C.B.C. is trying to carry out a difficult task, with respect to which criticism is justifiably legitimate from time to time. No organization can carry on the work it is doing without meeting criticism and expecting it, but I think the ledger should be balanced slightly this morning. I did not want this matter to pass without saying, speaking for myself and I think for many more associated with me here, that we feel that the C.B.C. has done a reasonably balanced job in the work it has accomplished.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to express very briefly my support of the remarks

Supply-C.B.C.
of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. While I think his ideas are a bit wacky on some questions I know that, like the members of this group, he is a good, thorough, Canadian democrat and wants all sides of every question discussed. Before I say another word or two, may I say that I have had complete assurance from the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that he will follow his usual practice and when he sends Hansard to his constituents covering this debate he will draw particular attention to the remarks by the member for Lethbridge. He does that on all questions, as the majority of us in this group do.
I want to refer to a gentleman who is well known in Canada, and who speaks quite frequently on the C.B.C. on matters of political and public interest. He has been doing that this last winter, and a person who is in the habit of listening to him wrote him for an exchange of ideas with regard to China. I now read the letter this gentleman who speaks on the radio wrote in reply. It reads: Dear Mr. Scott:
I am in receipt of your treatise regarding trading with the new China.
Frankly, X don't think you go far enough. My knowledge of the Chinese people has been that they have never, until recently, entered into a war of aggression. They have, over the centuries, accepted exploitation and conquest with equanimity and, as the years have passed, have absorbed their conquerors and made all of them good Chinese. I sincerely hope that in the future China will continue in her ways of the past.
We of British Columbia and Canada are faced with one incontrovertible fact and that is that there are 600 million people who require the goods and services that will bring them to the point where they have an equal standard of living to that which we enjoy in Canada. We, in Canada, and specifically in British Columbia, are in the position to assist these people to acquire that standard of living. Every effort we can make in this direction is of the utmost importance in the welfare of the world and therefore we would ask all those who come in contact with the necessity for trading with China to give this matter their serious consideration.
Forget that there have been differences in opinion! Forget that one country or another has been labelled an aggressor! Just remember that all the people of this world are the peoples of one world; that no matter how we may assess values those values only have significance when they are applied to the needs and requirements of the human beings who inhabit this world. Religious belief, the colour of the skin, racial origin, have no significance; the only thing that matters is that we, as human beings, have a wonderful earth at our disposal and that every effort we put forth should be directed to developing the marvels of this world for the use of the human beings that inhabit it. I earnestly commend a study of human relationships and an acceptance of the fact that we must all live together.
Does the hon. member for Lethbridge agree with those sentiments?


John Horne Blackmore: Certainly I agree with those sentiments.


Ernest George Hansell: But we believe it can be done without the communists.


John Horne Blackmore: Does my hon. friend believe that we ought to come under Russia before too long? That is what the C.B.C. is working for.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Certainly not. I may say this letter was written by Mr. Thomas J. Irwin, speaker of the legislature of British Columbia.


Solon Earl Low: There are two or three questions I want to ask the minister further to those I asked this morning, and I appreciate the answers that he gave. Let me hasten to say now that if I was mistaken in interpreting his answers last night as being flippant and rather smart aleck, then I certainly apologize. It did seem to me the answers I had last night were of the flippant and rather smart aleck type. However, I take his word for it when he says he did not intend them that way. I accept that, and I apologize if I imputed any wrong motives to him.
There is one thing I should like to have if the minister would give it to me. He suggested this morning that the radio drama, "We Shall not be Moved", cost $3,500. Does that mean in fees only, out of pocket expenses or, as I suggested earlier, does it also include network costs, properties and all that sort of thing.


James Joseph McCann: It does not include network costs because that cost goes on anyway, whether or not it is used.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, I understand that.


James Joseph McCann: What I gave is exactly what I said, out of pocket expenses.


Solon Earl Low: Can the minister find out from the C.B.C. people who sit in front of him what the estimated network cost would be, because let us never forget that that time, from nine o'clock to eleven p.m., is very valuable time that would gladly be purchased by many advertisers in this country who would pay very large fees to get it. I should like to have from the minister an estimate of the value of the time and the cost of the facilities involved in putting over this network play.


James Joseph McCann: I am afraid it is almost impossible at this stage to give a definite figure on that because our trans-Canada costs, so far as wire facilities are concerned, are all on a 10-year basis. It is rather difficult to figure out what they cost for an hour or two. Otherwise the out of pocket costs usually include all the overhead, the hiring of performers and things like that.


Solon Earl Low: Would it not be possible for the minister to obtain a fairly close estimate of what the C.B.C. would charge a commercial firm for the use of the facilities that were used by the producer of this play for the two-hour period?


James Joseph McCann: We would have to take into consideration how many stations were on the network carrying that program in order to accurately calculate what the costs would be. We have not that information here. However, all these costs are high and I will admit that. Does the hon. member know that it costs $10,000 to televise the opening of parliament?


Solon Earl Low: I know that.


James Joseph McCann: When we are answering with reference to costs, we take into consideration every item, even the expenses of the board of governors and what that costs over the years.


Solon Earl Low: It is because I fully realize the cost is high that I wanted to have the minister put on the record a fair estimate, not an exact one but a fair estimate of the total cost of this extravaganza which it has been admitted was a mistake. I think the Canadian people are entitled to know what it costs to have these mistakes made. The best way of getting that idea is to have the minister give us the facts concerning the network costs and all that sort of thing. Certainly I would be justified in saying it would be quite a number of times the $3,500 out of pocket which the minister gave us, but of course how many times the Canadian people do not know. I think we are entitled to have that information in this committee.


Ernest George Hansell: I think that is exactly where the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation fall down. You see, they do not have to make a profit like private industry in order to keep out of bankruptcy, so they are not too much concerned about what it costs. It is just not true for the minister to say they cannot figure out what it costs for the network, including all the factors. If private industry were operating a thing like that they could tell you within a very few minutes exactly what it costs for this or that. They would have to know, because they would have to balance their books to see that they did not go into the red.
I read an article a while ago in which it was stated that the Canadian National Railways had calculated exactly how much it costs for coal to stop and start a train, and they had compared that with the costs of other types of fuel. If industry can do that, Mr. Chairman, then surely the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation can do it.
Supply-C.B.C.


James Joseph McCann: We keep very accurate cost accounting, Mr. Chairman, and while I have not the costs of this particular performance here I am informed by my officials in front of me that in their estimation the cost would be under $5,000 for the whole thing; that is all costs considered.


Ernest George Hansell: Would the minister care to answer this one question? How much was paid to the writer of the script for this broadcast?


James Joseph McCann: The figure that is given to me is something between $500 and $1,000.


Solon Earl Low: That would be for the script as well as the production? As I understand it the writer, Mr. Reeves, did produce the play.


James Joseph McCann: For the script alone.


Solon Earl Low: Then there were production fees above that, and could the minister give us that figure?


James Joseph McCann: He was not paid anything extra for production.


William McLean Hamilton: I wonder if the minister would like to comment on the labour difficulties which have arisen within the last 10 days in connection with the C.B.C. building in Montreal. In order to refresh his memory on the point may I say that the day cleaning staff are under the aegis of the building service international union, which is an A. F. of L., C.I.O. union affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress. The night workers have not as yet been unionized. They are employed by a private contractor who has a contract with the C.B.C.
It is interesting to note that the day people are paid $35 for women to start and $47 for men, whereas my information is that the private contractor on the night shift is paying the women $22 and the men $35, which is substantially under the day rates. I am informed also that this contractor requires his employees to sign an agreement that they are not members of this union; that they are satisfied with the wages he is going to pay them, and that they do not want to be represented by a union. This information has been given to me by a reliable source, and if it is correct the minister will know that it is against the federal labour law to require such employees to sign such a document.
I think he will also know, or should be aware, that one of the workers on the night staff-in fact it is a Mrs. Rose Bartel-* who has held membership in this union was fired by the contractor because of her union activity. She was subsequently taken back after mediation. I am wondering whether the minister knows anything further of that

Supply-C.B.C.
and whether he is aware, for example, that she was again fired last Thursday night, after being back for only one day, because of her union activity. What steps does the minister propose to take to see that the night cleaning staff of the C.B.C. under this contract are dealt with fairly and equitably by the contractor?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, this has to do with what are called the cleaner contracts at the C.B.C. buildings and offices in Montreal. The contract was given out by tender to a private operator, and it is pretty much up to him to pay for the service. I presume unions and the like would insist that he pay the current rate for that particular type of help. It is not a matter that I am thoroughly conversant with, but I assure the hon. gentleman that the C.B.C. will look into it to see that the terms of the contract are carried out and that justice is done to all concerned.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, on that point, it is a little more than looking into it and seeing that the terms of the contract are carried out. It is my understanding that the government of Canada, or any of its agencies, should not be a party to agreements with people who do not follow the regular and proper labour practices in this country. If the minister finds that this contractor has broken the federal labour laws in any way, will steps be taken to cancel the contract?


