1956-07-28

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he is prepared to make a statement on the situation in relation to the Suez canal. Would he also advise whether, in view of the unprecedented and shocking conduct of the Nasser government, Canada ought not to join with Britain in condemnation of what has taken place there in a perversion of international contracts, and also indicate to Britain and the other nations Canada's agreement with the stand which they are taking to meet this situation?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the violation by the government of Egypt of an international convention governing the use of an international waterway so important as the Suez canal is, of course, to be condemned. Possibly it should be recalled at this time that the convention in question attempted to safeguard the free use of the waterway in war and in peace. In that sense, the convention was already violated by the Egyptian government when Israeli vessels were prevented from using the canal.
We are exchanging views with governments probably more directly concerned with this matter than the Canadian government because of their association with the Suez Canal Company. I think it would be premature for me to make any statement beyond that at this time, except possibly to repeat what I said yesterday in answer to queries from the press as to whether Canada had any interest in this matter. In reply to those queries I said that while Canada had no share in the ownership of the Suez Canal Company, nevertheless as a trading nation, and for other reasons I might add, we have a very real interest in the efficient and nondiscriminatory operation of this waterway which is of such great and historic importance, both in peace and in war. I added that we would regret, and be concerned about, any action which interfered with such operation.


John George Diefenbaker: Might I just add a supplementary question? Does not the minister consider that Canada, as a member of the British commonwealth, should have something to say on a matter that particularly affects the members of the commonwealth, Britain, Australia and New Zealand particularly, to indicate a degree of unity in regard to this matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have already had something to say on the matter, as I have indicated. And I should add that our High Commissioner in London, since the announcement of Egyptian action, had discussions in London with the secretary of state for commonwealth relations, with the foreign secretary and with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom with a view, not only to ascertaining what United Kingdom policy is in this matter-and they are more directly concerned than we are because of their share in the ownership of the Suez Canal Company-but also to doing what we can to concert our attitude and policy with other commonwealth countries on this matter.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a supplementary question? A report in the Ottawa Journal last night indicated he had made a statement to that paper that Canada would be making no representations on the Egyptian nationalization of the Suez canal. I would like to know from the minister whether that statement is correct, and if so whether he does not think that, because this question is of such vital importance to the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and probably India and Pakistan as well, and France, and because of the position being taken by the United States beside those countries, Canada, too, should stand beside them and let the whole world know that she does?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think what I said yesterday to the press, certainly what I intended to say, was that we had not made any formal representations at that time to the Egyptian government. What we may or may not do in the future remains to be determined; but I believe also that the only governments that have made such formal representations at this time are the governments of the United Kingdom and of France, which have a very special interest through

Inquiries of the Ministry ownership of the Suez Canal Company and in other ways. I do not think at the moment that any other state, including the United States, has made such formal representations. Certain states, Canada is one of them, are consulting together to see what action, if any, should be taken by them collectively on this matter.


Howard Charles Green: Why should the Canadian
government not make known today that Canada stands beside the United Kingdom and France in this trouble?


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Amongst the views which are being exchanged with the United Kingdom, will the minister, on behalf of the government, stress to the United Kingdom the importance of using the good offices of the United Nations in an attempt to solve this problem?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, our High Commissioner in London has already stressed that aspect of the question in his talks with the United Kingdom government.


NATIONAL PARKS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works or to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, whichever one has jurisdiction. It has to do with the No. 1 trans-Canada highway in Banff national park. I have had complaints about the authorities there oiling that portion of the road from Anthracite hill into Banff. They tell me it is just a sea of oil and that the tourists are greatly perturbed, and so is everyone else, because of the effect it has not only on their cars but on their clothing as well. The same thing happened before during the tourist season, and the minister took action in that regard. Surely it should not be allowed to continue at this time. I wish the minister would make some remarks about it.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: I shall look into it, Mr. Speaker.


BRIDGES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. Reinke (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister tell the house whether there have

been any further developments regarding a decision of the Ontario government to charge tolls on the Burlington skyway bridge, and its effect on the federal government's participation in the cost of that project?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the provincial government has decided to charge tolls on the structure, but I believe they do propose to construct it by themselves without federal government financial participation. There was a discussion yesterday in Toronto among the mayor of Hamilton, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Frost, Mr. Allan, the minister of highways, and myself. We discussed some of the aspects of this bridge as they apply to present and longterm civic planning. As far as I know, however, it is the intention of the provincial government to build the structure by themselves.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the government yet received from counsel any recommendation concerning the report of an alleged combine in the manufacture, sale and distribution of beer in Canada?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Not as yet.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to redirect a question to the Minister of Public Works with reference to a complaint from the mayor of Prince Albert with regard to present mortgage regulations. Has the minister received that complaint and what is the attitude of the government with regard to a relaxation of the present regulations to the end that the detrimental effect upon house building across this country will be resolved to a great extent?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I did receive a letter, which I believe was dated July 20, and it has been replied to. No restrictions have been placed upon housing by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The fact is

that earlier this year we increased the interest rate in an effort to encourage a greater flow of mortgage money into housing and it is expected the result will be a good housing program in Canada this year.



INQUIRY AS TO REDEVELOPMENT IN MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister received a copy of an order in council recently passed by the Quebec government and printed in the Gazette this morning and, if so, will that be sufficient to enable the federal government to complete its arrangements and make advances to Montreal for a slum clearance and housing project there?


Robert Henry Winters: I did receive a copy of the order in council. The situation is as I stated a few days ago. The premier of Quebec stated that in principle his government had no objection to entering into an agreement with the federal government for a slum clearance project and a subsequent re-housing project. It is now a matter for the civic authorities to come to an agreement with the provincial authorities and I presume steps are being taken to that end. I expect that in due course we shall have a proposal put before us coming through the appropriate channels.


William McLean Hamilton: supplementary question. Does the minister feel that complete agreement has now been reached and the necessary authorization given by the province in order to permit action by the province and the federal government?


Robert Henry Winters: No agreement has been
reached. All I have so far is an indication of intention to sign an agreement.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Bennett (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 
Charles Edward Johnston: May I ask
the minister a supplementary question. How can there be an impartial investigation when only those who are connected with D.V.A. are conducting the investigation? Surely they should be outside D.V.A.?


Colin Emerson Bennett: These three officials who are collecting the facts will present them to the minister and I am quite sure that with their experience they wifi be able to collect all the facts.


Charles Edward Johnston: They are officials of D.V.A.?


Colin Emerson Bennett: Yes.


Charles Edward Johnston: They can hardly be impartial.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE Welfare branch-
Family allowances and old age security_
278. Administration, $2,693,059.


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, when the committee adjourned last night I had been discussing a set of figures found in the report of the welfare council of Winnipeg. These figures, to be found at page 16 of that report, have to do with the amount of money which it is felt an old age pensioner ought to have in order to be able to live in Winnipeg in anything like comfort. The figures are as follows:
Per month
Rent	 $20
Rood	 30
Clothing	
Church	 2
Medical insurance	or	care	
3Memberships and	hobbies	
5Transportation	
4	50Incidentals	
5Laundry	
2
I had pointed out that those commodities or services are all produced in Canada and I believe that every item is produced in Manitoba. I had suggested that it is most fantastic that in a country with probably

Supply-Health and Welfare $28 billion of production this year and with Vast potentialities for the production of food, clothing, shelter and practically everything else that Canadians ordinarily use, we should not be- able to allow our senior citizens a sufficient amount of that production to give them the amount of money value called for in this set of figures.
I had pointed out the fact that although members of this committee had been talking about this matter of old age pensions for some time, mostly they had complained about the conditions which prevail but had not offered any solution whatsoever to the problem. Then I pointed out that the member for Fort William at a certain point, almost in indignation, I thought, rose and asked which one of the taxes, or something to that effect, we would suggest should be increased in order that we should obtain the money that is necessary to provide the senior citizens of Canada with the standard of living that I think everybody in this house realizes and agrees they should be able to have. I suggested that it would not be necessary to increase any taxes in order to provide the services and the goods which the elderly people need.
I mentioned the "made-beaver" which the Hudson's Bay Company used. These "made-beavers" were like coins. The largest one had a value of a mature beaver skin dressed. With these tokens, and the smaller ones made by dividing them into halves and quarters, the people in those days all through the west apparently took care of all their needs for the distribution of goods.
Then I referred to the scrip system which was employed in the stores in the towns near where I grew up as a boy in southern Alberta. I thought it might be interesting to give a little attention to that local scrip as probably embodying a germ out of which a method of distribution of goods to underprivileged could be developed without adding to the regular currency circulation of the country.
There were two stores in the little community of Cardston. At that time Cardston was a village of probably 350 people, with about 150 in the neighbourhood. One of the two stores in Cardston was H. S. Allan and Company, general merchants and store, and the other was the Cardston Co-operative Mercantile Company. Each of these employed a form of scrip.


Mr. Nicholson:: What year was that?


John Horne Blackmore: I would imagine around 1896-7, and they continued to employ this scrip with considerable freedom until around 1905. The member for Peace River suggests that it was probably a little later, somewhere around 1910. Then it began to be rumoured

that in using the scrip they were violating the currency laws of Canada. Consequently that was probably the main reason why the use of scrip gradually was discontinued, but there were merchants in Raymond, about 40 miles from Cardston, who employed scrip,
I think, a little later than that.
What was the principle in scrip as used by, we shall say-


The Chairman:: Order. May I with some regret break in at that point and state to the hon. member that we are not now discussing the principle of scrip? We are discussing the principle of devoting some $2,600,000 to family allowances and old age security administration. I should appreciate it very much if the hon. member would devote his remarks to that subject.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that technically you are entirely right but realistically you are entirely wrong. Yesterday we discussed old age pensions, and I think every member in this house would be fully agreed that we should double the old age pension. But everybody was agreed-I think including the minister-that the one thing we just could not get over was how to finance the increase. If, in discussing old age pensions, a member cannot discuss the methods of financing, we might just as well close this house up as far as finding a solution to the problem is concerned, and turn it into an afternoon social society, confessing immediately that we are just helpless and that there is no use. Why should people all over the country send a lot of people like us here to talk about problems which, even before we approach them, are admitted as being utterly unsolvable.


Mr. Martin:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might say this. I think we all appreciate the great care which the hon. gentleman has given to the study of this question of assistance to the aged citizens of our country. Last night I had an opportunity of discussing matters with him after he had intervened and I am more confirmed than ever of that interest. I appreciate his position in trying to find additional ways of obtaining resources to meet these obligations. However, I wonder if he would not agree that the chairman was perhaps on strong ground when he suggested that there was another place to discuss the means by which this very desirable objective could be met. I do not want to be unduly restrictive on the hon. gentleman but I think he will be assured of my belief in his interest in this subject, and I want to affirm that great concern. But there is not

at this moment an opportunity of discussing ways and means of how this financing can be adequately arranged.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I have no desire whatsoever to be out of harmony but I will make this point. If somebody had suggested that in order to obtain the needed money we increase the sales tax on some commodities, it would have been looked upon as being utterly in order for us to talk about that matter for probably three or four hours.


An hon. Member:: No.


John Horne Blackmore: Oh, yes. No question at all would have been raised. The point raised by the hon. member for Fort William was a matter of financing. I imagine he could have gone on dealing with that matter for 15 minutes without being called to order. While I am perfectly ready to agree with your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and to do just as you say, I contend that on this particular topic the enforcement of that rule means that we turn this parliament into an afternoon debating society absolutely helpless to deal with the problem which we are discussing. I shall therefore be obliged to leave the matter up to you. But I will go on to say that if I could have just another two or three minutes to show how that scrip worked, I do not think it would be infringing greatly. It would not take very long.