James Joseph McCann: I am informed that negotiations are going on right at the moment with reference to the trouble.


William McLean Hamilton: Negotiations? What kind of negotiations? Negotiations leading to the cancellation of the contract?


James Joseph McCann: Well, discussions are going on between the C.B.C. and the contractor, and discussions are going on between the union and the contractor.


Frank Exton Lennard: Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago the minister said that they even keep track of the expenses of the board of governors. What did the board of governors cost the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation during the past year?


James Joseph McCann: They are paid an honorarium of $50 a meeting and their out of pocket expenses.


Frank Exton Lennard: What would their out of pocket expenses be?


James Joseph McCann: It varies. They come from as far away as British Columbia and Newfoundland. The board of governors is made

up of gentlemen who come from various sections of the country. They come here, or they attend meetings wherever they are held. Their fees are very small.


Frank Exton Lennard: Are they paid $50 a meeting, or is it for the day or for several days?


James Joseph McCann: It means a three-day meeting. They are the poorest paid of any people who work for the government.


Frank Exton Lennard: They should not be paid any more. There are only two or three, outside of the chairman, who know B from a bull's foot. There are only one or two on the board of governors who really know their business. Apart from those members, the others are not worth $50 a day.


James Joseph McCann: I cannot agree with that.


Frank Exton Lennard: I am telling you.


James Joseph McCann: If you look over the board of governors you will see that they are outstanding people.


Frank Exton Lennard: Outstanding Liberals in different parts of the country.


James Joseph McCann: No; we pay no attention to their politics. Would you call Professor Corry, Professor Steel or Mr. Pouliot, of Quebec, or Mr. Crawford of Toronto, or Mr. Montgomery, of Edmonton, or Mr. Gervin of Vancouver, politicians? I think we are very fortunate in our selection.


Frank Exton Lennard: You have left out several.


James Joseph McCann: Yes, I have.


Frank Exton Lennard: Purposely.


James Joseph McCann: I do not remember all of them. I have named six or eight of them. As far as I know, they are outstanding men who are giving good service to the country for nothing.


Frank Exton Lennard: What?


James Joseph McCann: What do they get out of it? Does the hon. member work for three days for $50?


Frank Exton Lennard: We do not know the half of it.


James Joseph McCann: I know more than you do; I know the other half, anyway.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, just before we wind up this discussion I should like to say a parting word or two.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, I know there are
thousands of words that ought to be said, because your very children's lives are in danger, and everything you hold dear. Let us not forget that.


Mr. Bell:: Some of us have no children.


John Horne Blackmore: The trouble is we have so many people who do not realize what is going on. They did not realize what was going on in Czechoslovakia until it was too late; they did not realize what was going on in Rumania until it was too late. Now, it is an easy thing for it to happen right here; and when you bear in mind that the communist organization is counting on taking over Canada and the United States not later than 1961, it becomes a serious thing. Up to the present time they have not failed once in attaining their objective. They boast about it.
In the light of those facts we cannot be too careful. I say to the minister, I have no desire to be unkind to the C.B.C. or to anyone else. They give wonderful programs, but what value would it be to give us programs of the highest quality and the best on earth if at the same time there were people speaking over the C.B.C. who were indoctrinating our youth so they would cause us some of these days to do something like what happened in Czechoslovakia; and it could happen. Let us not be deluded in this matter.
The first thing I would suggest to the minister is that he get someone who will be reliable to find out for him just exactly what is the communist line. At the present time there are several kinds of communist lines. One is coexistence. They are preaching coexistence all the time. The effect of coexistence is to get us to let our guard down. That is the first thing. They know perfectly well there is no coexistence so far as they are concerned. They have already told us that they would put on a peace offensive that would amaze us, and then when we got our guard down they would smash us. Do not forget that when they say they will smash us they mean it. The words of Khrushchev last September are just as clear as words can be. Words could not be any clearer. Do you imagine he did not mean what he said? I have already quoted them for the record this year.
In the light of this I ask anyone whether a person can devote too much time to this matter on the floor of the house?
Bear in mind, there is no opportunity to speak out and discuss this matter for months; we have to wait until the C.B.C. estimates come in. I am just as tired as anybody else in this house; I am just as anxious to get home, but I would certainly be ashamed if I went away and left unsaid the things which I ought to say because I realize the terrible danger. I have tried in this house to convince hon. members of the terrible danger that lies before us, but in most instances they have not shown they could even dimly appreciate the things I have been telling them.
Supply-C.B.C.
When one of those hon. members sits down with me and spends half an hour two or three times and sees some of the things I have, he is a different man entirely; because they are facts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, I know all about the silly remarks. The simple fact is that we have been so misinformed, Mr. Chairman, by the propagandists who have been working over the air and through the newspapers that we just do not know anything about realities. I refer to just one case.
Before the Chinese trouble began, in both the United States and Canada there was a line of propaganda put out by all the various communist organs that the communists of China were not real communists. I ask if there is any hon. member in this house who did not have that impressed upon him until he believed it. That is right; they were presented as being merely "agrarian reformers"; What was the purpose of that propaganda? It was to lull the people of the United States into a sense of security regarding China; and they were completely indoctrinated and all believed this line of thought, then what happened? China was taken away from us, one, two, three and there is no doubt that they proved to be real communists after that.
That is just one example. This was done by Edgar Snow and two or three other men. If anyone cares to read into this matter- and I say for the sake of common sense we should read into it-I would suggest that one should take the book "While you Slept" by John T. Flynn and learn what was done, how it was done and how completely deluded we were. The radios and magazines were all used in putting across this communist line.
Another line that was put over was that concerning Syngman Rhee. It was said that he was one of the most wicked men in the world. One of the quotations I have here refers to Syngman Rhee as a wicked old man. The only wicked thing about him was that he wanted his people to be free from communism; he was a wonderful man.
On October 2, 1942, the communist organization of the United States declared an anti-Chiang Kai-shek campaign, and some of the most wicked, vile and unjustifiable statements were made and spread far and wide about Chiang Kai-shek. These statements were just as untrue as they possibly could be. These were spread abroad by the communist Daily Worker of the United States, backed up by certain other organs, all working to influence the people of the United States to

Supply-C.B.C.
believe these falsehoods about Chiang Kai-shek. That is how these things are accomplished in this .matter of subverting the people.
I ask the minister in the light of all these things to find someone who can give him the communist line in the most minute detail, and then have two or three people monitor all the C.B.C. programs. The minister will then find out that men like Matthew Halton, Douglas Lachance and Robert McKenzie of the London school of economics and a great many others I could name, a list totalling 25 or 30 names, are constantly following the communist party line in one way or another.
If the minister will find out exactly what the communist line is and acquaint himself with the fact that there is a communist line which is designed to delude and subjugate the people, and if he will then appoint someone to monitor the broadcasts to keep an eye on attempts to indoctrinate listeners with the communist line, he will be doing a great service to his country.
There are half a dozen ladies I could name right at this moment who go on the radio on what they call morning matinee programs, and they are putting over the communist fine to Canadian women while they are washing their dishes and doing their houseworkj until the people of this country are getting a completely distorted view of a wide variety of things. I have in my hand quotations which will support everything I am saying at this time.
I plead with the minister to acquaint himself with the communist line and to appoint a number of reliable people to check all the broadcasts and then eliminate those people who are giving out the communist line. It is interesting to remember that we are spending $2 billion a year on our defence program in this country. Where is the sense in spending $2 billion a year in building up a force for the defence of this country if we are going to close our eyes to the fact that our people are left open to conversion to communist thought right behind our backs? How can we get anything even remotely resembling sense out of a situation like that?
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I shall turn this matter over to the minister with the earnest request that when we come back next year we will have an altogether different C.B.C., one that is genuinely Canadian and not communist.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: That concludes our consideration of the estimates of the CJ3.C., and we now proceed to a consideration of the estimates of the Department of Finance.
[Mr. Blackmore.l
It being after one o'clock I do leave the chair. May I remind hon. members that I shall resume the chair at 3.30 this afternoon.
At two o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 3.30 p.m.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE General administration-
117. Comptroller of the treasury-central office and branch offices administration, $15,270,774.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, on August 11 when these estimates were last up, I asked for some information from the minister. The minister had intimated that the Bank of Canada could expand credit and I then asked the minister:
Has he or the government or the officials of the Bank of Canada given any consideration to another possibility of, shall I say, holding inflation in check or creating a trend the other way, by allowing sufficient credit to cause enough expansion to supply the goods which would fill the demand.


Walter Edward Harris: I think it is obvious that the Bank of Canada is doing that at the present moment to the degree they think they should. The Bank of Canada does provide credit by the use of the economic weapons at its disposal, and credit has been expanded steadily this year, although not at the rate which some maintain it ought to be. It would be correct to say that during this year the bank has provided expanding credit, but at times it was not expanding at the rate of demand.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Would there be any justification-I presume not, but I am asking this question-for expanding credit to the extent where demand might be met by supply?


Walter Edward Harris: That has been the case most of the time, but as I indicated in my general statement the other day, any time the demand is likely to outrun the actual physical ability to produce it would be unwise to provide credit beyond which production could be maintained. That is the real difficulty at the moment. People are wishing to have credit greater than the actual production, with the result that if they got credit there would be more money than there were goods and we would have inflation of the kind we do not want.


Thomas Miller Bell: When I was speaking in the debate on the federal-provincial tax arrangements I tried to obtain some figures referring to the debt positions of the provinces, but I could not get them at that time. I have

them now, and I should like to take just a minute to put them on the record. We were dealing with the debts of the various provinces, and at that time I put on the per capita debt. I was trying to show the dead-weight debt position of the maritime provinces and their relatively poor position when compared with the other provinces. I have here further figures which show the increasing disparity. The figures for net direct debt less realizable assets on a per capita basis are as follows:
New Brunswick	 $194.81
Nova Scotia	 169.48
Prince Edward Island	 153.70
Ontario	 107.43
Quebec	 56.84
Saskatchewan	 26.88
British Columbia	 11.50
Manitoba	
(-)	56.44Newfoundland	
(-)	73.71Alberta	
(-)	210.17


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is under this item that the Department of Finance provides officials in other government departments. I notice there is an item for rental of office equipment, which I can understand, but I should like an explanation covering rental of offices abroad, indicating just where they might be.


Walter Edward Harris: I have a long list here including London, Paris and Washington.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Why would the comptroller of the treasury have offices in those centres?


Walter Edward Harris: Because in each, case we have Canadian offices, embassies and the like, and have a treasury officer there so we may be aware of their expenditures.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I notice there has been quite a change in the listing of personnel. There are a great many punch card equipment supervisors, operators and so on and a somewhat smaller number of office appliance workers. I am presuming that means the department has been mechanizing its accounting work?


Walter Edward Harris: In so far as we can try to keep abreast of modern usage of business machinery.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of various acts and costs of special functions-
119.	The Bank Act-salaries and expenses of the inspector general of banks' office, $31,980.
Jay Waldo Monteith: I think this is one of the better run branches of the department. It has been pointed out that the same staff has been in existence in this office for some
Supply-Finance
years, so I think this branch offers a very good example to other branches in the department.


Walter Edward Harris: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
120.	Administration of the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Veterans' Business and Professional Loans Act, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act and the prairie grain producers' interim financing program, $90,083.
Mr. Zaplitny:: Could the minister state how many applications for loans under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act were made in Manitoba, how many were approved and what was the amount of money involved?


Walter Edward Harris: I am not able to give it by provinces; I only have the total for the period from December to March. In that time there were 143 loans granted, the amount involved being $136,000. I am sorry I have not it broken down by provinces, but I shall get that information and mail it to my hon. friend.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: How many applications for loans were made?


Walter Edward Harris: I have not that information. We are in the same position here as we are in connection with other guaranteed loans. A fisherman would go to the bank, and we only enter into the matter when the application is granted and we guarantee.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: How many loans were made by banks and how many by credit unions?


Walter Edward Harris: As far as I know, in British Columbia 27 were granted by credit unions to a total of $44,710.


Mr. Charlton:: What was the total amount of money involved in the case of the prairie grain producers' interim financing program?


Walter Edward Harris: From November 1, 1955, to May 31, 1956, the total number was 10,326 and the amount of money involved was $7,893,000.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Are any new acts being administered this year under this item? I notice that there are three additional administrative officers.


Walter Edward Harris: Of course the prairie grain producers' interim financing program came into force some time in March.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Tariff board-
121.	Administration, $91,015.
Mr. Green:: Can the minister give a further clarification of his plans with regard to the potato industry? When he was speaking

Supply-Finance
on August 6, he had this to say, as reported on page 7107 of Hansard. He was referring to representations they made to him, as a result of which he made a reference to the tariff board and in due course had a report from them:
Nevertheless there seemed to be an opportunity here for consideration of some changes, particularly having in mind the changed pattern of trade, and I indicated, I think, in my budget address that I might have something to say about this at a later time. I might just put it in a nutshell now rather than wait for the estimates. It would not be possible for us to induce the United States government to change its tariff in accordance with the requests of our potato producers. It is too much to expect that we would be given greater access to the United States market without paying something in compensation under our treaty arrangements. However-
This is the part on which I would ask further clarification:
-there may be other means whereby we can meet the requests of the potato producers at least to some extent. We have been considering that and shall continue to do so.
In that paragraph the minister spoke as though the main request from the potato industry was for some change in the United States tariff in order that Canadian potatoes might get into the United States more readily than they do at the present time; but insofar as the industry on the west coast is concerned, my understanding is that their request was that Canada raise her tariff to the equivalent of the United States tariff. I have here a letter from the British Columbia coast vegetable marketing board, in which they say:
Our application which has been before the tariff board and which has been further presented to certain representatives of the cabinet at a meeting in Ottawa in February 1956 is that the present six-week tariff structure of 371 cents per hundredweight-applicable from June 15 to July 31- be extended on a year-round basis.
The minister had not dealt with that particular request in his statement, and I think he was putting the emphasis on the wrong point when he spoke on August 6, because his own submission to the tariff board, dated April 22, 1955, read as follows:
I have received numerous representations to the effect that there has been a significant increase in imports of potatoes in recent years, and that this has caused serious concern among Canadian potato producers. In these representations it has been urged that the customs duty on potatoes be increased and that the period to which the seasonal duty applies be extended.
The minister there was certainly not placing any emphasis on trying to get the Americans to reduce their tariff. The report by the tariff board sets out at page 46 under the heading "Across-Border Trade in Potatoes":
For nearly all of its long trading history with the United States, Canada has allowed potatoes from that country to enter free of duty . . .
On the other hand, the United States traditionally has imposed a relatively high duty against the Canadian product.
My understanding is that the duty going into United States is 37J cents, whereas there is no duty whatever on United States potatoes coming into Canada except for that six-week period. In the summary of this tariff board report we find it stated in the first paragraph that people are not eating as many potatoes as they used to, for some reason. Perhaps there are not so many Irishmen in the country as there used to be, but this first paragraph says:
A basic factor in the situation facing the Canadian potato grower is the progressive decline in the demand for his product. Total production per annum today is about what it was in the '80's, despite a four-fold increase in population; consumption per capita has declined drastically and appears to be still declining. In a word, more and more Canadians are consuming fewer and fewer potatoes.
The summary goes on to point out the difficulty that these potato growers are facing. Paragraph 9 reads:
Imports, entirely from the United States, are virtually all table potatoes and, as a general rule, so-called "early" or "new" potatoes, which enter chiefly in the months of May-July, inclusive.
The tariff board report points up very clearly another reason why the potato growers are in trouble:
In recent years, the inward movement has shown a tendency to spread marginally (before May and beyond July).
The very last paragraph of their summary reads as follows:
The major concern of Canadian growers is the impact on domestic prices in those years when the United States product is in over-supply.
I think the minister should clarify two points. So far his statements have been rather vague. That may not have been intentional; on the other hand, it may have been. I am a little suspicious that it was a deliberate vagueness, but what I should like him to clarify today is this. In the first place, what about this request that Canada extend her tariff for a longer period? If it cannot be extended for the whole year, what about at least extending it for a longer period so that both countries will be treating imports of potatoes in more nearly the same way?
The other point on which I should ask clarification is this statement to the effect that there may be "other means whereby we can meet the requests of the potato producers at least to some extent." The minister said:
We have been considering that and shall continue to do so.

I think the committee and, of course, the potato growers as well are entitled to clarification on those two points.


Walter Edward Harris: During the past several months I have had a great many transactions with my hon. friend. Now that he has brought up the subject of the Canadian people eating fewer and fewer potatoes, may I suggest that he might eat a few more than he has been eating, and perhaps he would not qualify for the suspicion that attends upon lean and hungry people, and that we should have fat people who sleep at night and are in better humour. However, that may be-


Howard Charles Green: I am in good humour.