Mr. Mclvor:: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: If I might continue, H. S. Allan and Company would have probably had $500 worth of scrip printed by some company and he would use the units of scrip to buy butter, eggs, poultry, boots, various vegetables, various grains, firewood and all manner of things that were produced by the community, and people could go in there with that scrip and buy out of the store what things they needed, including even homemade socks, bootees, home-made clothes and all things which the community produced; and the community was able to produce a wide variety of commodities in those days because they still were able for instance to make yarn out of the raw wool and to knit that yarn into clothing and so on. So, there was relatively a very extensive field for the use of that scrip. They went on with great success. There were units of that scrip which were in circulation, I will wager, for a year and a half. People did not hesitate for a minute to take that scrip for their eggs or butter or any other commodity they turned in. People did not hesitate a minute to accept scrip in payment for articles, for labour, one to another. It functioned just as well as Canadian dollar bills.
Supply-Health and Welfare
Now, my suggestion is that an organization could be set up in every city and town of any considerable size in this country, having anything like a wide range of productive potential, which would enable old age pensioners to be paid the extra portion of their old age pension in scrip with which they could buy commodities being produced all around the area. In this way I feel positive that, having the co-operation of the dominion and provincial government, as well as the local municipalities, we could find a solution not only to the question of giving our old age pensioners what they ought to have, but also the problem of giving our blind all they need as well as all other underprivileged in the nation a chance to participate more adequately in the productive capacity of the country. There would be a much greater production of butter, fruits, vegetables and of other commodities because of the possibility of selling those commodities for scrip. Now, in substance, that is the gist of my message. Unless there is something that I have not been able to determine I will assure the house that this system can work in every province of this nation with the greatest advantage and with tremendous savings to the taxpayers of the country.
Now, that is in substance the message I wish to convey. I should like now, for just a moment, and I am sure there will be no objection on anybody's part, to list again those needs of ordinary old age pensioners as the Winnipeg council enumerated them. The first is rent, $20 a month. I am quite positive that in no city in Canada can a person obtain a room that is fit even to house swine for less than $5 per week. That is pretty well settled. A person is extremely fortunate if he can get a room for $5, heated and with light and all the other things which are necessary. Then, there is food, $30 per month. Let every hon. member in this house just contemplate what the effect upon him would be if he could spend no more than $1 a day for food. That is a very serious thing to think about, especially if he had to eat in restaurants or other public eating places. What chance would he possibly have of nourishing himself adequately on a dollar a day? Even if he engaged in light housekeeping and cooked his own food, he would have the costs of cooking to take into account, like fuel.
The next item is clothing, $10 a month. Perhaps a person could clothe himself on less than that; I do not contend about that. Then, you come to church, $2. Is there any conceivable reason why a person who has been a faithful churchgoer and who desires to contribute to the upkeep of his church,

Supply-Health and Welfare should not go on contributing 50 cents a week merely because he has exceeded 65 years of age? Is he going to be denied the privilege of doing that all the rest of his days? I do not think anyone will say that $2 a month is excessive. Then, consider the $3 item for medical care, and bear in mind, Mr. Chairman, that when a person reaches the age of 65, frequently he needs special medicine in order to keep well. He will be very fortunate indeed if he can buy the things which he needs to keep himself well for $3 per month. For example, there is now a little pill containing vitamins. One of these preparations is called paramettes; we can buy 50 of them for $3.50. If we take one of these a day it is guaranteed to give us all the vitamins which the body requires. But there is $3.50, and that is only one of the things a person should have in an age like ours. It was different before we had learned how to make such aids as these tablets, but to have a person suffering from malnutrition today because he does not have the money with which to buy the blessings resulting from the work of modern science hardly conforms with any concept of good government. I think we will all agree that $3 per month is not excessive for that item. Then, $5.00 for memberships and hobbies. Memberships in clubs-is the old age pensioner, when he reaches the age of 65, and from then on until he dies, to be denied the privilege of being in a club and paying his club dues? Is he to be denied the opportunity to buy some wood or perhaps other substances to indulge in a hobby? If we say yes, we are making ourselves very cheap.
Then, there is transportation, $4.50. With the price of transportation at the present time, $4.50 is by no means excessive. Elderly people are at the very age when they could use transportation greatly to their satisfaction, and should use it. We come then to incidentals, only $5. Shall a person who has reached the age of 65 not be able to buy birthday cards for his children, not be able to buy Christmas cards? Those are just a few of the incidentals. Should he not be able to go into an ice cream stand and buy a dish of ice cream? Well, that is what we are condemning them to on $40 a month. Now, S2 per month is allowed for laundry. I think that is not excessive.
I do not think I will repeat the items, but let every hon. member go back over them in his mind and he will find that every single item-unless it should be the paramettes or something of that sort-is produced right in this country. It is Canadian made. Why should people not be given access to the goods Canadians can make in abundance in any

one of the wonderful provinces of this country? I suggest in all seriousness, Mr. Chairman, to the minister that we approach this matter with a positive attitude. We are doing too much negative thinking in our country altogether. We are rationing poverty when we have no right to think in terms of poverty in this land of abundance. We should be thinking positively. I will say this in reference to what the minister said. He felt that there was another place where I might more fittingly discuss this matter of financing. I am glad the committee and the chairman have permitted me to discuss it a little bit right here. Old age security is a subject we are all deeply interested in, but it is a problem which we do not know how to solve, and which I am sure every member in this house knows must be solved unless we leave our old age pensioners by the tens of thousands all over the country in penury and suffering, in malnutrition with resulting disease and early death. That is exactly what it means.


William Alfred Robinson: I am extremely sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


John Horne Blackmore: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will come on again later.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Holowach:: Mr. Chairman, those who have taken part in this debate with respect to the senior citizens, the blind, and the handicapped people in our country have all repeatedly emphasized the need of increasing the pensions of those people, and I should like to join with them in their plea and ask that the minister reconsider the matter and give such increased pensions at this time.
A few moments ago the hon. member for Lethbridge completed his remarks, and I thought that he put across one point very well, namely, that we humans can certainly behave very strangely. Here we recognize the needs of those people and acknowledge that the time has come for parliament to consider and improve the inadequacies of benefits for those people, and yet we do absolutely nothing about it except perhaps next year when an election has to be fought. May I remind the minister that these pensions are the sole source of income and livelihood for many people in our country. How they manage to live on the pension is beyond me, and yet they must. It is unfortunate that the present administration has not been able to see its way clear to increase the pensions of those people this year, not as charity or a give-away program, but as a fulfilment of the guardianship responsibilities which we have toward those people.

We acknowledge that we have done a great deal for those people, but I think too little acknowledgment is paid to the fact that of all the segments of our society it is those people who are benefiting least from the prosperous times in which we live.
The minister has made repeated references to the impressive figures as being an indication of what we are doing for those people, but I think he has given us very little of the other side of the picture, the increased revenues of this government, the piling up of surpluses and the increased cost of living. Might I just remind the minister that in the year 1952 the Canadian population was some 14,430,000 persons, the gross national product in millions was 23,255. On a per capita basis that wealth was distributed amongst all persons in Canada to the extent of $1,615. In 1955 the Canadian population was some 15,881,000, the gross national product in millions was 26,600, which means that on a per capita basis the distribution of the wealth amounted to $1,673. I feel that the increase in wealth in this country ought to be made available by an increased pension to these people.
I think there is a great deal of significance in the tone of the debate that has been carried on with respect to those people. All members are in agreement, and I think that opinion prevails throughout our country, certainly amongst all who recognize we have a solemn responsibility toward this segment of our society. Therefore, I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the minister, having all these compelling facts in front of him, knowing the situation as he does and supported by the unanimous opinion of this house and of the country, should not be timid in insisting that those who are in opposition to an increased pension at this time reverse their opinions and make such pension increases available now.
I had no intention of taking part in this debate. This morning I received a very interesting address made by Robert B. Meyner, governor of New Jersey, which was delivered at the national conference on problems of the ageing in Washington on June 5, 1956. The theme of his address was the re-evaluation by our society of the entire concept of old age. The address is entitled, "The Rights of our Senior Citizens". I think it has a definite message and is timely at this time, and I should like to quote from it as follows:
I am reminded of a story found in a poem about a Mr. Arrents, who was the father of seven children. Mr. Arrents worked hard all of his life to feed, clothe and educate his children. Once in a while throughout these hard-working years, Mr. Arrents would sit back and muse about that one fine day when he would be able to relax and enjoy life-to retire and, so to speak, live off his children. Time passed. The children grew up and left home. "Ah", Mr. Arrents now said to himself.
Supply-Health and Welfare "The time has come to retire. The children," he said, "are all making a good living. Now let them support me in my autumn days as I cared for them for so many years".
And so, he called on each of his seven children. But from each one came the same answer: "Honestly, pop, I just can't do it."
Then, Mr. Arrents turned and went back to the task of finding support for himself. As he did, Mr. Arrents was struck by the ironic thought that it seemed to be much easier for one parent to support seven children, than it was for seven children to support one parent.
In a symbolic way, each of us today is one of those seven children. For like them, we have been unable, for one reason or another, to care properly for a vast army of older parents and grandparents, many of whom played a great role in caring for us. We have neglected, instead, this vast population of older people, many of whom, because of our neglect, are living lives that are isolated, lonely and useless.
Just one more matter, Mr. Chairman; I would appreciate hearing from the minister what consideration has been given to reducing the residence requirements of those citizens, who are Canadian citizens, who have reached the age of 70 years and yet are unable to qualify for a pension. What consideration has been given to reducing the residence requirements of those people? It seems to me the moment that anyone becomes a Canadian citizen he has certain definite responsibilities. The least we can do is to at least make available to them the privilege of being a Canadian citizen by reducing the residence requirements of the aged persons. Would the minister care to comment on that?


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say a word on that subject if I might and ask the minister to reconsider the matter of the residence requirement. As the hon. member who just sat down said, these people come to this country and many of them make an excellent contribution to its welfare over a considerable period. Their children take on where they leave off and produce and pull their fair share of the load in making this a better and more prosperous place in which to live. Even if we cannot eliminate the residence requirement perhaps it could be reduced to 15 or 10 years in order to give these people a little additional help and comfort in their later years. Many of them have lived very deeply overseas and suffered hardship and some of them cruelty and their children often bring them here to enjoy the later years of their lives in a country where they can worship and live in freedom. I think it is a matter which is worthy of serious consideration and I urge upon the minister that he give it his kind attention in the months that lie ahead and perhaps at some future time introduce an amendment that would take care of the situation.

Supply-Health and Welfare


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, I have one question I would like to direct to the minister. This is a matter I mentioned when I spoke yesterday. Is the minister contemplating any action in response to the request for guiding allowances for the blind?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps I could now deal with these things, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the hon. member for Lethbridge for the care which he has given to this matter as have other hon. members.
As I said yesterday, we are all interested in the matter of old age security and I feel it is a question which rightly has engaged the attention of the committee. I am proud of any particular opportunity I have had as the Minister of National Health and Welfare during the past few years to deal with this matter. This is the field in which I have been privileged in the name of the government to bring forward very substantial reforms in raising the amount and increasing the income ceiling to the point where we have doubled the pension in the period in which I have had the opportunity of serving in this department. I am not taking any credit for this; I am simply mentioning it.
We are at a point now where 43 per cent of our whole departmental budget is for the assistance we give to the aged. No country in the world is using as much of the departmental budget for its aged citizens as is Canada.
Everything that is said about the difficulties of the aged is fully appreciated, I am sure, by every hon. member of this house no matter where he sits. These grants are maintenance grants. They could not possibly provide, as no social security measure does, for the full maintenance of the group concerned; however, I can assure the house that this particular matter is receiving very active attention on my part and on the part of the department.
There are a number of things we have in mind. I do not know whether or not we will be able to bring them forward but I can assure the house there is no problem that concerns me more than this particular one. My only comfort in the matter is that we are now providing on federal account 95 per cent of the total cost of pensions in Canada, something close to $400 million for assistance to 870,000 people today as compared with about 90,000 three years ago. That represents a tremendous achievement. The house may be assured that the matter will continue to receive all the interest I can possibly give it.
With regard to guiding allowances, that is a matter which has to be taken into consideration with the provinces because it is

a joint proposition. There is to be a meeting of the interprovincial board in the month of October or thereabouts when that and some other considerations we have in mind will be discussed.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question? What about the blind who are 70 years of age and over? This has nothing to do with the provinces and is purely a federal matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, I know, but it has to be taken into consideration as it will be.


Mr. Zaplitny:: The question has been raised of the review of the residence requirements for these applicants for old age pensions. I have taken the matter up with the minister privately on two or three occasions and I would like him to comment on the representations made by the hon. members for Edmonton East and Davenport.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I indicated that yesterday. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra raised that question last night and I indicated to him that that matter was being considered along with several other suggestions that he made. I am aware of that problem and it has to be considered along with our assistance program because the period of residence is the same for old age assistance and for old age security. In the former case, because there is provincial participation, we have to consult the provinces. We try to make these things as uniform as we can. The hon. member may be assured, as may the hon. member who raised it and the hon. member for Davenport, that it is being studied.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil defence-
281. To provide for the civil defence program, $7,010,018.
Mr. Pearkes:: Mr. Chairman, when the
estimates of this department were before the estimates committee very careful con' sideration was given to the items dealing with civil defence and many hours' discussion took place. We appreciated the minister's frank statements during those discussions and particularly the day when we were in camera. It is not my purpose, therefore, to speak at any great length today on this subject of civil defence.
During those discussions in the committee the members of that committee from this party made our position quite clear. We believe that reasonable steps should be taken to keep the nation informed as to the nature and the effect of damage which might be caused from the explosion of thermonuclear bombs should another global war take place and those devastating weapons be used. We

do not believe the situation is such that there should be anything done which at the present time would create any hysteria and we think the minister is adopting a cautious attitude in this respect. We consider it advisable that research should continue as to the best method which might be employed in order to limit the casualties and the damage which might be done both in the area of the bomb explosion and also in the larger area which would be affected by the fall-out.
During the discussion in this committee we noted the excellent work which had been done by members of the civil defence organization in almost every province in connection with disaster relief and the emphasis which has been placed by the co-ordinator of the civil defence and the civil defence generally concerning the training for disasters which might occur and which arise from acts of God rather than from war. We believe that work should be continued.
There does appear to be somewhat of an anomaly and perhaps the minister would devote some consideration to this matter with a view to removing it. The anomaly is in connection with the compensation that can be paid to civil defence workers.
It was pointed out during the committee's discussion that civil defence personnel if injured when carrying out training or civil defence exercises would be compensated for their injury or loss of time which might arise from it. On the other hand, however, if civil defence personnel are injured when called out to assist a province or municipal authorities in connection with some disaster which has occurred, they do not receive any compensation because they are dealing with an actual disaster rather than a civil defence exercise or training.
I pointed out at the time that service personnel, personnel from the armed services who might be working alongside the civil defence personnel, would of course receive compensation for any injury they might receive but civil defence personnel do not.
I hope it will be possible to review that situation between now and the time when the estimates are brought down at the next parliament to see if that anomaly might be removed. Otherwise we are satisfied that reasonable steps are being taken to keep the public informed and to consider what action should be taken in the event of the disaster of war being brought to this country and thermonuclear bombs falling on Canadian targets.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to
make a few brief comments on this item and I can assure the minister they will be very brief.
Supply-Civil Defence
As he knows, I represent a district where civil defence efficiency is possibly as high as in any area of Canada owing to the cooperation of the municipalities, the industries and the employees concerned. They have been organized very effectively to serve also in the case of disaster which is an aspect of civil defence which I feel has to be emphasized in order to retain public interest over a continuing period of time.
I want to ask the minister this question. A representative from my district was down here about two weeks ago to take a course at Arnprior. He understood when he came that he was to take a course in what is called orientation, whatever that is, and also in administration. He spent a week there and took the course in orientation and then he was told that unfortunately the course in administration would be coming on later in the year and so he would have to go home.
I just bring this up because it appears to me that this is a waste of public money. This man tells me it cost about $300 to bring him from a point in Kootenay West to Arnprior to attend the course. He thought it was a very poor arrangement that would require him to go back again because an additional $300 would be required for him to return to take the course in administration. I bring this to the minister's attention because I think it is most unfortunate for those who are giving their time voluntarily to take part in this work to get the impression that money is no object with respect to the federal administration of civil defence.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I want to make just a brief statement, but first I should like to thank the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich for the assistance he has given in this matter, both today and in the committee where we had a most thorough discussion. I also want to thank him very much for the tribute he paid to the civil defence coordinator and those under him throughout the country who are faced with a difficult problem and are doing their best in carrying out what is perhaps one of the most difficult assignments of any modern government.
Before dealing directly with one aspect about which I have indicated to the committee I would say something, I should like to say to the hon. member who has just spoken that I shall make careful note of the situation he has described. If the facts are as related by him, and undoubtedly they are-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As given to me.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -they will certainly be corrected. I can assure my hon. friend and also the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich that

Supply-Civil Defence the question of compensation which he raised in the committee has been considered in the interval but no official decision as between treasury and the provinces has been reached.
The hon. member raised the question of evacuation a few months ago. I discussed this matter in the committee and there are certain comments I should like to make. As my hon. friend knows, these matters are discussed with NATO and with the United Kingdom. We now believe that our civil defence should be based on the development and testing of plans for the orderly evacuation of the main urban areas in our country should the possibility of attack on such areas by nuclear weapons appear to be imminent. Our military authorities have now advised us that it must be anticipated in any major war that the North American continent would be attacked with high-yield nuclear weapons with little if any warning.
Accordingly our civil defence policy must be so designed as to ensure the survival and safety of as many of our population as would be possible in the event of nuclear attack on this country.
In arriving at this decision it was necessary to take into account a number of factors such as the nature and yield of enemy weapons which could be delivered, the degree of warning to be expected, the density of population of the country, in particular the probable target areas, and finally transportation and other resources waiting for survivors.
It may be assumed that in any major war we would not likely be the scene of primary vital air battles. No doubt a number of enemy aircraft carrying nuclear weapons for delivery on targets in the United States and Canada would fail to reach their targets or be shot down over our country. We have to take all these things into consideration. Under such circumstances the bombs carried by those enemy aircraft would almost certainly be delivered against our larger cities as targets, what might be termed second choice targets, or jettisoned and detonated almost anywhere in the country.
On the other hand, we have certain advantages as compared with other countries. We have only a limited number of cities and we have wide spaces. The two problems which face us are, first, how to ensure the survival of our population in the large Canadian cities in the face of high-yield nuclear weapon attacks against them and, second, how to provide the whole population with protection against radioactive fall-out resulting from the use of nuclear weapons.
The policy of evacuation undoubtedly is a gigantic one. We are certainly-and when


I say "we" I mean all of us-far from reaching the stage of perfection in the execution of its technique. But it has been advocated by the United States government, whose problems of evacuation are more difficult than ours, and by other countries, and there is now a gradual shifting of the emphasis from shelter in the direction of evacuation.
All available experience and tests show that, whilst it is difficult, it is a feasible thing to do, particularly for the smaller centres. It is unlikely that complete evacuation can in all cases be achieved prior to the initial attack, owing to the limited amount of warning available. However, since most of the enemy's targets are most likely to be in the United States, there is reason to hope that there would be at least an opportunity to continue the evacuation of some target areas in Canada for a few hours after the initial attack on North America has begun.
In any future conflict the problem, of course, is one of survival. The first few days of nuclear warfare would be the worst. If we could survive these few days we might possibly survive the conflict itself. So, because of these things, the considerations of NATO and so on, we have decided that plans should be developed for the evacuation of the following areas in our country:	Montreal,
Toronto, Ottawa-Hull, Windsor, Niagara Falls, Halifax, Vancouver, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Quebec city, Saint John, New Brunswick, and Victoria. It is a gigantic job; it has already been begun. All that I am saying is a reaffirmation of the tests that have been carried out.
My hon. friend in the committee, I thought made a very helpful suggestion, which we have taken into account, when he referred to the question of progressive evacuation. I can tell him after considering what he said that it is likewise our view that a wholesale evacuation of the entire population of a city after the alert is sounded is not necessarily practical or necessary. Instead we have planned for what he has described as a progressive evacuation. In other words, if it should become evident that there was a general deterioration in the international situation that suggested the probability of attack, that would be the time to move out parts of the population not absolutely necessary to the life of the community, people like the mothers, the small children, the sick and elderly people.
I have discussed in the committee, and there is no need to go over, all the various phases which would be attached to the concept of progressive evacuation, phases a, b, c, and d. I would not want the house to be

misled into thinking that we are in a position to do all of these things. We have carried out certain tests at Brandon, Calgary, Brock-ville and St. John's, Newfoundland. We are now giving some consideration with the United States to another evacuation.
This is a very difficult problem, but at the present time in the face of this cataclysmic potential-let us put it that way-there is nothing we can do other than to think in these terms. That is the view of other NATO countries which recently had a meeting; the collective view was that we should go on doing our best in the free world with these plans, perhaps predicating our view that in such preparations we were providing a deterrent of some sort, a discouragement of some sort, an insurance premium in any event, that might mean that some day these things would never be necessary.
The provinces are playing their part in this matter, generally speaking, and so are the communities. In what is admittedly' a very difficult assignment, I am sure we shall continue to do the best we can. There can be no activity that would result, if war ever broke out, in our being able to save everyone. All we can do is minimize the blow and be prepared to minimize the horror that would result.
Again I wish to thank my hon. friend and the members of the committee for the valuable discussion and the help every one of them gave in this very difficult matter.


Mr. Thomas:: I wish to thank the minister for the statement that he made regarding compensation for those defence workers. I certainly hope that the active consideration that he said was being given comes to a satisfactory conclusion and that those people do obtain compensation for their time and the damage and so on that they may suffer in the line of work, because those people are doing a wonderful service to their community and to Canada in general. They willingly give their time and labour in order to see that the communities in which they live are looked after in the event of not only an atomic attack or an enemy attack but, as has been pointed out, cases of a civilian disaster. The training they have received along those lines is the kind of training necessary for them to carry out their jobs in the best possible way.
Now I wish to make one suggestion to the minister. With regard to evacuation, I notice in the larger cities in the United States the highways are generally marked, "This highway will be closed in the event of air attack or enemy attack" or something like that. I should like to put this to the minister, that the highways around the major 67509-4214
Supply-Civil Defence cities in Canada could be marked in such a way, not necessarily that they will be closed but so that they will be laid out in a systematic way and so that some highways will lead in and some out. As far as a disaster area is concerned, they should be clearly marked in that way and left marked at all times so that the people in those areas, in the event of a disaster or an air attack, would know exactly which highways they would be able to take out of the area. Then there would not be interference with assistance or reinforcements coming into that area.
I cannot think of any more orderly way to carry out evacuation. In the evacuation of an area, we all know that the biggest trouble comes about as a result of people flocking out of the cities and getting in the way of reinforcements and assistance coming in, and you find nothing but chaos. If the highways were clearly marked so that some of them lead in for the assistance coming in and others lead out for the evacuees going out, it would make for an orderly evacuation of any city in the event of catastrophe.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I am not
sure that the suggestion advanced by the previous speaker really has very much validity and I should have preferred it if the minister had been much more outspoken in what he had to say. It is all very well to talk about the cataclysmic potential of a thermonuclear war. It would be a cataclysmic reality. What has to be realized is this. The facts have been given by, I suppose, informed witnesses in the United States appearing there before committees. One of them only recently said that if there was a massive attack on the Soviet union, tens of million of people who were not subject to the thermonuclear blast would nevertheless have no hope of survival because of radioactivity fall-out and that this would extend into other countries and into other continents. We must realize this. If there is a massive thermonuclear attack on North America, we will only be able to decide on that day to which area we are going to evacuate our people. It will depend surely entirely on the wind. If the wind is blowing from the north and the attack is primarily on the United States, I suppose we in Canada might have some safety. But if the wind is blowing from the south, then even although we survive or escape the thermonuclear blast, nevertheless the effects on our people-if this American witness is correct-will be such that the outlook will be more than grim for the great majority of them. I agree that we must try to prepare for eventualities. But I think the people of Canada ought to know clearly and without any question that if this thermonuclear war takes place, the possibility of survival of the
6618	HOUSE OF
Supply-Civil Defence
great majority of mankind is very limited, and that in the case the best civil defence is to make sure that such a war does not break out.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks to make on civil defence in connection with the specific problem which exists in Montreal. But before making them I should like to express my regret that the minister, on a problem of such national importance as is civil defence, saw fit to give this house such a dose of warmed-over soothing syrup as he delivered a few minutes ago in what were, I dare say, his preliminary remarks on the matter.
The danger about this approach of the minister and of his presentation at this time, Mr. Chairman, is that it leaves the house and the people of Canada with the impression that the minister is saying something new or something different or indicating that some progress has been made. The major tenor of the minister's remarks was to the effect that the government has decided that in this age of thermonuclear warfare it was necessary to evacuate the cities and that the government and the civil defence organization had prepared evacuation plans for Montreal, Toronto and so on across the country.
It sounds like progress but it is nothing but a rehash of exactly the same thing the minister has been saying for the last 18 months and which the minister has been working on for the past two and a half years. The minister can go back to the discussion on the estimates last year at about this same time when I dealt with this subject and when, by a comparison of speeches delivered at a meeting of the mayors and municipalities of Canada-speeches made by the minister, the head of the civil defence organization and by Val Peters, the head of the United States civil defence organization-I showed conclusively that we were undecided and unprepared in this matter of evacuation while the United States has been working on it for a year.
But let me introduce another proof at this point. Just a few minutes ago we heard the minister giving us the thrilling details

in his estimation, undoubtedly-of an evacuation plan. I hold in my hand a clipping from the Montreal Gazette of March 14, 1955. That would be 16 months ago. The heading is, "One-Way Traffic Out of City Included in Ottawa's Master Plan." I will just read you two or three short quotations to show you how the minister warms up this subject and dishes it out again and again:
"The only defence against the hydrogen bomb- if the enemy is going to drop a bomb on a city- is distance," Dr. G. F. Davidson, Canada's deputy minister of health and welfare and a civil defence expert, said last week*


With this in mind, P. H. Fox, the federal government's chief civil defence transportation and communications officer, has prepared a blueprint for the evacuation of Montreal . . .
I interject at that point that the minister just a few minutes ago was talking about a blueprint for evacuation. We heard about "progressive evacuation" in the committee and again this morning as if progressive evacuation was something new. The minister finds new terms for old things. That is all he is doing. Sixteen months ago it was "prethinning" of the population. I quote again from this newspaper story:
However, Mr. Fox said there would be a certain amount of "pre-thinning" of the population. If the international situation grew worse and war appeared likely, 30 per cent of the population- 331,500 people-would be evacuated from the danger area before any radar warning.
In order to show why I questioned the usefulness of the minister's remarks this morning, a final quotation from this article reads as follows:
The federal plan for the evacuation of Montreal has been shown to officials in this city. No action has been taken.
All of that is 16J months ago. Mr. Chairman, in fairness to this house and in fairness to the devoted people across Canada who are giving of their time, energy and ability and are sometimes risking their lives in training to prepare themselves for civil defence, what right has the minister to come here and to stand up today and, under the guise of giving us something new, dish out material which was published in every newspaper in Canada 17 months ago? Had I the time and the inclination-and I may say I am not going to do it-I could go back and deal with the minutes of the special committee on estimates which dealt with civil defence. I am almost sure that every statement which is on that record can be traced back to previous announcements by the minister.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I just intervene here, Mr. Chairman, in order to make an explanation to my hon. friend. I am sure he would wish it. I just walked across the floor to speak to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich who I think would agree with what I am going to say. What I have said this morning has been said before. But the significance of what I said this morning was that this is now defined government policy. The hon. gentleman had asked me several months ago, in the special committee on estimates whether that was the case and my reply to him was that it was not, that the department was engaged in these tests. But since then the government of Canada as a whole has confirmed the desirability of maintaining these tests. That is the significance of

my statement this morning which arises out of the question which was put to me several months ago by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. I am sure that my hon. friend would want to know that.