Walter Edward Harris: You might help the potato industry in British Columbia if you indulged in eating them a little more.
There was no intention on my part to be vague about what is happening in respect to the application to the tariff board and then to the government for assistance to the potato industry of Canada. If I emphasized the concern of the potato industry for the United States market, I think I correctly interpreted the attitude of the potato industry. They have great advantages in the United States market, and they do not want to lose those advantages. Indeed I think if a choice were made in having any change made, they would prefer to leave it as it is, because in their application they said they would want the Canadian tariff on potatoes entering from the United States to be extended for a greater period than the seasonal six weeks, but only if the United States tariff were not changed against Canadian potatoes. If I have emphasized that throughout everything I have said on this subject, I believe I have placed the emphasis correctly.
The United States market for seed potatoes is one thing; the United States market for table potatoes is another. Both of them are valuable. The hon. member for Kent has just sent me a note saying that 37 carloads of potatoes left a town in his riding just last week. That is a very considerable shipment to the United States. Therefore it is not entirely a matter of concern for the maritime potato growers but, in fact, for Ontario and the west as well. If I have made it clear that the conditions laid down in the application of the association could not be met, all I meant to convey by my statement that has been quoted was that even if those conditions could not be met it might be possible that we could find other conditions whereby we could meet the request of the potato association to some extent, and they might have to yield a little with respect to their request if they would. Up
Supply-Finance
to the present time we have not gone further than that and I am free to confess that, for rather obvious reasons, I have not had the time to do so in recent weeks.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister mean that he can take no action to help these people unless it is done in collaboration with the United States? Are there not some other steps that could be taken, perhaps by way of assisting them to get into the market in Quebec and Ontario from the maritimes, for example? Just what does the minister have in mind? It sounds as though the only possible help that can be given is by persuading the Americans not to raise their tariff if we raise ours, although theirs is already higher than ours. Is that what the minister means?


Walter Edward Harris: That is what the potato association requested that we do; that we take action to change the Canadian tariff, and that cannot be done except by agreement with the United States. There is a treaty, and if we desire to have it changed the procedure is to express that desire. Then there is, no doubt, a counter suggestion from the other side, because there must be some form of compensation paid to obtain the benefits you desire.
So far as providing freight assistance is concerned, if that is what my hon. friend had in mind, I have not come prepared to discuss that because my understanding is that the potato report rather indicated that while that was a matter of some moment for the maritime producers in the Montreal and perhaps the Toronto markets, nevertheless there were local markets for local production, and that except in some instances assistance with respect to freight rates would not be a particularly attractive feature. I may be wrong and may have to qualify that because I have not read the report for some months, but I believe that was the general tenor of the remarks on freight rate assistance. Therefore I did not have that in mind when I made the vague remark I did.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister mean to say that the period of six weeks, during which the Canadian tariff of 37 J per cent applies, cannot be extended at all without the consent of the United States?


Walter Edward Harris: No, I did not mean to say that. What I mean to say is that with a friendly neighbour, with whom both ways we have the largest trade in the world, and with a treaty in existence, we do not change tariffs without consulting them and seeing if we can come to a mutually acceptable settlement.

Supply-Finance


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister made any representations to the United States asking if they would have any objection?


Walter Edward Harris: I think the hon. member knows one does not disclose any representations that are made until some solution may be reached and announced.


Howard Charles Green: I must say, Mr. Chairman, that it does not sound very hopeful.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It occurs to me that the overall expenditures under this item are up considerably. The number of employees is up from 11 to 17, and there is a new item for publication of reports in the amount of $4,000. There was nothing for that last item last year. Would the minister mind explaining briefly why there is this increase in cost and in the number of employees?


Walter Edward Harris: As to the publication of reports, Mr. Chairman, we have two rather large reports that we expect to have to publish shortly, the one on the primary iron and steel products investigation and the one on pipes and tubes. With respect to the increase in numbers, I think I pointed out when I moved the amendments to the Tariff Board Act earlier this session-


Jay Waldo Monteith: I cannot hear the minister. It is not his fault. There is a lot of talking going on in front of me.


Walter Edward Harris: Earlier this session when we amended the Tariff Board Act I explained that there had been a heavier load of work placed upon the tariff board in recent months than had been the case for a good many years, that the number of appeals under the customs tariff and similar legislation is increasing, and that I have been sending a larger number of inquiries under the Tariff Board Act to the board.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Payments to municipalities-
124.	Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal property-To provide for payments to municipalities in accordance with the Municipal Grants Act, and the rural municipal grants regulations established by order in council of October 28, 1954, P.C. 1954-1621, and to provide for payments to municipalities under order in council of October 6, 1954, P.C. 1954-1497, in respect of the cost of medical and hospital services and supplies furnished to federal employees and other persons specified therein, $7,065,500.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Could the minister give us the amount actually spent last year or the amount spent so far this year?


Walter Edward Harris: Last year payments amounted to $6,456,250.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That was the estimate.


Walter Edward Harris: The total was $6,986,750.


John Borden Hamilton: Since most of the assistance the municipalities can receive will come through the provinces, will the minister report whether he has had any continuing or additional talks with the provinces in connection with reaching a final agreement under the dominion-provincial legislation?


Walter Edward Harris: The legislation was passed by the house a short time ago, and I was looking forward to a period of comparative freedom during which we might proceed with the negotiations. *


John Borden Hamilton: Are these continuing negotiations? They are going on?


Walter Edward Harris: There was a continuing committee of officials appointed at the conference a year ago and I am sure it will be meeting in the near future.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Contingencies and miscellaneous-
125.	To provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for miscellaneous minor and unforeseen expenses including authority to re-use any sums repaid to this appropriation from other appropriations, and special compensation or other rewards for inventions or practical suggestions for improvements, $1,500,000.
Jay Waldo Monteith: This is labelled category No. 22, which is more or less of a miscellaneous item, and I notice that throughout all the estimates there is a great amount of money under No. 22. Can the minister tell us how much was spent last year, at which time there was an estimate of $1 million? The amount is up 50 per cent this year. What is the reason for the increase?


Walter Edward Harris: The amount spent ini the last fiscal year was $908,105. The reason we have increased it is that we were obliged to refuse what we thought were desirable projects during the year because we did not have enough money to cover them, and we feel that another $500,000 will be necessary this year.


Jay Waldo Monteith: What type of projects are they that would come under contingencies and miscellaneous and not be considered worthy of being stipulated?


Walter Edward Harris: I have seven or eight pages of details here.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Give us a few of the larger ones.


Walter Edward Harris: There was $150,000 for flood relief for India, Pakistan and Granada in connection with a hurricane they had there. There was another $150,000 in connection with some additional work at Port aux Basques, about which we have heard a good deal lately. I see here a quarter of a million dollars in connection with the public building at Winnipeg,

and so on. That is the type of thing, where there is either an urgent requirement for a new project of a limited nature or, alternatively, the vote provided has been spent, the work is not completed and they have to draw on this account for that purpose.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should like to comment on the public building in Winnipeg. Would that not ordinarily come under public works?


Walter Edward Harris: It would ordinarily come under it, but the public works item had been exhausted and this fund was the only money available. The difficulty in the case of Winnipeg was that the work had been completed a good deal faster than we had anticipated in our estimate of the year before, and we had to use this account for it.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Well, Mr. Chairman, I cannot agree with that. After all, the estimates of the Department of Public Works for the current year are in this particular book and the estimates for the Department of Finance are in this particular book. If an item is in finance under contingencies, why could it not have been put in the Department of Public Works for the same year?


Walter Edward Harris: Because it came out of my money and not out of public works.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Well, why?


Walter Edward Harris: Because I had the million dollars and the Minister of Public Works' vote for public works in Manitoba had been exhausted. The only fund that was available for expenditures for the work on that job was in this million dollar vote.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I beg your pardon; I understand you are now giving the amounts which were spent last year. I should like to know what the additional items are that go to make up this 550 per cent increase?


Walter Edward Harris: This happens to be only an estimate, Mr. Chairman, this $1,500,000. So far as I am concerned it has no charge against it and it is purely a contingency vote to take care of exceptional demands on the treasury that may turn up because of the kind of thing I have described as occurring last year. I am only saying that last year we got up to $900,000 and we were running very short of money towards the end of the fiscal year. For that reason, I desire that this year we should not be in such a tight position.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There is only one further thought I have in connection with this $150,000 for a public building in Winnipeg. It appears as money spent during the year 1955-56, and would it appear in the expenditures of the Minister of Finance during that period in the public accounts?
Supply-Finance


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it would. It was actually paid on December 16, 1955, and it would appear in public accounts in my case, but the public works vote will be used to reimburse my vote in the course of the arrangement of accounts between the two departments.


Jay Waldo Monteith: How are we to get a true picture of what that public building in Winnipeg cost? In other words, the public accounts for 1955-56 will not show this $150,000 under public works.