William McLean Hamilton: I am
grateful to the minister for his interjection and observations. But if this was not defined government policy 16 months ago, what on earth was the civil defence organization doing in preparing blueprints for the evacuation of these cities right down to the final-or presumably so-details of this evacuation? Again, if it was not government policy at that time, the department was far exceeding its authority in doing work of this kind. I suggest to the house that we could find other statements. However, I will not take the time now to do so. But the minister knows perfectly that when he spoke to the federation of mayors and municipalities-that was in 1954, if my memory serves me right____


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was 1954.


William McLean Hamilton: -both he and the head of the civil defence organization, Major General Worthington, indicated at that time that evacuation was the plan of action which was going to be followed by the federal civil defence department.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


William McLean Hamilton: that was so in 1954, it must have been established government policy at that time and that brings us to the point where a moment ago the minister was just giving us another interim dose of warmed over soothing syrup I had not intended, Mr. Chairman, to deal at all with the subject I have just covered, but I hope my remarks have brought home to the minister that while some of us have sat here for two days and listened to him wriggle and evade and give soft and easy answers to questions in this house, we have not necessarily been taken in by his attitude. We are very much aware that a great many of the questions which have been brought before him have not been satisfactorily answered, although they have been evaded by the most consumate of politicians that I have, in my short experience in this house, seen in action.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would you say in addition to that that he was an agreeable politician?


William McLean Hamilton: By
every manner of means, the first quality of a politician is that he be agreeable. In that respect, I do not think there is anyone in this house who could help but like the
Supply-Civil Defence minister. He stands ace high with me in that regard because, as a matter of fact, he is far more agreeable than I am.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that the best you can say for him?


William McLean Hamilton: Let
me turn to the particular situation which we have in the city of Montreal. There is at the moment in the city of Montreal proper-for purposes of this argument I must separate the city of Montreal proper from the surrounding municipalities-no civil defence organization in operation. The reason for that stems from the flat refusal of the city council of Montreal, led by its mayor and the chairman of its executive committee, to provide funds in their budget in 1955 for the support of this particular activity. Whether that decision was right or wrong is not a point to be debated here. I will say that there is a great body of opinion in Montreal and on the city council which disagrees vehemently with those who are opposed to any support of civil defence by the city. I would tell the house that a petition-perhaps I should more correctly say a motion-is on the order paper of the city council at the present time which I am informed has been seconded by 42 out of the 99 city councillors -many of the remaining 99 have not been approached-asking that the civic authorities reconsider this decision and take a more active part in the affairs of civil defence in Montreal.
Personally, so that there be no doubt about it, I regret exceedingly the way in which the city has evaded or certain of the senior people in the city have evaded their responsibilities in this matter. I hope that they will reconsider their decision. On the other hand, I think we should remember that the minister himself has been led down the garden path rather consistently in this matter. When the estimates were being considered last year and at other times, he has said we were just on the verge of reaching an agreement with the city of Montreal. When the estimates committee met back in April of this year he had just spoken to the mayor of the city of Montreal and he claimed something was definitely going to come out of that. I can remember similar statements in the press around March, 1955. The mayor was in Ottawa or General Worthington had gone to Montreal. We were just on the verge of agreement. We were just on the verge of agreement in April, 1956. I dare say when the minister stands up he will say we are just on the verge of an agreement this morning. We should not put too much hope in these potential agreements, Mr. Chairman,
6620	HOUSE OF
Supply-Civil Defence judging from our previous experience and the previous times when our expectations have fallen to the ground.
Some of the citizens of Montreal have realized and accepted their responsibilities in civil defence, their responsibilities to their fellow citizens. They have taken action and formed, in the city of Montreal, a civil defence organization without any help from anybody.
I would pay tribute in that respect to the Notre Dame de Grace community council from which, as the minister well knows, this whole approach stems. This civil defence organization is meeting regularly and it is representative of a fairly large group in the city. It is doing its best to make what progress it can.
However, Mr. Chairman, I come now to my direct plea to the minister. No organization of this kind can continue without support from somebody official. It seems to me quite obvious that in the immediate future the city of Montreal is not going to give it the necessary support. I would remind the minister that the financial support cannot be forthcoming until next June because the city budget which was passed last March, 1956, covers the period until next June. This organization cannot then, at the present time, look to the city for immediate assistance. On the other hand, it urgently requires, as I understand it, three things. It requires a place to meet, it requires equipment with which to work, and it requires protection for its members in the course of their work and in the course of their duties.
Now the minister has always claimed that the only way to help local organizations in the field, such as the one I have suggested, is through the municipalities and through the provinces. But the minister will also admit that these restrictions have been arrived at as part of the regulations and not as part of the legislation. To the best of my knowledge-I was only able to make a quick search this morning-there is no legislation on the law books of Canada, which would prohibit the minister moving tomorrow if he wished to do so to assist an individual local organization which is separate from its municipality. That is exactly the case we have here now. We have a civil defence organization which cannot get assistance through the regular channels. It wants to do a job and it needs help from the federal government, help which is being doled out in the hundreds of thousands of dollars right across the rest of this country.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has a very clear-cut decision in front of him. Is he going to allow the over 1 million citizens of the city of Montreal to be put in


imminent peril through the non-existence of a civil defence organization there because he refuses to make the necessary regulations to assist the local civil defence organization, or is he going to take the statesmanlike step of assisting this organization in its work? Otherwise, at this moment I see no hope for it to grow, no hope for it to prosper and little expectation for it to continue beyond-


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a question?


William McLean Hamilton: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have been very interested in what my hon. friend has said because he knows that I share his concern about Montreal. Has the voluntary group to which he refers established any connection as yet with the municipal government, or does he know?	.


William McLean Hamilton: They have definitely established no official connection.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But there have been talks?


William McLean Hamilton: To the best of my knowledge, there have been talks; in fact specifically there have been talks between this defence organization and certain city councillors, which led to the motion that I told the committee about a little while ago.
But, as I was pointing out, it is now the decision of the minister. It is unfortunate that he has been put into this position because the civic authorities in Montreal have chosen to follow a course of action which many people question, but we must face realities.
In the minister's estimates last night there were such sums as several thousand dollars for each of various organizations. There was $4,500, if I remember correctly,-and it was very much appreciated and very much needed-f0r the Montreal institute for the blind. There is no impediment, legislative or otherwise, to give similar help to a civil defence organization in Montreal. Later on when the day of danger and reckoning comes, it could be a potent factor in saving hundreds of thousands of lives. If the minister really believes that civil defence is necessary in the major centres of Canada he cannot refuse this request.


Mr. Leboe:: I do not intend to take more
than a minute of the committee's time, but I should like to say that I do agree with what the hon. member for Wetaskiwin said about evacuation. Anyone travelling west from here, who travels through the city of Spokane, Washington, will realize the advantage of having some scheme by which

traffic can be readily moved through a city. In the city of Spokane we find a colour scheme is used for the different highways, and a stranger entering the city, who wants to travel through the city, has only to read the sign at the entrance to the city, on which the colour scheme of the highway is painted over which he wishes to travel, and he can go right through the city by following that colour without any trouble. In addition to that neon signs could be used in the colour scheme, which would be controlled at station points, which would bring arrows or other facilities into operation to guide the traffic.
I should like to say a word on the questions that have been dealt with here today with respect to the possibility of bombing in war. We should not rule out the possibility of guided missiles which are not of thermonuclear construction. While it is being realistic to think in terms of thermonuclear weapons, yet we must not rule out the possibility of other guided missiles which are being used for the purposes of war which would give, in fact, more time for evacuation.
I should like to confirm what the hon. member for Wetaskiwin has said regarding lines of demarcation, or marks to show where the traffic should go in the case of an attack.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks are going to be very brief because I want to expedite the badly arranged business of this long drawn-out session of parliament.
With regard to civil defence, I might point out that this year we have had a much better opportunity to discuss the problem than in the past. We have spent 10 times the amount of time on civil defence that we were able to do last year because we had the benefit of the estimates committee, with several hours of discussion there with the minister and with his officials. The only thing I want to say on this occasion is that although we accept the policy announced by the minister for evacuation of cities, I consider it to be a single-barrelled policy, and it should be double-barrelled. I drew some attention to this in the course of the study in that estimates committee in April. I think more emphasis should have been placed on the question of survival on a family or household basis by means of shelter. I am of the opinion that in a thermonuclear war against this continent more Canadians will be in danger of radioactive fall-out than from a direct hit on cities, and even if there is evacuation of cities the people who are evacuated must have shelter against radioactive fall-out.
Supply-Civil Defence
The minister has not emphasized that aspect of it, and at this stage I simply wish to express my opinion that evacuation of cities must go hand-in-hand with shelter against the fall-out. That may be essential even in the cities from which evacuation is planned because the time element may be such that the evacuation cannot take place. As I pointed out in the committee on estimates, in order to dispel the apathy in regard to civil defence, I think we should emphasize the fact that it is possible to survive even in thermonuclear warfare, as has been proven by the various tests that have been carried out. If people are protected against fall-out they have a chance for survival. It is important that that aspect of it be kept firmly in mind, because if the populace in large measure survives, then it might be possible to carry on the struggle more effectively later. But, if we are of opinion that nothing can be done under thermonuclear conditions, then no action will be taken, and I think a great deal of the delay in civil defence operations across the country has been due to the feeling that nothing can be done, and there are so many things that can be done. I think the civil defence organization is to be congratulated on what it has accomplished so far in establishing a good means of communication across the country-that is the prime essential- and in the training of great numbers of individuals in civil defence operations. I think that those people who have voluntarily given their time to take the courses in civil defence are worthy of special recognition; but I just emphasize the fact that the minister should have two schemes in mind, evacuation plus proper shelter on the family basis so that people will survive radioactive fall-out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my hon. friend for having intervened in this debate. One could contrast what the hon. member has said with what was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, and although undoubtedly he said it with the best of intentions his attitude was that practically nothing could be done. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has expressed my views and the views of the civil defence organization that we must not take a defeatist attitude. We know we cannot provide for 100 per cent survival. We know how disastrous the situation would be if a world war developed in which thermonuclear weapons were used. Nevertheless, we know, too, that we can minimize the blow, as I said in my earlier statement. I think the balanced statement we have just heard is one to which I would want to describe fully. Nothing will

Supply-Civil Defence be lost if we make an attempt and everything will be lost if nothing is attempted.
I also thank the hon. member who has just spoken for what he said about the civil defence workers who are doing their best with respect to a very difficult problem.
The suggestion was made about signs on the roads and so on. My hon. friend will, of course, understand that we work in full co-operation with the provinces. In the case of the province of Alberta they have a very good civil defence organization and I publicly thank the government there for its interest and endeavour in this particular field and my thanks are also extended to the local volunteer bodies. They take the view, and I must say I share this view, that we must not be too ostentatious until we have reason to be ostentatious.
I know the situation in the country to which my hon. friend referred. I lived in a hotel in New York last fall where there were all sorts of signs but there was not much behind them. The government at Alberta has taken the position, as most of the provincial governments have, that we ought to make sure not only that our plans are developed but that they are capable of execution before we create false impressions. There may be a midway position but I just mention that to indicate the way we feel about it.
With regard to the situation in Montreal, my hon. friend has taken a rather courageous course this morning and I commend him for it. As he knows, I have been greatly concerned about the fact that in the largest city of Canada there was a decision about a year and a half ago to undo the really great work that had been done by the city government and volunteer bodies. This was a regrettable thing. As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said, if Coventry won't defend Coventry, Her Majesty's government of the United Kingdom cannot.
All around Montreal there is now a group of communities that are engaged in doing work for civil defence. As the hon. gentleman said, I have talked to the present mayor on three occasions in connection with this matter during the course of the last five months. When I spoke in the committee I did express the hope-indeed I went further than that and said I expected-that results would flow from our discussions. I can only say to my hon. friend that I have not given up in that particular. When I asked him a question a moment ago concerning whether or not the volunteer group he had in mind had any association or connection with the city government officially he indicated that there had been some consultation. I know
[Mr. Martin.l

that a group has discussed the matter recently with the mayor and only ten days ago I myself discussed this matter with the mayor over the telephone. I have not given up.
Assuming that the city would not officially participate, my hon. friend asked what I would be prepared to do. I can only say I am prepared to consider that possibility. At the present time we have just concluded an arrangement with the government of the province of Quebec whereby they have given us permission to deal directly with the municipalities without going through them. I do not know whether it is on its way or whether it has actually been put forward but we have a submission to the treasury to permit us to deal directly with certain municipalities and also to be allowed to provide 25 per cent assistance without going through the government of the province.
My hon. friend's proposal goes one step further in that he suggests we should deal with a volunteer group. We must remember that in cities we have to deal with the fire departments, welfare department, police force and other groups which are a part of the organized community and which play a very essential role in the development of a city's civil defence organization. I may not fully satisfy my hon. friend by my assurance but at this stage I can only assure him that I will carefully examine the extent to which it would be possible to encourage a local body of this kind. It may be possible to establish some titular connection with the municipalities and I assure him I will be glad to pursue that question vigorously.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, one brief question occurred to me while the minister was speaking. I wonder would he care to see personal representatives of the civil defence organization in Montreal and discuss possible arrangements with them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would be glad to.


Mr. Castleden:: In his statement would the minister care to say something about the possibility of greater co-operation with the militia of Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I have said, I have already clearly indicated that in the discussion in the committee. There has been a change of policy there and the measure of co-operation between the defence forces and the civil defence organization is now on a firmer footing than it was before. In my own judgment there is an increasing role for certain groups in the armed forces. It may not be along the lines they are theoretically contemplating in the United Kingdom but along lines that I think would give the armed forces, and particularly the reserve forces, a greater role than they have had heretofore.

Progress has been made and I know, for example, that civil defence courses are now given to members of the armed forces. Some are actually taking courses at our civil defence college in Arnprior.


George Hugh Castleden: I would like to have the minister's statement on the following matter. I believe the prairie region is looked upon as a receptionist area. I know my own province has been co-operating with the government in an endeavour to carry on a training program relating to the rural and city municipalities in the receptionist area. I think there has been a little hesitancy on the part of the government to assist the province in preparing the kind of supplies such as blankets, medical supplies and food supplies that would be necessary in the case of an emergency. I think that in fulfilling the role they are trying to fulfil in the receptionist area more assistance would be of great value.
It must be remembered that we are dealing with the possibility of a type of war about which we know very little. Although the program must be a running one which permits of changes in policy, and although I believe we cannot be ostentatious in what we are spending, I think we should be doing what we can.
I would also say this. Where training has been carried out and where supplies have been available they have been of great value in cases of peacetime disaster. I think there is no doubt that support should be given to this kind of program to take care of peacetime disasters, and on that ground I think the expenditure can be supported.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
[Stage Direction]
54. To provide for the requirements of the sound broadcasting service (to amount formerly authorized by chap. 32 R.S.), $6,250,000.
Mr. McCann:: Continuing the discussion of last evening on the estimates of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the hon. member for Eglinton raised two or three questions which I shall endeavour to deal with before we proceed with the rest of the debate.
He asked about rumours he said he had heard to the effect that the C.B.C. was proposing to sell television news service to those who might be interested in purchasing it. I am informed by the corporation that it is not considering selling television news services.
Supply-C.B.C.
The hon. member also asked when colour television will be available. I am not in a position to give an answer at the present time on that. I believe that this is one of the questions we shall be able to deal with much better when we have the report of the royal commission.
The hon. member also asked about the commercial operations of the corporation and revenue from advertising. For the revenue figures requested I would draw attention to a breakdown given on page 3 of the section on finance in the annual report of the corporation, which has been tabled. I am informed by the corporation that it is continuing to charge uniform rates.
I wish to put on the record some information with reference to the finances of the company as provided for by vote 54 and supplementary vote 605, the one dealing with sound broadcasting and the other with television. Vote 54 in the main estimates and vote 605 in the supplementaries represent proposals by the government for interim financing of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation pending the report of the royal commission on broadcasting. As hon. members are aware, the royal commission, under the chairmanship of Mr. Robert Fowler, is conducting an exhaustive study of the whole matter of television and sound broadcasting and is examining the operations of the corporation. The government expects that after it has the report of the royal commission it will be in a position to make proposals to parliament regarding a firm basis for longterm financing of the national broadcasting system and its development, both in television and in sound broadcasting. I believe too that members of the house will be in a better position to consider these matters after having had the report of the royal commission which we expect will be ready for the next session of parliament.
As hon. members are aware, the operations of the radio part of the national broadcasting system have been financed for several years from a statutory annual grant of $6,250,000 together with the proceeds of the excise tax on radio sets and equipment in accordance with statutory provision. In addition the corporation has the proceeds of its commercial activities. In its statement for the year ended March 31, 1956 the corporation shows a deficit in sound broadcasting of some $287,000 after depreciation.
In the current fiscal year it is estimated that there will be some decrease in the yield of the excise tax on radio sets and a further drop in sound broadcasting commercial revenue. At the same time, to keep services at their current level, there will be some

Supply-C.B.C.
minor increase in expenditures arising from normal salary adjustments, the replacement of commercial programs, strengthening of radio programming and increased fees and salary costs resulting from collective bargaining agreements.
The statutory grant of $6,250,000 annually was provided for a five-year period in 1951 and came to an end with the last fiscal year. Under the circumstances the government is proposing this vote 54 of $6,250,000 simply as a temporary measure to provide the same amount for another year.
The corporation expects that with this continuation of the $6,250,000 grant it will have a deficit in its sound broadcasting operation this year of some $3 million. The deficit will have to come from its own reserves, since the government is not proposing any further grant for sound broadcasting above the level of the statutory amount of the previous five years.
The operations of the national television system for the last three years have been financed from the proceeds of the excise tax on television receiving sets and equipment, together with the income from television commercial operations. I think it became very plain, particularly to members of last year's special committee on broadcasting, that the proceeds of the excise tax plus commercial revenues would by this year not be nearly enough to support the nation-wide system, with service through the number of public and private stations that have been authorized. That of course was one of the reasons for the setting up of the royal commission.
The corporation explained to the committee at the last session that it expected a fairly heavy deficit in television operations for the fiscal year 1955-56. The deficit during the last year, however, was held to approximately $1 million, as the financial statements of the corporation show. Income both from the excise tax and from commercial revenues was considerably higher than had been anticipated while expenditures were held down. The result was a deficit smaller than had been expected. The rate of expenditures of the corporation, however, continued to grow through the year as new stations were added to the system and as program services were developed.
Some further increase will be necessary during this year, according to the corporation, simply to meet commitments of various kinds already made and to permit minimum normal development of the service along the lines anticipated for the last several years. At the same time it is expected that the proceeds of the excise tax in this year will be considerably below last year and that there

will not be a major increase in commercial revenues. As a result, the corporation anticipates an operating deficit in television this year of about $17 million on the present basis.
The government has given considerable thought to this matter. With the royal commission studying the whole question and ex-aming operations of the C.B.C. we did not think it wise that the corporation be left in a position in which it would have to reduce sharply its television services. Nor, on the other hand, pending the report of the commission, did we wish to ask parliament to provide funds at this stage for a major expansion of the television service. We are, therefore, proposing this grant of $12 million, leaving it to the corporation to finance from its own reserves the balance of the deficit, an amount anticipated at about $5 million. So that the $12 million grant and the use of $5 million of the reserve would make up the $17 million of the operating deficit.
We consider this to be a sensible interim arrangement under which it will be possible to continue the operation and normal development of the national television system along lines already laid down, but under which no new departures can be undertaken. At the next session, with the report of the royal commission in hand, we hope to be able to make proposals of a more permanent nature based on thorough consideration for the financing and development of our national broadcasting system, both radio and television.
That is the statement with reference to the government's financing for this year. At a later period I shall put on the record details of the financing of the international services.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the statement just made by the minister indicates the serious situation which faces the Canadian people in connection with the financing of the C.B.C., in particular under the television policy now in effect. The deficit this year indicates that there is something wrong in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's control of expenditures.
The trend has been upwards in recent years. I think the Canadian people today are asking that what appears to have the elements of hog-wild spending by the C.B.C. must be curtailed and discontinued. As far as the $12 million item is concerned, to which the minister just made reference, whereby the C.B.C. asks for a grant of that amount on the part of parliament, I suggest that the $12 million should be in the form of a loan advance and not a grant so that parliament will be in a position to determine, when the royal commission makes its report, as to what shall be the future course of the C.B.C.


Mr. Goode:: On a point of order, if my hon. friend will allow me. We listened last night for an hour to the hon. gentleman who represents his party in this house speaking on the C.B.C., and the Liberal party kept a quorum in this house to allow the gentleman to speak. There are other parties-and I say this with all respect to my hon. friend from Prince Albert-there are other parties and other members who wish to speak in this debate, and I rather think we should take them in the right order. I understand that the C.C.F. party has a member to speak, the Social Credit party has a member to speak and, as you know, I shall have something to say at some time, but I rather think that my hon. friend should give way with regard to this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I submit that those remarks are as untimely as they are unfair. You gave me the floor.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. After all, we are bound in this house by custom, and if a member wishes to speak he rises. The hon. member for Prince Albert was the only member who rose following the speech of the minister.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Apparently my hon. friend was not in the house to notice that nobody rose, and he made a gratuitous statement that is-


Tom Goode: I have been in the house since 2.30.


John George Diefenbaker: I have the floor. When my hon. friend takes the floor I shall listen to him, but at the moment I have the floor. I said a moment ago that the people of Canada are beginning to realize that some effective action must be taken with regard to this problem. I have before me an editorial in the Windsor Daily Star of yesterday's date, which sets out clearly and effectively an argument that is generally being more and more accepted by the Canadian people. I shall only quote one or two excerpts from it. It is entitled "C.B.C. Deficit":
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's deficit for the last fiscal year was $1,358,000. But to that figure should be added the $22,799,000 the corporation received in ear-marked revenue from the excise tax on radio and television sets and parts, and a $6,200,000 government grant for radio. The state radio-television system, then, was in the red to the tune of more than thirty and one-quarter millions. And C.B.C. expects a bigger deficit this current fiscal year.
Many thoughtful Canadians must be uneasy over the widening stream of taxpayers' money that has been pouring into C.B.C. since the advent of television in Canada. Much of it goes to subsidize entertainment, some of it good, some bad.
I refer particularly to the situation with respect to television because I believe that
Supply-C.B.C.
the policy that has been followed of local monopoly in television has been detrimental to Canadian television development. I say this because, as we approach the period when colour television is adopted and becomes more generally used, the amount of the present costs for television will be materially increased. Indeed, the general estimate, as I have read, of authorities in the United States has been that the increase is some 15 per cent over and above the costs of ordinary television. That means that more and more because of the present television policy Canadian taxpayers are being made to pay. My submission is: if a policy in keeping with television development in other parts of the world were inaugurated in this country, the taxpayer would in consequence not find himself mulcted to the extent that he is today.
I believe that more and more members of this house are coming to realize the need of a standard committee on broadcasting. I am not criticizing the minister for not having a committee set up this year, although there are some who disagree with my viewpoint in that regard. With the royal commission sitting, I did not seriously contest the stand taken. However, whatever the royal commission's recommendations may be, if there is no stop put to ever-mounting expenditures which appear to be uncontrolled, and if the recent trend continues upward in the same ratio, the cost to the Canadian people will within a period of five or six years be $100 million a year. That is a serious situation and one that merits the consideration of parliament to a degree to which this matter has not been so heretofore.
I find it difficult to understand why the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, having available to it the best outlets in Canada, is continually in the red. In Toronto the C.B.C. operates two radio stations and one television station; in the city of Montreal, two radio stations and two television stations. Private stations make money.


James Joseph McCann: Lots of money.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says, "Lots of money." That being so with available outlets such as the C.B.C. has and with its programs and with almost a similar degree of advertising, why does the C.B.C. find itself year by year with increasing deficits?
Secondly, virtually every one of the corporation's other radio stations and all its television stations are in highly valuable commercial locations. What about the C.B.C. station in Vancouver? It should make profit. There is a private station in Bellingham, Washington, XVOS television station, based almost entirely on the Vancouver market,

Supply-C.B.C.
and it makes a very fair and reasonable profit. Take a station such as in my own province of Saskatchewan, station CBK, which can be heard over almost all western Canada, a 50,000-watt station. Why can stations such as these not make a profit? Why is it that year by year C.B.C. comes back to parliament, or receives a grant in lieu of an annual parliamentary vote, as it has for the past five years?
Why is it that the financial situation of the C.B.C. worsens year by year? The C.B.C. has radio stations in Winnipeg, Quebec city, Ottawa, Halifax and Sydney. It has television stations located in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Halifax. It is passing strange that, year by year, deficits increase and parliament is being asked for further votes. I am one of those who believe that the time has come to put a stop to this trend. Because of that fact, in so far as this $12 million item is concerned, I believe it should be in the form of a loan and not in the form of an advance. If we put it in the form of an advance it amounts to encouragement for further over-spending which is not justified having regard to any consideration whatsoever.
I am not going to take up much time this afternoon. I simply point out that, at the rate expenditures are mounting, if the person with the television set is to pay for the services rendered by the C.B.C., the present tax is totally insufficient. In the brief of the C.B.C. there was a suggestion that a basic licence fee of $15 a year payable by television owners would be sufficient.


Mr. Fulton:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: It would be nothing of the kind. At the rate expenditure is going on, within two or three years that amount would have to be raised to $40 per set. This is not bringing before the committee something that we on this side have not warned about for several years. It is a situation, however, that has now reached the point where a decision must be reached on this important question. A decision is necessary for the preservation of the rights of the taxpayers of this country and also for the development of television generally everywhere A'ithin this country.
I realize that the commission has not yet reported. Because of that fact I do not intend to discuss other matters connected with this field of endeavour except to repeat something that we on this side of the house have asked for throughout the years. In addition to there being greater control over expenditures on the part of the C.B.C. we ask for a greater measure of parliamentary control, a greater assurance of a careful examination

of expenditures that are being made. We are gratified to find that there has been widespread support for what we have endeavoured to secure, namely, an independent body to adjudicate between the C.B.C. and the private stations. We have pointed out the utter democratic injustice of there being a regulatory body performing executive, legislative and judicial functions and being a judge in its own cause. Those two matters represent all I intend to say with regard to this matter at this time. To go back to where I started, I again use the same expression. This hog-wild expenditure on the part of the C.B.C., unless controlled, will result in an increase in taxation far beyond what is justified for what Canadians are receiving today.