Walter Edward Harris: If the hon. member asks for a return of the cost of the public building in Manitoba, he would receive a correct return of the total expenditure by the two departments.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have only one further comment. It seems to me the whole system does not give enough of the information which we should have.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: This appears to be the minister's petty cash account. I notice that it covers special compensation or other rewards for inventions or practical suggestions for improvements. Can the minister give the amount that was paid out during the last fiscal period as rewards for inventions or practical suggestions?


Walter Edward Harris: It was $12,500, Mr. Chairman.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Is that paid to the employees of the government only?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


John Borden Hamilton: What was the amount spent out of the finance estimate last year of $1 million at Port aux Basques, and what was it for?


Walter Edward Harris: It was to provide for the construction of a breakwater on West Baldwin rock extending from Graveyard point on the mainland to the western boundary of the channel, Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, and the amount was $150,000.


Howard Charles Green: How did it happen that there was this oversight and the Department of Public Works did not ask for what was required? I presume that this item is connected with the Department of Public Works. I am surprised the minister would get himself mixed up in this Port aux Basques fiasco. We have already the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Transport involved and now apparently the Minister of Finance is in on it. Have there been funds paid earlier by the Department of Finance for this same project?


Walter Edward Harris: I did not suppose I would have to engage in a discussion on this point, but

Supply-Finance
if I have to I want to make it clear that I am denying there was a fiasco. This is a necessary public work.


Howard Charles Green: It is certainly necessary now, but it was not before.


Walter Edward Harris: I have an idea the Minister of Transport acquitted himself fairly well on that score on his estimates. In budgeting for something over $4-5 billion, if you find that over a period of 12 months you only require a contingency fund of $1 million, it seems to me it is very good budgeting.


Howard Charles Green: It is not that simple because the Department of Public Works itself has a very large contingency fund upon which they can draw if they have not enough money in one vote. They have millions of dollars on which they can draw if more money is required for a particular vote. How did it happen that this particular Port aux Basque-vote ended up in the Department of Finance?


Walter Edward Harris: That is a question that could be asked of the minister concerned, but the contingency fund of the Minister of Finance is available only to the extent it may be required when urgently needed or as I have already indicated for works that have proceeded to a point where the funds allotted have been exhausted. It may be recalled that all these items, Mr. Chairman, would show up in the final supplementary estimates which I think I put through the house about March 26 or 27. They would then have been discussed and decided upon under the appropriate department concerned because this vote is reimbursed from the votes of the various departments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
126.	Cost of telephone service at Ottawa for all departments, $1,121,000.
Jay Waldo Monteith: I am asking a question because I am guessing that this item contains the total salaries and wages of the employees of the government telephone exchange, is that correct?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, but in addition to that the staff that administers this particular item.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Which staff? In other words, here is an item connected with the cost of telephone service at Ottawa and on top of that each department has a telephone and telegram account. Are those items that are charged to each department purely long distance calls or what is the distribution of it?


Walter Edward Harris: This is the Ottawa exchange, Mr. Chaifman, and the telephones outside of Ottawa are paid by the departments.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The Ottawa exchange covering all government departments?


Walter Edward Harris: In Ottawa.


Jay Waldo Monteith: What might be included in the item, "other telephone service expenses, $1,151,440", what type of item?


Walter Edward Harris: The item of $1,151,000 is the Bell Telephone Company's bill to us for services in Ottawa.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
128.	To provide for the expenses of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, $225,500.
Jay Waldo Monteith: This item covers the expenses of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. There was $300,000 in
1955-	56 and there is $225,500 estimated for
1956-	57. I wonder if the minister might give us a brief statement on when we might expect the report of this royal commission, how much longer it is likely to carry on, and so forth?


Walter Edward Harris: I believe the chairman is in Ottawa at the moment and I believe they have completed their public hearings and are considering their report. I have not anything to indicate how long that will take, but I would suppose it would be in within the next three or four months.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
129.	To provide for the expenses of the royal commission on television and radio broadcasting, including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the commission, $150,000.
Jay Waldo Monteith: May I ask the same question concerning this item which is to cover the expenditures of the royal commission on television and radio broadcasting?


Walter Edward Harris: They have not completed all the public hearings yet, sir, and their work will be later than the Gordon commission, though I think some time in the winter or early spring.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
130.	To provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for supplementing other votes for the payment of salaries, wages and other paylist charges, $750,000.
131.	To provide for the government's contribution, as an employer, to the unemployment insurance fund in respect of government employees paid through the central pay office, $1,080,000.
Jay Waldo Monteith: I notice that this item is the same as for last year, $750,000. What type of person does this cover? It has to do with the

payment of salaries, wages and other pay list charges. I am just wondering what type of employee it covers.


Walter Edward Harris: This is to cover any change in the prevailing rate wages which might occur during the year. We may require it to provide increased payments, if there are any.


Jay Waldo Monteith: A special reserve.


Walter Edward Harris: Right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grants to universities-
132.	To provide grants to institutions of higher learning recognized in each province by the government of Canada and the government of the province as being universities or institutions of equivalent standing equal to an amount, for each province, not exceeding 50 cents per head of its population as certified by the dominion bureau of statistics divided among the recognized institutions of the province proportionately to their enrolment of full time intramural students in personal attendance at the recognized institution or at an institution in the same province affiliated with it who are registered in courses of university level recognized as leading to and counting year for year toward a university degree awarded by a university in Canada and the Minister of Finance may for this purpose more particularly define the terms "university level" and "university degree", $7,986,000.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Can the minister give us a list of universities and how much they are to receive out of this particular amount?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, I can, Mr. Chairman, but once again it consists of about 5J or six pages.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Are there that many universities in Canada?


Walter Edward Harris: It is double spacing, and there are explanatory notes between. There are a good many more than my hon. friend perhaps thinks of, having in mind colleges and the like.


George Clyde Nowlan: Can the minister give us a breakdown of the amount per head paid in the different provinces? That would be more helpful I think, than to give each university. If the minister happens to have it as between Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and British Columbia, and so on, it would be helpful.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, Mr. Chairman: Newfoundland, $357.64; Prince Edward Island, $207.69; Nova Scotia, $80.85; New Brunswick, $112.36; Ontario, $137.84; Manitoba, $101.55; Saskatchewan, $151.97; Alberta, $149.80; British Columbia, $99.42.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I know the minister would not expect this item to pass without my making my usual contribution. I am going to take only a minute or two. The figures he has just given us illustrate
Supply-Finance
again, I think, the argument that I have attempted to make on various occasions. The only thing that gives me hope is that I notice year after year the same argument is advanced and the government finally adopts it if it is sound, particularly when an election is coming around. I am sure my argument is sound in this case and I therefore hope that at the next session the government will adopt it. I did not take down all the minister's figures but I have the per capita figure for the students in Newfoundland and it is $357.64. The grant per capita student in Nova Scotia is $80.85. In other words, the grant per student in Newfoundland is about 400 per cent more than in Nova Scotia. I admit at once that Newfoundland is an exception because they have fewer students, of course, in proportion to their total population. The figure in the other provinces is over $100 and in some over $200. I simply say again that I think there should be at least a minimum grant such as this government adopted and used during the war when every university received, I think it was, $125 per head. The Minister of Labour, who was then a university president, knows something of how the matter worked out. I think it was a much more satisfactory base than this. The fact remains that in the maritimes generally, but in Nova Scotia particularly, we are being penalized because we have more private universities and more students proportionate to our population, and therefore we get much less, but we got less to start with. I would hope that the government will give consideration to this matter in the very near future. I realize there are problems and difficulties in the way but some different system has to be adopted. As a matter of fact, I am sure that 10 years from now this grant, which is being made today to the universities, will look picayune, because the grant will then be on a much more substantial scale.
The whole problem of university grants and education generally is something that the next parliament, after the next general election, and during the four years which follow that, will have to look into. In the meantime we are all familiar with the announcement of the International Nickel Company, which was made last week, that they are going to give a grant of $2,500,000 to the universities. Some of these grants will be made to the maritime universities, but a comparison will show that they are getting a paltry amount under this arrangement. There is no point in continuing this argument at the moment. It is just possible that when the next session comes around, the minister, with that kindly smile of his, will

Supply-Finance
have reconsidered the situation and arranged that we should get more.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Has the minister permission to put the distribution of these amounts on Hansard without bothering to read them all?


Walter Edward Harris: It would be possible for me to do that by having the list typed and handed to the Clerk. Have I permission to do that now?


George Clyde Nowlan: Give it per head per province, the way you gave it to me.