Russell Earl Reinke: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal for a few moments with the annual report of the C.B.C. which was tabled on July 22. Then I should like to express a few private views of my own with regard to the C.B.C. and with which I believe a great many Canadians might agree with me.
I think it is perfectly obvious to all hon. members that the C.B.C. today, with television and radio in particular, controls to a great extent many of our activities here in Canada and wields a great deal of influence. In less than four years since television was first inaugurated in Canada, it has reached a proportion where it is covering, as the minister pointed out, nearly 80 per cent of our population. In looking over the report, while I must admit that the C.B.C. have done an excellent job in covering the population of Canada, I in my own mind cannot see where they have accomplished very much that private enterprise itself could not have accomplished; that is particularly in the way of coverage, although I will admit that as a network the C.B.C. probably covers more of Canada in a more unified manner and brings this country more closely together than would be done by private enterprise.
As the previous speaker has pointed out,
I believe that the time has come to take a new look at the C.B.C. I am not expecting anything I might say here today to change or affect the picture in so far as the Fowler commission is concerned. However, I would hope that the opinions expressed by hon. members in this house will be taken into consideration by that commission when they make their report.
In reviewing the classification of radio and television network programs, I believe that the C.B.C. has for the most part accomplished a fairly good balance. I was greatly interested to read the numbers of hours that were

devoted to the various classifications. For instance, I think that people enjoy possibly the lighter types of music more than they enjoy the heavier types. As a result, three times as many hours were devoted to that type of music, and so on. I was particularly pleased to see that a great deal of Canadian talent was used last year and that Canadian talent was given a chance. In all, it is reported that 1,004 orchestra members were used, all Canadians, and that 22 of the 26 conductors were Canadians. However, the thought that strikes me about this particular part of the report is this. While these engagements were provided for over 1,000 talented musicians, I am wondering how many of them actually presented more than one program. I notice here that over 12 programs in 12 cities across Canada were presented during the summer months. I would think that possibly that figure of 1,004 could be reduced by two-thirds, and most of them from Toronto or Montreal.
I would also hope that the Fowler commission, when it makes its report, will take into consideration what effect private radio and television would have on the use of talent in this country. In the field of drama I might say that the corporation is trying very hard but that, in a great many instances, I believe they are falling short. I have in mind particularly one play on television that I thought should never have been produced. That one is brought to my mind at the present time. I think it was called "The Eye". There was quite a garbled-up television program about somebody's subconscious mind and his conscious mind. It was so bad that I finally turned it off and listened to one of the Buffalo stations. As I say, with the money that we are spending, I cannot understand why programs of this type should be produced at all. I think the Canadian people would be more interested in fiction, if it has to be fiction, that is built around some of our historical events like confederation or perhaps the Northwest Mounted Police. So far as the Northwest Mounted Police are concerned. the only program I saw having to do with them was one which emanated from the United States. I could go on and elaborate on the programming of the C.B.C. but I should like to turn to the financing because, in my opinion, that is the most alarming problem that is confronting us today.
In the year ended March 31, 1956, as has been pointed out by other speakers, the C.B.C. had an income of $38,942,000 and their expenditures were $38,572,000 before depreciation. For programming and engineering, this corporation spent $32,347,000, yet the income
Supply-C.B.C.
from commercial broadcasting was only a little over $9 million. Let us take a look at the picture over the past four years, 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1956. In the year ended March, 1953, the income of the C.B.C. was $15,359,000. Television was just commencing that year and the expenditures were not too heavy in that field. It was in that year, too, that we collected some $5,700,000 from radio licence fees which the Canadian people detested so much. In that year the expenditures on both radio and television only amounted to $14,304,000.
Then, in the year ended March, 1954, the revenues of the C.B.C. jumped to $27,430,000 and the expenditures jumped to $19,986,000. In the year ended March, 1955, the revenues jumped again to $34,700,000, but the expenditure also jumped to $29,100,000, an increase of roughly $9 million. As we all know, last year the increase was $9-5 million. Now, in addition to all these yearly expenditures, the operations of the C.B.C., as reported in 1955, cost an additional $19 million that the government of Canada lent for capital expansion. There was another $8,500,000 last year, bringing the total to $27,500,000. Of this amount, only a paltry $72,000 has been so far paid back to the government. Now we are faced with an expected deficit which this parliament is going to have to vote, and I am quite prepared to go along with it. But I want to bring to the attention of hon. members and impress upon them that this will add another $12 million on top of the already existing debt.
With operating expenditures of this order- I do not know whether the minister mentioned them in his figures earlier, but they must be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $45 million or $50 million-I should like to know where we are going with this monster. I feel that this corporation has extracted $29 million from the taxpayers' pockets through the sales of radio and television sets and parts. There will be a net loss of millions of dollars and that is going to put us in a position where we have to take some drastic action. Where are you going to get over $30 million next year? There are only three ways that I can fathom for the C.B.C. to raise the money. First of all, there is the present system of excise and sales taxes on radio and television sets. Then, there are the taxpayers upon whom you could impose a licence fee but, as I said before, the Canadian people protested it so much when it was $2.50. The third way is for the corporation to carry on an efficient business or get out of the business entirely.
In the report it is stated that the market for television is fast becoming saturated. I believe this to be true to a certain extent,

Supply-C.B.C.
but we may be overly pessimistic about that. There are some people who continually change their sets for newer and better ones. But I believe it is quite correct that the revenues from the excise tax are going to dwindle in the years to come. Is parliament supposed to vote money out of its revenues all the time, at a time when we would like to raise the old age pensions and family allowances, at a time when we are committed to $200 million to start off with for a national health program? At the rate this corporation is going it will not be long before the amount is going to be tremendous. I am not in favour of the old plan of assessing the taxpayers of Canada the $15 that was suggested by the C.B.C. to the Fowler commission. I am not in favour of this parliament subsidizing the C.B.C. to the extent it has in the past. In my opinion the only one alternative is for the C.B.C. to pay its own way or else get out of the business and let private enterprise do it.
I have gone over this report rather carefully and I cannot see too much in it that private enterprise could not have accomplished. For instance, the C.B.C. developed between 40 and 45 hours a week of program service for national distribution through C.B.C. and private stations. Of these 40 or 45 hours that were provided for the private stations, 55 per cent was produced in Canada and the other 45 per cent was piped in from the United States. In so far as the French language programs are concerned, of course, the percentage is higher because obviously the programs for French viewers have to be produced in Canada. I am not disagreeing with the idea of bringing United States programs into this country since they are obviously the programs the viewers wish to see. However, I cannot see where it is necessary to use the C.B.C. to bring these other programs in from the United States when the same thing could be handled by private enterprise.
Last year $10,600,000 was paid out for T.V. and radio talent. As I said before, this is admirable because it gives Canadian talent and Canadian artists a chance. However, this $10,600,000 does not include the cost of announcers, producers, program research editors, scenery, news writers, film editors, camera men or commentators. The report lists the various programs under various headings such as drama, opera, variety and so on. I am wondering whether these are all the programs the people wish to see. I am convinced a great deal of the money we are spending now should be spent in providing more top notch programs.
I find that one and one-half pages of the report are devoted to audience research.

Those one and one-half pages of audience research do not give one ounce of information about the result of that research of audiences. I do not know whether "Tabloid" has a good listening audience; I do not know whether "Scope" or "Folio" has a good listening audience; and I am wondering whether or not the people are listening to those programs that the C.B.C. is putting on, particularly in areas where they are competing with United States programs or overlapping private stations. We cannot force people to listen to programs they do not wish to hear. We cannot tell them that it is a good program to watch and that they should watch it. A little of that thinking is all right but we cannot take it too far.
Today we have this huge corporation with
5.000	employees. Last year the staff of the C.B.C. increased, according to this report, by
1.000	personnel, and this huge corporation is operating a monopoly in our largest cities. I believe that if we gave private enterprise a chance they could pay their own way and give the people a great deal of what they want at the same time. This country was built on private enterpise. Anyone who owns his own home or his own car is a private enterpriser.
Does the C.B.C. operate like private enterprise? I would say not. Let me give another example. I read in the report that 80 producers were sent to televise and comment on the boy scout jamboree held at Niagara Falls last year. Eighty producers, commentators and technicians were assigned to cover the boy scout jamboree held at Niagara Falls! The report also tells us that many months were devoted to the planning of the conference. I am not belittling to any extent the importance of that meeting but to me it sounds rather fantastic that the corporation should send that many people to cover it. The report also shows that we sent technical advisers to private stations to teach them how to operate and how to deal with the technicalities of television. Why can these private stations not send their technicians to the C.B.C.? Why should we, using the taxpayer's money, send our technicians out to the private stations?
Then, we come to the news. I am quite sure the news broadcasts have a large listening audience. I would think it is quite natural that some of the listeners might think that a state-owned news service would be rather partial to the government; but I have found, in my investigations at any rate, that the opposite is true; that the C.B.C., and possibly rightly so, are so anxious that they should not be criticized for favouring the government that they are bending over

backwards to favour the criticisms of the opposition. They are not even giving the whole story. On the program, "The Nation's Business", the time is divided up, as hon. members know, as follows: Four spots to the Liberal party; three spots to the Conservative party; two spots to the C.C.F; and one spot to the Social Credit party, a total of 10. Out of the 10 spots the opposition parties have six chances to criticize the government. We sit here in the House of Commons with a large majority. A good many of us would like to be on television to present our own private views. We, with 170 members, have four chances out of 10, as against 100 members of the opposition, and they have six chances out of 10 to present their views to the people of Canada.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I watched with a great deal of interest the proceedings on the pipe line as reported by the C.B.C. I think I should take a few minutes to bring to your attention exactly what took place to give you a good example of the C.B.C. coverage of the news on the Toronto station. I believe the Toronto station covers Ottawa, and part of its news is piped into Montreal. In going through the Toronto news I have found that a good portion of it was duplicated on other T.V. and radio stations across Canada. Here is an example from the C.B.C. news coverage of the pipe-line debate in the House of Commons. While these programs are presented to the people on the basis of news reports that are received from the wire service of the House of Commons, they do not give all the truth and a daily diet of slanted news or half-truths is bound to sink into the minds of the people sooner or later, and they are going to begin to wonder just how this country is being run. For instance, on May 9 this came from the C.B.C. central news room in Toronto at six p.m. You cannot call this an untruth. It says:
Mr. N. E. Tanner, of Calgary, holds only two of nearly 2 million shares of the company. Well over three-quarters of the shares are held by five companies which are owned mainly in the United States.
I would not say it is exactly untrue, but it does not tell the whole story. It does not say they are Canadian companies mainly owned by interests in the United States. Then in the ten o'clock edition of the news they said practically the same thing except the following:
. . . three-quarters of nearly two million shares are held by four big companies that are owned mainly in the United States.
So there must have been a correction made at that time. Then, it goes on page after page. On May 14, in the 6.30 news, they said:
Supply-C.B.C.
The Conservatives have urged that the line be built under Canadian control. The C.C.F. wants it under public ownership. Mr. Howe said there was no way, short of public ownership, of guaranteeing Canadian control over the pipe line.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce never said that at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He did so.


Russell Earl Reinke: He did not. He never said that at all. Then we come to May 14, eleven p.m., and we find a whole page devoted to radio there, the same day that the Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke in the House of Commons and delivered a speech explaining the whole pipe line. At eleven o'clock there is nothing but George Drew. The same thing happened again on May 15 and May 16. Here it is again:
The Conservatives want the cross-Canada gas pipe line under Canadian control and the C.C.F. want it under public ownership.
Nothing for the Liberals. Here we come to May 17 and we find the following; finally the truth comes out:
Mr. Howe went on to say that no one should worry too much about Canadian control of the line. He declared that Canada would have control of it.
He is reported to have said that on May 17 when, in fact, he said it on May 14, right here in this House of Commons, as reported at page 3864 of Hansard. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said:
In other words, an all-Canadian pipe line, whoever may own it, is completely under Canadian control.
Previous to that he had gone on to explain that parliament legislates the laws and regulations. What is referred to in this news broadcast is his statement on that day where he said, at page 3864 of Hansard:
Whenever I have mentioned this 51 per cent offer, I have taken care to point out that it does not guarantee control by Canadians.
But it is a different thing altogether when the people of Canada have been led to believe that this government was not in favour of a pipe line under Canadian control or under control of Canadian regulations.
Then we go on. It goes on every day the same, reports of silly little things that the opposition have said like:
Mr. Regier said he wondered how much of the money was contributed to the Liberal campaign fund in 1953.
The headline is:
Charges that Trans-Canada Pipe Line Limited contributed to Liberal party funds.
You might as well call the Minister of Trade and Commerce a crook. Here is another example of it. On nearly every day that is

Supply-C.B.C.
covered by this report reference is made to the fact that debate was choked off. Here we go again:
Opposition cries "shame". "Choke". "Shame".
Then we have a few more pages on which the word "shame" appears. Here is one:
"Shame", George Drew reports.
Then we have an example of the commentary that was given by some of the members of the press gallery. 1 do not know whether these are called commentaries or whether they are news reportings by the press gallery. If they are news commentaries possibly I am wrong in criticizing them, but I consider them to be a part of the news because the C.B.C. has no reporter in the press gallery, and it should have.
I am not picking on any one particular person, but the first name I come to is Doug Leiterman of the Southam news service. He said:
Parliament hasn't seen such a day as this in this country. At times, the house was completely out of control and seemed about to fly apart at any moment. The members shouted, they were shouted down; the Speaker ruled, then he reversed himself. Once, the opposition refused to vote at all. Liberal back-benchers sang "Alouette" and drowned out George Drew.