William Alfred Robinson: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Edward Harris: The list follows:
Grants to universities during fiscal year 1955-56
Alberta
Amount of Grant
College Saint Jean	$ 2,398.50
St. Joseph's College	 1,492.40
St. Stephen's College	 3,304.60
University of Alberta	 525,804.50
533,000.00
British Columbia
Anglican Theological	$	1,305.00
Union College of British Columbia 1,696.50 University of British Columbia .. 604,476.00
Victoria College	 37,257.75
Notre Dame College	 7,764.75
652,500.00
Saskatchewan
College Catholique de Gravelbourg	$ 6,089.65
Scolasticat du Sacre-Coeur	 1,822.45
St. Peter's College	 311.15
St. Thomas	 1,822.45
Campion College (including Sacred
Heart College)	 3,022.60
Luther College	 3,644.90
St. Chad's College	 1,377.95
Emmanuel College	 4,400.55
Lutheran College and Seminary ..	2,711.45
Luther Theological Seminary ________ 3,333.75
St. Andrew's College	 4,578.35
St. Thomas More College	 23,869.65
University of Saskatchewan (including Regina College)	 380,358.65
Notre Dame College	 7,156.45

Manitoba
Amount of Grant
Brandon College	$ 14,942.40
College de St. Boniface	 8,320.20
Manitoba Law School	 17,064.90
St. John's College	 6,579.75
St. Paul's College	 12,268.05
United College	 58,411.20
University of Manitoba	 306,913.50

Ontario
Ontario Agricultural College	$ 81,891.40
Ontario Veterinary College	 37,576.75
McMaster University (including
Hamilton College)	 136,312.90
Queen's Theological College		4,664.70
Queen's University	 327,824.75
St. Jerome's College	 2,591.50
Huron College	 9,329.40
Music Teacher's College	 4,664.70
St. Peter's Seminary College of Arts 16,067.30 University of Western Ontario .... 289,211.40
Ursuline College of Arts	 10,366.00
Carleton College	 58,049.60
College Bruy ere	 4,923.85
Notre-Dame College	 4,405.55
Seminaire d'Ottawa	 7,774.50
St. Patrick's College	 20,472.85
Universite d'Ottawa	 180,109.25
College du Sacre-Coeur	 12,698.35
Knox College	 7,515.35
St. Michael's College	 106,769.80
Trinity College	 73,080.30
University of Toronto (including Ontario College of Education and Ontario College of Pharmacy)	  931,385.10
Victoria University (including Victoria College and Emmanuel
College)	 161,968.75
Wycliffe College	 3,368.95
Waterloo College	 39,390.80
Assumption College	 56,494.70
College Classique de Cornwall ....	2,591.50

New Brunswick
Universite du Sacre-Coeur	$ 9,318.60
St. Thomas College	 9,569.70
Universite Sainte Louis	 17,074.80
University of New Brunswick .... 114,055.20
Mount Allison University	 99,547.20
Universite Saint Joseph	 29,434.50

Nova Scotia
Amount of Grant
St. Francis Xavier University .... $ 92,409.90
College Sainte-Anne	 4,610.25
Dalhousie University (including Maritime College of Pharmacy and University of King's College) 	 Maritime School of Social Work . Mount Saint Vincent College ... Nova Scotia Technical College ... Pine Hill Divinity Hall	 Sacred Heart Convent 	 St. Mary's University	 Nova Scotia Agricultural College. Acadia University 	 Holy Heart Seminary		. 110,850.90 . 1,468.45 . 20,763.20 . 19,158.15 . 3,722.35 . 478.10 . 22,709.75 . 5,566.45 . 52,078.75 . 7,683.75
	$341,500.00
Prince Edward Island	
Prince of Wales College	 St. Dunstan's College		.$ 16,615.80 . 37,384.20
Newfoundland	$ 54,000.00
Memorial University of Newfoundland 		$206,000.00
Summary of distribution of grants to
Universities in fiscal year 1955-56
Amount	Number of	Grant perProvince	of	eligible	eligibleGrant	students	studentNewfoundland ..	206,000	576	357-64Prince Edward Island 	54,000	260	207-69Nova Scotia ....	341,500	4,224	80-85New Brunswick	279,000	2,483	112-36Ontario 	2,591,500	18,801	137-84Manitoba 	424,500	4,180	101-55Saskatchewan ..	444,500	2,925	151-97Alberta 	533,000	3,558	149-80British Columbia	652,500	6,563	99-42
Item agreed to.
133. Canadian association of consumers, $10,000.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Just one question on items 133 and 134: there was a $60,000 item last year that was not required this year. May I ask what that was for?


Walter Edward Harris: That was for the Canadian Olympic association grant of $60,000, which we made last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Public Works

[Stage Direction]
674. Furniture and furnishings for government departments-further amount required, $150,000.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, two or three weeks ago there were indications in the press that the government might have in mind cutting back the public works programs for the present fiscal year to the extent of approximately 20 per cent. Can the parliamentary assistant tell the committee whether or not that is so?


Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Chairman, we have no intention of cutting back any items that appear in the estimates. It may happen, as the Prime Minister said last week, that some projects may not be carried out on account of lack of material, or lack of labour or high cost. I do not think it is the intention of the department to cut back any projects that we have in the estimates this year.


Howard Charles Green: No policy has been adopted of deliberately cutting back public works?


Maurice Bourget: No, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Building construction branch-
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and Improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-further amounts required-
676. Newfoundland, $1.
Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I notice that item 676 and items 683 and 684 as well show an appropriation of $1. I wonder if the minister or his parliamentary assistant could explain to us whether or not the department is going back to a system that was devised by the predecessor of the present Minister of Public Works by which $1 was shown for a project only in so far as money is not used that has been appropriated for other projects.
I ask this question because the present minister's predecessor used to do that. Parliament therefore would vote $1 and the project would thus be approved by parliament. The impression left with the people in the locality concerned would be that they were going to have the building but when the next year's estimates came down after the present minister assumed office he discontinued that method and the result was that in his estimates for the following year no appropriation was made for the building which had been approved in the previous session by reason of the $1 vote. This caused some disturbance and dissatisfaction.	.

Supply-Public Works
Item No. 676 is for a building in Port Union, item 683 is for a building in Regina, and item 684 is for a building in Edson. I think the policy the minister adopted when he assumed office is the right one. Let us not have an appropriation if we are not going forward with the building and if $1 is shown one year let us make sure the actual amount of the appropriation appears the following year if the building is not started.
As an illustration I want to mention the building I have in mind. Under the minister's predecessor a vote of $1 was shown for a public building in Claresholm. The minister at that time was elevated to another position and the present minister took over. When he assumed office his estimates came down and nothing appeared for the public building.
I kept hammering and hammering every year on the subject and now I want to thank the minister because this year they are going forward with that particular project. The money has been voted for it and the people are now satisfied. The point is, however, that the vote of $1 gave approval to this project before the present minister took office and yet the construction of the building did not take place until this year.
I prefer the policy the present minister is following. It looks to me at the moment as though he is reverting to the previous policy which I do not think is a good one.
If I am wrong in my understanding of this $1 item I wish the minister or his assistant would tell me so because I notice item 684 is an Alberta item and I do not want the people of Edson to be discouraged if they are not going forward with the building.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, the $1 means that we have to put this item in the estimates if we want to carry on with the work. That is the reason we put just the $1 in the estimates and the remainder of the cost will be provided from excess funds in other projects in the province.


Ernest George Hansell: Is the building being constructed this year?


Maurice Bourget: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
6S1. Ontario (other than Ottawa), $250,000.
John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction concerning the demolition of the building at the corner of Fleet and Harbour streets in Toronto. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could tell us how soon we can expect that work to be cleared up and all the debris removed and what particularly was the reason that it stayed the way it did for so long?
[Mr. Hansell.)


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I am told now that the demolition is taking place and we expect that work will be completed very soon.


John Borden Hamilton: Can the parliamentary assistant tell me what "very soon" means in this case?


George Clyde Nowlan: As soon as possible.


Maurice Bourget: I am informed that it will be finished next week.


John Borden Hamilton: Well, that is the best answer we have had in a long time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
700. To provide for the restoration of the special account in the consolidated revenue fund established by section 36 of the National Housing Act, 1954, by the amount paid out of the special account during the fiscal year 1955-56 in respect of:
(a)	Losses sustained as a result of the operation of federal-provincial rental projects-federal share, $34,097.
(b)	Preliminary expenses incurred under enabling agreements with provincial governments. $128, $34,225.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman,-


John Borden Hamilton: The last word.


Howard Charles Green: -this vote apparently has to do with the projects under section 36 of the National Housing Act which I understand is the section under which the dominion and the provinces and the municipalities can co-operate.
Earlier in the session we had some discussion about the government being unwilling to go into a project of this kind for the use of old age pensioners exclusively. The Minister of Public Works told us on two or three occasions during the session that he would not be a party to a project of that kind even though the municipality and the province had asked for a project which would be exclusively for recipients of old age security.
Has there been any change in that policy either to provide that the project can be exclusively for senior citizens or in the alternative to permit of a larger percentage of senior citizens being accommodated in such a project?