Some hon. Members:: It is true.


Some hon. Members:: It is not true.


Russell Earl Reinke: It may be true, but it does not give any explanation about what took place in the chamber, nor does it mention the people who were doing the rioting. Here is another example:
Through it all, the Prime Minister sat, shoulders hunched, and spoke not a word. His motion of closure was pushed through, but the opposition is still fighting its legality.
We come now to June 1:
Mr. Drew's motion calls upon the Commons to resolve that it no longer has any confidence in the Speaker, and makes three accusations against him: first, that he improperly reversed a decision of his own without notice and without giving any opportunity for discussion; second, that he has repeatedly refused to allow members to address the house on occasions when the rules provide that they have the right to be heard; and third, that he has subordinated the rights of the house to the will of the government.
The first accusation refers to Mr. Beaudoin's decision, at the opening of today's sitting, when he ruled that a motion by Colin Cameron of the C.C.F. was out of order.
It does not mention why the Speaker ruled that motion out of order.


An hon. Member:: Did he mention it?


Russell Earl Reinke: The whole thing is very cleverly put together.


An hon. Member:: Of course he did. It was so terrible it had to be mentioned.


Russell Earl Reinke: We come now to June 4:
The opposition leader in the House of Commons has come out in favour of full public ownership of an all-Canadian natural gas pipe line.
Well, sure he did, but as a third alternative. Anyone who listened to the news broadcast would immediately get the impression that the Leader of the Opposition was in favour of full public ownership of the pipe line. This is strictly a distortion of the truth.
We come now to some of the other commentaries. Here is one by Arthur Blakely; he is a dandy, all right. It reads:
Choked off debate on the subject-guillotine.
He uses the word "guillotine" all the way through. It is not as though he were referring to some member of the opposition using the word "guillotine". He goes on to explain what closure is and says:
The present rule of closure was introduced by the Borden government in 1913 as a means of ending debate on the now almost forgotten navy bill.
He refers to its use in 1917, 1919 and 1921, and when he comes to 1926 he says:
In 1926 the King government used the guillotine.
And then he says:
. . . the Bennett government resorted to the use of closure in 1932 to secure passage of the then controversial unemployment relief bill. The rule "closure" is obviously one to be reserved for emergency use only.


Mr. Ellis:: A rose by any other name.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Down, Wimpy.


Russell Earl Reinke: And then of course we get into the interviews with the various leaders of the parties.


Some hon. Members:: Clause 1; clause 2; clause 3.


Russell Earl Reinke: These are really worth reading. Of course the leader of the C.C.F. party is reported as saying:
I believe the people of the country will understand that this is a giving to an American corporation of a very large amount of Canadian money. It is said, of course, that some of it is loaned.
Of course, that is his business if he wants to talk like that.


An hon. Member:: Well, thank you.


Russell Earl Reinke: The leaders of all the opposition parties in the house are mentioned, but there is no mention of the leader of the Social Credit party.


Alfred Claude Ellis: He was just a Liberal echo.


An hon. Member:: What do you think you
were?


Russell Earl Reinke: Then we come to Stanley Burke. He uses the word "guillotine" for closure, and he does not even bother to

explain closure or use the word; it is just "guillotine" again. Then he expresses his own opinion and says:
Mr. Howe has said that it is of the utmost urgency to start this year. But what would happen if the line were delayed a couple of years? Would it be worth waiting to get a better deal on this vital national project? Then there is the fact that the export deal stands a good chance of being thrown out in Washington. What would happen if the government has to take over the line, serving the Canadian market only? It would-


Alfred Claude Ellis: What is wrong with members of the press gallery expressing their opinion?


Mr. Siuart (Charlotte):: This is supposed to be news reporting.


Russell Earl Reinke: Why should they be expressing their opinions on a news broadcast?


Alfred Claude Ellis: This is news commentary.


Russell Earl Reinke: And then they go on to refer to the hon. member for Eglinton.


Some hon. Members:: Sour grapes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do you want a government-controlled press?


Russell Earl Reinke: And so the report goes on.
On May 30 we have Blakely again using the word "guillotine". He says:
And so the pipe line battle is joined again, and the House resumes tomorrow under the shadow of the "guillotine".
On May 31, with Doug Leiterman reporting, it was said:
There was no doubt at all that the government's motion would win and the "guillotine" fall in the early hours of Friday morning.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did it not?


Alfred Claude Ellis: That was a statement of fact.


An hon. Member:: What about the songs you sang?


Alfred Claude Ellis: They want a governmentcontrolled press.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Russell Earl Reinke: I have a few more comments to make.


William Alfred Robinson: Has the hon. member
unanimous consent to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Alfred Robinson: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the hon. member proceeds, since he has consent to go on for a few minutes I wonder if he will permit one question. When he says that the Minister
Supply-C.B.C.
of Trade and Commerce did not make a certain statement which was attributed to him over the C.B.C., is he not aware of the fact that on page 3864 of Hansard for May 14, 1956, the Minister of Trade and Commerce is reported as having said:
Short of public ownership there is no way of guaranteeing Canadian control of the shares.


Russell Earl Reinke: That is what he said. I believe I explained that when the hon. member was not here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I certainly was here.


An hon. Member:: You are the one who was absent.


Alfred Claude Ellis: He is absent intellectually, anyway.


George Hugh Castleden: What kind of press do you want, a government-controlled press?


Russell Earl Reinke: At any rate the report here mentions the fact that the Conservatives wanted the pipe line to be under Canadian control. The pipe line itself is under Canadian control, as was explained by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but the minister said he could not guarantee that the company would be under control by Canadians. That is where I say the truth of this thing was distorted. The people were led to believe that the pipe line itself was not under Canadian control.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The fact is that the C.B.C. reported the Minister of Trade and Commerce correctly.


Russell Earl Reinke: He explained it and it appears on the same page of Hansard. Both statements appear on the same page.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member read a part of that page of Hansard.


Russell Earl Reinke: Then we come to June 2 again, and the report says:
We have just seen an almost unprecedented spectacle of some two or three hundred people, who almost mobbed opposition leader Drew and C.C.F. leader Coldwell, as they left the building, and there were a good many boos for the Liberal cabinet ministers when they left.


Alfred Claude Ellis: That was right.


Russell Earl Reinke: I happened to be out there that night when the Minister of Trade and Commerce emerged from the building. I will admit there were some boos from the crowd, but I would venture to suggest that people were planted there for that purpose. There were also some boos for other hon. members-


Alfred Claude Ellis: Yes, other Liberals and Socreds.

Supply-C.B.C.


Russell Earl Reinke: -because there were some supporters of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in that same crowd.


William McLean Hamilton: And
they were booing him, too.


Russell Earl Reinke: I was one of them. That was on June 2, before third reading. I know that is a fact because I was out there and I know the Minister of Trade and Commerce received a great many cheers but it says here there were many boos for Liberal cabinet ministers, and opposition leader Drew and Mr. Coldwell were almost mobbed.
That was on June 2. Again there was mention of the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, but where is the hon. member for Peace River? Does he not represent a party in this parliament? They seemed to give three times as much time to the Leader of the Opposition as they did to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but that may be a coincidence.
Then Anally on June 6 we get the hon. member for Peace River. At last they realized that there were four parties in the House of Commons. I was there on that particular night, as I had been on June 2. I thought I would go out on the Anal night to see what was going to be telecast. Of course they had the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar on, and then they stated that the crowd was becoming noisy and boisterous by the time the Minister of Trade and Commerce emerged. They said there were no cheers for the minister. Then there was some commentary on what the minister said, and there was reference to the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members who were coming from the building. It does not say much about the Leader of the Opposition except in the last few words, which were:
The bill to permit the pipe line was passed five years ago, over five years ago, and now-
Then Larry McDonald said:
Thank you very much anyway.
Then the announcer said:
As you can see-it was impossible for the Progressive Conservative leader to finish his statement. Later, C.B.C. television news asked him to outline again the points he wanted to make.
There we had all the other parties out in front. Apparently they had to go to the home of the Leader of the Opposition to Anally get a statement from him as to what went on. I do not know who is to blame for this misinformation. I am not blaming it all on the C.B.C., but I think some blame rests on them in this particular case. Probably some blame should rest on the Toronto station. I think a lot of it stems from the fact that they have

to take the news as it comes out of the press gallery. As long as the C.B.C. wants to operate a news service and produces news concerning the House of Commons, they should have someone here in the gallery. It would require a relatively small expenditure to have a man in the press gallery. At the meetings of the general assembly of the United Nations the C.B.C. has a staff of reporters, but in the House of Commons, the highest legislative body in Canada, they have no one to report on behalf of the C.B.C. That is something that should be corrected as quickly as possible.
I should like to close by saying that parliament will have a problem to face when the royal commission presents its report. It will be our duty to assess the Andings in that report. We will have to decide whether it shall be the duty of the C.B.C. to be responsible for the presentation of culture to the people of Canada. Are we going to be responsible for giving them the news of Canada? Are we going to be responsible for entertaining the Canadian people? Is it going to be our job to sell the merchandise and subsidize the program sponsors? Are we going to support the C.B.C. by importing foreign programs and talent? Are we going to use the C.B.C. to educate the people?
These are problems which we will have to face next year. I want to thank hon. members for permitting me to Anish my remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member doubting the impartiality of the Canadian Press and the British United Press when it comes to covering parliament? Does the hon. member want them to be replaced by a government-sponsored news gathering service?


Russell Earl Reinke: I am suggesting that the news that came out of the press gallery with regard to the pipe-line debate was slanted and biased. I know that a good portion of it was cleverly written, but if you have a steady diet of it day in and day out, a little bit here and a little bit there, just twisted a little bit, the over-all picture becomes biased.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it not because the Liberals do not like seeing themselves as others see them?


Mr. Bryson:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that after the remarks just made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat-


Stanley Howard Knowles: A Liberal member at that.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: -the members of the press gallery will mend their ways. I hope the people of Canada will not repudiate the C.B.C. because of the very silly arguments which have been put forward by the hon. member for Hamilton South. It seems to me

that the C.B.C. is very fair with its news releases in connection with all matters that go on in this house, even in connection with something like the controversial pipe-line debate. I was very much surprised that the hon. member did not take to task the newspapers of this country because they made a great many more derogatory remarks regarding the actions of this government than were contained in anything that came over the C.B.C.
It is expected that the Fowler commission report will be presented and be before this house next year. At that time I fully expect there will be a select committee of this parliament set up to deal with those recommendations. I anticipated the suggestion made last night by the minister that we should not deal with the briefs which were presented to that commission at this time, that we should wait until the report has been submitted before we deal with the submissions of the different people and organizations. For that reason I am not going to make any extended remarks this afternoon in connection with the C.B.C. As a matter of fact I feel that in the briefs I have read and the newspaper reports of those briefs there is nothing we have not heard before over the past few years. So if I happen inadvertently to refer to one or two aspects of the criticisms that have been made by some of these organizations, I feel that I shall not be doing what the minister suggested shoud not be done.
I feel very strongly about what I term the unwarranted criticisms levelled at C.B.C.'s policies and the regulations it uses to carry out those policies. I feel let down that the government, which saw fit to establish the C.B.C. in the first place, a child of the government should allow on certain occasions circumstances to arise which give the opposition to the C.B.C. a great deal of ammunition with which to blast that organization.
I also feel strongly that when accusations are made-in most cases false accusations

the members of the government, who should be supporting their own instrument in many instances fail to repudiate these false accusations that are levelled at the broadcasting corporation by its opponents. Because of that I cannot help disagreeing with even the setting up of the Fowler commission, because I feel that commission was set up in spite of the considered opinion and the recommendations of the government members and the majority of the members who sat on the parliamentary committee last year when they dealt with this whole subject. So I am afraid it was something the government did
Supply-C.B.C.
over the heads of those members of the committee who ruled against the setting up of such a commission.
Because of this, because of the actions I have pointed out, I cannot but feel suspicious, and I am sure a great many other Canadians must be suspicious, that the government itself is not yet convinced that publicly owned utilities are in the interests of the Canadian economy. For that reason we who support publicly owned utilities in this country as being the best possible method of carrying on business in certain fields are somewhat reluctant, as the champions of such a system, to make the kind of constructive criticism we feel should be made and must be made if the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is going to expand and do the kind of job that must be done in that field in this country, the kind of job that no other organization can do as well.
I am not going to deal with any of the programming aspects of the C.B.C. I have here, as all members have, the annual report of the C.B.C. I should like to commend the minister and the officials of the C.B.C. for the very comprehensive document outlining the activities in the field of programming they have undertaken during the past year. I think that is one of the finest documents the C.B.C. has presented since its incorporation.
I cannot help being somewhat concerned when I hear the suggestion made that the C.B.C. is acting, in broadcasting in this country, as a competitor, a judge and a jury over the private companies broadcasting in Canada. These people who are opposing the C.B.C., and who are so very critical not only of the cost but more particularly of the types of programs the C.B.C. is airing, tell all and sundry that we should have the kind of programs the people of Canada want to hear. They say that all we have to do is take away the restrictions the C.B.C. imposes on the private stations operating across this country, but they do not tell us what they want to do. They tell us only they are prepared and ready to put on the market, as it were, or on the air waves, tailor-made programs which are going to be highly acceptable to the viewing and listening public of Canada.
First of all I should like to say that their past and present performance leaves a great deal to be desired. I am sure, too, that the majority of Canadians are highly suspicious of the kind of programs the private people would be prepared to put on in this country if they had the field to themselves, which, incidentally, they do not want to do themselves. They have made that quite clear.
Then they suggest a regulatory body. I too wish they had an independent regulatory