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, as my hon. friend knows, the hon. member for Vancouver East asked some questions on orders of the day some time ago and the minister at that time made a statement to the effect that the municipality cannot constitute itself as a limited dividend corporation. The project that is now being brought forward by my hon. friend could come under a limited dividend

corporation. I think the minister at that time stated that although the municipality could not constitute itself into a limited dividend corporation it could sponsor a limited dividend corporation as has been done here in Ottawa on the Lowren project and also the Bonlogis Company Limited. I am not aware that since he made that statement in the house in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East that the policy has been changed.


Howard Charles Green: It would seem that for all practical purposes it will be impossible to go ahead with this scheme on the west coast as a limited dividend project. I hope the department will take a further look at this matter to see whether the request of the city and the province cannot be met. These bodies are anxious to go ahead with this project for senior citizens and I hope the department will find some way to co-operate with them.


Maurice Bourget: I shall do that.
(Translation):


Mr. Maltais:: Mr. Chairman, I should like some information about the agreement between the authorities of the city of Montreal and the Department of Public Works, regarding the Dozois plan in respect of vote No. 735. Could the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Public Works let us know the latest developments concerning the talks between the municipal authority and the department?


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, as my hon. friend was able to gather from the press, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation received an order in council from the province of Quebec, and the federal government likewise passed an order in council of its own. We are now drawing up the agreements to be forwarded to the province of Quebec and to the city of Montreal.
(Text):


Mr. Small:: There was an item last year for $700,000 to cover plans and demolition for the post office on Adelaide street, Toronto, Ontario, and there is an item this year of $500,000 covering the same matter. Can we be given any information as to when it is intended to tear down the old building and commence the new?


Maurice Bourget: I have not that information here, but I am told that the contract for the demolition has been let and we hope to call for tenders for steel for the new building during the present fiscal year.
Supply-Public Works


Robert Hardy Small: The new building will take in the area from Adelaide to Lombard to Victoria streets?


Maurice Bourget: Yes.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: How much of the $700,000
was used last year?


Maurice Bourget: That item was carried and unfortunately the officials have left with the information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.

Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Walter Edward Harris: That towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1957, the sums of $1,846,970,570.64 and $85,181,549.25, respectively, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Harris thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 453, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March. 1957.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: This bill will have to go to the Senate in order to be considered there and perhaps we could suspend the sitting and the bells could ring to call hon. members back.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I think we should allow sufficient time for the other place to consider the bill. I would suggest that the sitting be suspended and we be called back by the bells at a quarter to six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 4.40 p.m. the sitting was suspended.

The Royal Assent



SITTING RESUMED

[Stage Direction]
The sitting resumed at 5.45 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Chief Justice's Chambers, Supreme Court,
Ottawa, August 14, 1956
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 14th August, at 6.30 p.m., for the purpose of proroguing the third session of the twenty-second parliament.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
W. Kenneth Campbell, Private secretary to the Chief Justice of Canada.
Therefore I suggest that we suspend the sitting until 6.30 p.m.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 5.50 p.m. the sitting was suspended.



SITTING RESUMED

[Stage Direction]
The sitting resumed at 6.30 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
In the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Northwest Territories Power Commission Act.
An act to amend the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act.
An act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
An act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
An act respecting Personal Finance Company of Canada.
An act to amend the Post Office Act.
An act to amend the Supreme Court Act and the Criminal Code.
An act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
An act to amend the Customs Tariff.
An act to amend the Telegraphs Act.
An act to amend the Small Loans Act.
An act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
An act to amend the Excise Tax Act.
An act to promote equal pay for female employees.
An act to incorporate Signature Loan and Finance Company.
An act to amend the Income Tax Act.
An act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.
An act to amend the Indian Act.
An act to amend the Canada-United States of America Tax Convention Act, 1943.
An act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax.
To these bills the royal assent was pronounced by' the Clerk of the Senate in the following words:
In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General doth assent to these bills.
Then the Speaker of the House of Commons addressed the Deputy Governor General as follows:
May it please Your Honour:
The Commons of Canada have voted supplies required to enable the government to defray certain expenses of the public service.
In the name of the Commons, I present to Your Honour the following bill:
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1957.
To which bill I humbly request Your Honour's assent.
To this bill the Clerk of the Senate, by command of the Deputy Governor General, did thereupon say:
In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General thanks her loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence, and assents to this bill.

[Stage Direction]
After which the Deputy Governor General was pleased to close the third session of the twenty-second parliament of Canada with the following speech:
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
During the present session a conference of commonwealth prime ministers was held in London where, amongst other things, a most useful exchange of views on the international situation took place in that atmosphere of friendly co-operation which characterizes these meetings.
Since parliament opened in January the relaxation of tension between the Soviet union and the west has continued, though nothing has happened which gives us reason to believe that the fundamental policies of the Soviet union have been changed.
There has, unfortunately, been a deterioration in the position in the Middle East where the action of the government of Egypt in suddenly taking control of the Suez canal has introduced a new element of discord and danger into that troubled part of the world.
My ministers remain firm in their desire to do everything possible through the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to

strengthen the forces of peace and to participate fully in all efforts which are being made to solve the international problems which so unhappily divide the world.
This year is again one of continuing growth and development of the Canadian economy. Business conditions are good and employment is at a high level. Our international trade also is attaining record levels. The abnormal stocks of grain resulting from several bumper harvests have been reduced by heavy sales abroad. The confidence Canadians have in our economic strength is reflected in the high volume of capital expenditures for this year which show a substantial increase even over those of last year. Indeed, we are blessed with prosperous conditions in nearly all sectors of the national economy.
To alleviate financial difficulties some grain producers were experiencing because of a shortage of elevator storage space you authorized the government to guarantee bank loans secured by farm-stored grain. You also authorized the treasury to bear the cost from August 1, 1955 of storage and interest charges on wheat held by the Canadian wheat board over and above the normal carryover levels.
Legislation has been enacted which authorizes the government to make tax equalization payments and provincial revenue stabilization payments to provincial governments as well as tax rental payments to those provinces which may enter into agreements with the federal government as an alternative to levying certain direct taxes on their own behalf. These measures were discussed at meetings between federal and provincial representatives this year and last and my ministers feel these new arrangements constitute a comprehensive and realistic improvement in the fiscal relations between the federal and provincial governments.
The government has also announced that, once a majority of the provincial governments, representing a majority of the Canadian people, are ready to proceed, it would be prepared to recommend legislation to provide for the payment to the provinces concerned of a substantial share of the cost of a hospital care insurance program.
You have approved legislation authorizing the government to enter into agreements with the provincial governments for sharing the costs of assistance to unemployed persons in need who are not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. Agreements have been signed with six provincial governments.
As a result of legislation enacted at this session, construction has commenced on an all-Canadian natural gas pipe line to bring Alberta gas to eastern consuming markets.
You have passed a measure amending the Trans-Canada Highway Act to authorize increased federal participation in the construction of the trans-
Prorogation of Parliament
Canada highway, with a view to accelerating the completion of this important national link.
The National Housing Act has been amended to enable the government more effectively to encourage and assist the redevelopment of older sections of our cities. This ect has also been amended to increase further the amounts of loans available for home improvements.
A joint committee of both houses made an extended investigation of the progress and programs of the federal district commission. The committee's study will be most useful in providing guidance for the future development of our national capital.
You have made it possible to enlarge the services available to our farming population through the Canadian farm loan board, and the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
You have extended the scope of the industrial development bank in order to promote still further the growth of smaller industries throughout the country.
You enacted a measure authorizing the Canadian National Railways to construct a branch line from Bartibog to Tomogonops river in the province of New Brunswick.
An act has been passed providing that women receive equal pay with men for equal work in industries which are under federal jurisdiction.
Amendments have been made to the Unemployment Insurance Act, among which is one that will permit the extension of that legislation to cover most of those engaged in the fishing industry.
Amendments have also been made to the Canada Shipping Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Indian Act, the Canadian Citizenship Act. the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, the Post Office Act, the Small Loans Act, the Telegraphs Act, the Judges Act, the Supreme Court Act and the Criminal Code, the Northwest Territories Power Commission Act, the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Act, the National Defence Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, the National Parks Act. the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act, the Canada Lands Surveys Act and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act.
Members of the House of Commons:
I thank you for the supplies you have voted for the public service.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
I pray that Divine Providence may continue to bless, protect and guide our nation.
This concluded the third session of the twenty-second parliament.
[Stage Direction]
Question

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Nowlan: 1.	When was the last contract awarded for the carrying of mail from North Ingonish to Little Bras d'Or, Cape Breton island?
2.	To whom was the contract awarded and what is the amount thereof?
3.	Were tenders called for the said contract?
4.	If so, what were the names of the tenderers, and the amount of each tender?
Answer by: Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):
1.	Contract authorized 16th May, 1956, to become effective 1st July, 1956.
2.	Duncan Daniel MacKenzie, $6,600.00 per annum.
3.	Yes.
4.	Duncan Daniel MacKenzie, Bras d'Or, $6,600; Malcolm Angus Smith, Bras d'Or, $6,960; John McNeil, Bras d'Or, $7,000; Donnie Buchanan MacDonald, Cape North Victoria, $7,700; Norman Gordon Morrison, Big Bras d'Or, $7,890; Dan John MacDonald, South Harbour, Victoria, $8,000; Horace Rin-dress MacKenzie, R.R. No. 1, Bras d'Or, $8,324; Robert Rogers Robinson, Big Bras d'Or, $8,600; John Montgomery, Jersey Cove, $8,800; William Alexander MacKenzie, R.R. No. 1, Bras d'Or, $10,000; Canadian National Transportation Ltd., $10,045; Everett Alexander Crowdis, R.R. No. 1, Bras d'Or, $10,200; James Randolph Brown, P.O. Box 338, Sydney Mines, $10,955.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE

[Stage Direction]
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-
54.	To provide for the requirements of the sound broadcasting service (to amount formerly authorized by chap. 32, R.S.), $6,250,000.
International shortwave broadcasting service-
55.	Maintenance and operation including authority to credit to the appropriation revenue from the rental of facilities in Radio-Canada building and at Sackville, N.B., to an amount of $315,000 and to re-expend these moneys for the purposes of the international service, $1,688,925.
56.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, including supervision, $228,900.
605.	Grant towards the anticipated deficit arising in 1956-57 from the operation of the television service, $12,000,000.
International shortwave broadcasting service-
606.	Maintenance and operation-further amount required, $42,000.
607.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, including supervision-further amount required, $54,151.

[Stage Direction]
53. Salaries and expenses of office, $682,450.
117.	Comptroller of the treasury-Central office and branch offices administration, $15,270,774.
Administration of various acts and costs of special functions-
118.	Superannuation and retirement acts, administration, $516,463.
119.	The Bank Act-Salaries and expenses of the inspector general of banks' office, $31,980.
120.	Administration of the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Veterans' Business and Professional Loans Act, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, and the prairie grain producers' interim financing program, $90,083.
Tariff board-
121.	Administration, $91,015.
Expenses of the Royal Canadian Mint-
122.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $931,321.
123.	Construction or acquisition of equipment, $181,710.
124.	Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal property-To provide for payments to municipalities in accordance with the Municipal Grants Act, and the rural municipal grants regulations established by order in council of October 28, 1954, P.C. 1954-1621, and to provide for payments to municipalities under order in council of October 6, 1954, P.C. 1954-1497, in respect of the cost of medical and hospital services and supplies furnished to federal employees and other persons specified therein, $7,065,500.
Contingencies and miscellaneous-
125.	To provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for miscellaneous minor and unforeseen expenses including authority to re-use any sums repaid to this appropriation from other appropriations, and special compensation or other rewards for inventions or practical suggestions for improvements, $1,500,000.
126.	Cost of telephone service at Ottawa for all departments, $1,121,000.
127.	Amount required to cover losses incurred on foreign exchange tendered in payment of accounts receivable, $500.
Special-
128.	To provide for the expenses of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, $225,500.
129.	To provide for the expenses of the royal commission on television and radio broadcasting, including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the commission, $150,000.
General items of payroll costs including superannuation payments-
130.	To provide, subject to the approval of the
treasury board, for supplementing other votes for the payment of salaries, wages and other paylist charges, $750,000.	.
131.	To provide for the government's contribution, as an employer, to the unemployment insurance fund in respect of government employees paid through the central pay office, $1,080,000.

Grants to universities-
132.	To provide grants to institutions of higher learning recognized in each province by the government of Canada and the government of the province as being universities or institutions of equivalent standing equal to an amount, for each province, not exceeding 50 cents per head of its population as certified by the dominion bureau of statistics divided among the recognized institutions of the province proportionately to their enrolment of full time intramural students in personal attendance at the recognized institution or at an institution in the same province affiliated with it who are registered in courses of university level recognized as leading to and counting year for year toward a university degree awarded by a university in Canada and the Minister of Finance may for this purpose more particularly define the terms "university level" and "university degree", $7,986,000.
Miscellaneous grants-
133.	Canadian association of consumers, $10,000.
134.	Institute of public administration of Canada,
[Stage Direction]
165. Departmental administration, $547,660.
Loans, investments and advances-
Finance-	.
731. To authorize the purchase of 3,600 shares of stock of the International Finance Corporation being Canada's subscription as a member thereof for the amount of $3,600,000 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of May, 1956 (revote), $3,564,000.
Payments to municipalities-
620.	Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal property-to provide for payments to municipalities in accordance with the Municipal Grants Act, and the royal municipal grants regulations established by order in council of January 11, 1956, P.C. 1956-38, and to provide for payments to municipalities under order in council of October 6, 1954, P.C. 1954-1497, in respect of the cost of medical and hospital services and supplies furnished to federal employees and other persons specified therein-further amount required, including authority, notwithstanding section 7 of chapter 49 of the statutes of 1955 (an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act), for payment of grants under section 5 of the Municipal Grants Act to the municipality of Ste. Foy, in the province of Quebec, $500,000.
Special-
621.	To provide for the expenses of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects- further amount required, $560,000.
622.	To provide for the expenses of the royal commission on television and radio broadcasting- further amount required, $170,920.
623.	To provide for contributions to the government of the province of Saskatchewan and Manitoba for assistance in meeting costs resulting from floods in the spring of 1955, $120,000.
624.	To authorize the treasury board to make regulations respecting the counting as pensionable service, for the purposes of the Public Service Superannuation Act, of any period, not otherwise countable as such, during which a person, before becoming a contributor under the said act, performed on a full-time basis duties of a kind specified in the regulations for the benefit of the crown in right of Canada, and providing, except in the case of a person who has ceased to be employed in the public service (for which case
Supply-Items Passed
the regulations may otherwise provide), that the Public Service Superannuation Act shall apply as
though such period were a period of service in a portion of the public service of Canada that was added to schedule A of that act on a day specified in the regulations, $1.
General items of payroll costs-
625.	To provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for supplementing other votes for the payment of salaries, wages and other paylist charges-further amount required, $30,000,000.
Miscellaneous grants-
626.	To provide for a grant to the national council of women of Canada to assist in defraying the expenses of the triennial conference of the international council of women to be held in Montreal in June, 1957, $5,000.

[Stage Direction]
674.	Furniture and furnishings for government departments-further amount required, $150,000.
Property and building management branch-
675.	Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, other than at Ottawa, including repairs and upkeep, rents, heating, etc.-further amount required, $670,660.
Building construction branch-
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-further amounts required-
676.	Newfoundland, $1.
677.	Nova Scotia, $150,000.
678.	New Brunswick, $130,000.
679.	Quebec, $250,000.
680.	Ottawa, $265,000.
681.	Ontario (other than Ottawa), $250,000.
682.	Manitoba, $850,000.
683.	Saskatchewan, $1.
684.	Alberta, $1.
685.	British Columbia, $750,000.
686.	Yukon and Northwest Territories, $130,000. Harbours and rivers engineering branch-
687.	Branch administration, including district engineers, staffs and related expenses-further amount required, $60,000.
Dredging-
688.	Construction or acquisition of plant and equipment-further amount required, $25,000.
Roads and bridges-
689.	Maintenance and operation-further amount required, $66,000.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-further ^mounts required-
690.	Newfoundland, $481,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
691.	Nova Scotia, $254,500.
692.	Prince Edward Island, $241,000.
693.	New Brunswick, $15,000.
694.	Quebec, $908,500.
695.	Ontario. $340,000.
696.	Manitoba and Saskatchewan, $50,000.
697.	Alberta and Northwest Territories, $145,000.
698.	British Columbia and Yukon. $179,000.
Development engineering branch-
699.	Construction of spans of bridge over the interprovincial channel of the Ottawa river between Pembroke, Ontario, and Allumette island, Quebec, -further amount required, $140,000.
General-
700.	To provide for the restoration of the special account in the consolidated revenue fund established by section 36 of the National Housing Act, 1954, by the amount paid out of the special account during the fiscal year 1955-56 in respect of:
(a)	Losses sustained as a result of the operation of federal-provincial rental projects-federal share, $34,097.
(b)	Preliminary expenses incurred under enabling agreements with provincial governments, $128, $34,225.
Loans, investments and advances-
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
735. To provide for the restoration of the special account in the consolidated revenue fund established by section 36 of the National Housing Act, 1954, by the amount paid out of the special account in respect of housing and land development projects undertaken jointly with the governments of the provinces during the fiscal year 1955-56, $3,500,000.