Supply-C.B.C.
body, because I am sure the private operators in this country are virtually getting away with murder in so far as the broadcasting regulations are concerned. I am convinced that they do not want an independent regulatory body. All they want is their foot in the door. I am convinced that if we had an independent regulatory body to administer the broadcasting regulations in this country they would find themselves restricted a great deal more in their operations than they have been under the supervision and regulations of the C.B.C. as they are carried out at the present time.
They talk about competition. They go to the people-and this is something that I think is false-and they ask, "Are you in favour of the C.B.C. being judge, jury and competitor with the private stations?" Naturally people are very much aware of freedom in this country. Their immediate reaction is, "Yes, we would like to see an independent body. We do not like to see the C.B.C., this vast corporation, in direct competition with a small independent broadcasting company." But that is false because that kind of proposition is based on the premise that there are two distinct broadcasting organizations in this country. That is not true. We have in this country the C.B.C., and in conjunction with the C.B.C. we have the private broadcasting stations augmenting the services of the C.B.C. and working in co-operation with the C.B.C. In effect we have one broadcasting organization in this country. To admit that the corporation provides the private operators with a great measure of the service free of charge, and then to turn around and say that the private broadcasters are competing with the C.B.C. is an absolutely false statement.
I do not know of any business in this country that is in a more lucrative position than the private broadcasters. They are doing very well. I happen to know a few in my area, and I happen to know that they are in a very lucrative business. But I think I can understand that they see where the business can become even more lucrative. A few moments ago the hon. member for Prince Albert posed the question, why is the station CBK at Watrous not making a profit?
I would suggest to the hon. member for Prince Albert that if the private broadcasters in this country would accept some of the responsibility for building television and broadcasting facilities and better programs, the C.B.C. possibly could make a profit in a good many of the stations they are operating in this country. But the C.B.C. today are building across this country radio and television broadcasting facilities, and certainly they are not going to be in any position to show

a profit for some time. But I maintain that if the private broadcasters in this country would do some of the things they are promising they are going to do if they have the field to themselves, by way of providing different programs and building facilities for broadcasting in this country, possibly the C.B.C. would be relieved of a great deal of the economic strain to which it is subjected today. Hence, as far as I am concerned, many of these things do not seem to hold water.
I will agree that C.B.C. broadcasting in this country is costing the Canadian people a tremendous amount of money. But is there anybody in this country who is so naive as to think that he is going to get a comparable type of broadcasting for any less? Is there anybody in this country who is so naive that he thinks the private interests in this country are going to go out and produce television and sound broadcasting "for free"? No, Mr. Chairman; the people pay for everything in this country. Whether it comes from the C.B.C. or whether it comes because of the fact that you buy a can of baking powder or something else, you pay for everything you get in this country. It is a matter of how you pay for it.
Then I have heard the fantastic argument put forward that the poor suppliers of radio and television sets are paying the major shot for broadcasting in this country. I wonder whether there is anybody in this country who is so naive as to think that a man who sells a television set gives $15 of his own money to support broadcasting in this country. No, Mr. Chairman; the person who buys that set pays for the broadcasting just as he is paying for the broadcasting now through the C.B.C. Anybody who tries to tell you anything different is just pulling your leg.
I should just like to say one further thing, Mr. Chairman. I do not think we can afford to turn over an important public utility to private interests, in particular the C.B.C. If we are going to try to maintain programs which have in them a great content of material that is important to Canadians, we can do so only through the C.B.C. Only those who stop to realize what is involved in television appreciate what is the situation. They know that Hollywood can put a program in the city of Toronto, can run that program for from 12 months to two years, and have a full house every night. But if you put on a television program that may cost as much as $25,000 to produce, and you put it over the air waves once, you have "had it"; it is obsolete. If you put it over the air waves twice you will receive criticism. I am sure the members of the C.B.C. who are present will tell you about the criticism that is

levelled at them for giving repeat performances over television networks.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am very suspicious. I am very suspicious of the suggestion that anybody else except the C.B.C. is going to provide the kind of programs Canadians are interested in. If we had a network set up by the private broadcasters, as is suggested, I am sure they would buy the cheapest and the least and charge all the traffic would bear. So in closing I should like to say this. If we want the kind of programs that I am sure the majority of Canadians want we are going to be obliged first of all to maintain the C.B.C. and second, we are going to be obliged to pay for it.


Tom Goode: Mr. Chairman, having regard to what was said with regard to the Fowler commission by my hon. friend who has just taken his seat, may I say to him that I do not think there is any need to be suspicious of the motives behind the setting up of the Fowler commission. On May 14 of this year, because I hold strong views with regard to the C.B.C. and private television in Canada, I appeared before that commission in Vancouver-at my own expense, incidentally- and presented a brief setting forth my own ideas. After that brief had been read, Mr. Fowler and his associates of the commission questioned me for 90 minutes, an hour and a half, on my views and on other people's views with respect to Canadian and United States television.
Although I am certainly not an expert on television, either on its technical points or its public aspect, I came away from the commission with this idea, namely that if the government had ever appointed an effective commission on any matter in the last decade, this was the time they had done it. Certainly I do not know Mr. Fowler outside of my 90 minutes before the commission, but I came away with the opinion that here was one of the finest open-minded Canadians who had ever been given an appointment by any government. Mr. Fowler showed-and I have been on two television committees in this house-an understanding not only of my views but of the difficulties encountered by the C.B.C. He argued with me with regard to some of the views that have just been expressed by my friend the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort.
I can assure the hon. gentleman that I came out of that commission meeting not knowing the final viewpoint of Mr. Fowler on anything he had asked me about. He is a shrewd businessman. He understands the position of the C.B.C. and of the private broadcasters. He questioned me with far more ability than I would ever show in my
Supply-C.B.C.
answers, but he indicated a friendly understanding of the whole situation. What the report of the Fowler commission will be, of course, no one knows. But when that report comes down 1 am quite sure it will be a fair report, and one that will have taken into consideration completely my views and those of the hon. gentlemen of the C.C.F.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would allow me to interrupt for a moment?


Tom Goode: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I should like to put him straight on this one point. I am certainly not critical of the Fowler commission as such. I am very happy with the attitude, as I read it, of Mr. Fowler toward the whole question of the C.B.C.


Tom Goode: The hon. gentleman was suspicious of the government's motive. I thought that was what he said.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Yes.


Tom Goode: I could understand what the hon. gentleman had said about that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a different story.


Tom Goode: Before I go into my little discussion-and most hon. members know what it is going to be about before I do so, because I have mentioned it previously in this house-I want to say this. I have no inclination, and certainly I am not going to do so, of criticizing the C.B.C. this afternoon. I have criticized it in two different committees. I have taken a view that I think has been opposed to party policy on this side of the house. However, it has been sincere criticism, and that criticism has been fought in committee by Mr. Dunton. I think I have come to the point where, although I see his viewpoint, I will never agree with him as long as conditions remain as they are at the moment in Canadian television.
There is one thing I want to say-because I am going to mention to you, Mr. Chairman, the granting of a licence for a television station in Burnaby-to my friends of the C.C.F. There are at least three members of that party from British Columbia who are within hearing of my voice at the moment. Exercising their judgment they have appointed a gentleman to run against me in Burnaby-Richmond. He was sponsored by the present member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and I think is being advised by him. I shall have some things to say in regard to another matter on another occasion, but I do say to the hon. gentlemen across from me that I have been accused by the official C.C.F. spokesman in my riding of speaking on

Supply-C.B.C.
behalf of private television interests in this house, and of being paid by private interests to do so. I say now that those remarks were either sponsored or directed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and I hope the hon. gentlemen who now listen to me do not concur in those thoughts, that were not only vicious but most unfair and untrue.
Some time ago, Mr. Chairman, I presented a petition to this house. I cannot go into the matter of that petition because I would be out of order. However, I think you will allow me to say that 13,333 people in my riding, representing something over 50,000 people, asked me to present it to this house. The reason for that petition was that the 80,000 people in Burnaby believe they are important enough in the national picture to be allowed to have what they want. They want a television station in my riding. You can say it is not important in the over-all national policy of the C.B.C., but 80,000 people, the second largest populated area in British Columbia, are important. It is my duty, as best I can with my limited abilities, to present the plea of the people of my riding to the minister and to the C.B.C. for the public utility they want.
It has been said by the C.C.F., and I think quite rightly, that there is money to be made in private television when it comes to Canada; that is outside of Ontario, may I say. There is a lot of money in a private television station. I have not yet heard a good argument to the effect that merely because someone who is going into business is going to make a lot of money, we should not let him go into that business. We have, as the hon. member for Prince Albert said this afternoon, a United States television station in Bellingham, Washington. I am not sure that he realized all the details concerning this station, but at least he mentioned it. This station in Bellingham is taking over $400,000 in advertising from the province of British Columbia every year. I think perhaps the figure now is 50 per cent more than that, but I want to be sure of what I am saying.
Lately the government of the United States has said that this station can now increase its power six times. The Bellingham station, which started out as a two-bit operation, has made enough money out of Canadian advertising so that within the next few days they will have a station comparable to the power of CBUT, Vancouver. As the C.B.C. knows, this station was constructed by technicians on the ground out of home-made parts, yet they have now made enough money to establish themselves as a $2-5 million corporation. They have made it from

British Columbia money, because if you watch television in Burnaby, as I do when I am home, you will see that 90 per cent of the programs coming over that Washington station are sponsored by industry either in the Vancouver riding or in my own riding.
A lot has been said during this session about the United States having control of Canadian business. Here is one business about which we can do something if someone in the C.B.C. will allow us to do it. It can be said, and the C.B.C. have argued this with me in committee, that in the final analysis it is the Minister of Transport who lays down the regulations regarding the acceptance of applications for licenses. This does not fool me, and I am quite sure it does not fool any member of the television committee. The C.B.C. decides the final attitude and advises the Minister of Transport or, in this case, the Minister of National Revenue, what should be done. I know of no gentleman for whom I feel more sympathy than the Minister of National Revenue when he has to present these arguments to the house, because no man with common sense could really believe what he has to say. The C.B.C. is supposed to advise him on C.B.C. matters. I am quite sure the minister would know, as I do, that some of the advice they give him is something children might understand, but certainly not members of parliament.
Here we are faced with a situation in British Columbia, and elsewhere in Canada, where we are allowing Canadian money to go down to the United States to sell Canadian goods to Canadians. My people in Burnaby want a television station. I do not care who gets the television station, but I want the C.B.C. and the government of Canada to say to my people, "Send in your applications for a licence and we will look over the whole works; we will pick out the best one." I want nothing whatever to do with it. There is a million and a half dollars available in Burnaby to put up a private television station. There is no reason to prevent that being done, except the fact that the C.B.C. have advised the government there should be a single coverage policy. What single coverage policy? We have two Seattle stations, one Tacoma station and one Bellingham station being beamed into Vancouver every five minutes of the day. Ninety per cent of our television advertising is now going to the United States, to these stations.
Let us be fair to Canadians. Let us be fair to my constituency. We are not asking the people of the United States to take shares in these stations. We are not saying that the United States is going to control this station.

I am telling the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, and because 1 know the gentleman for the C.B.C. is here I am telling him too, that they are Canadians with 100 per cent Canadian money, ready to put up a million and a half dollars for a television station. They will be spending money that is provided to them in part by Canadian advertising people who want to sell Canadian goods to Canadians through a Canadian television station. Now, if there is no sense to that argument, if I am not on the right track, let someone tell me. They have not been able to tell me that in two television committees, and I do not think anyone can argue against the proposition now. All we are asking is to take Canadian advertising money out of United States hands and put it into Canadian hands.
I am quite sure that somebody will make the argument here that we must not violate this single coverage policy. I am not too sure that Mr. Fowler is sympathetic to that point of view. He talked to me quite a while about the single coverage, as officials of the C.B.C. know. He could not see the fairness of it, either. He perhaps did not argue the way I would, but there were some doubts in his mind as to whether British Columbia- he confined his remarks to that-was being treated properly, because he had had the opportunity of viewing United States television stations sponsoring Canadian advertising.
I have mentioned this fact many times in the house. I have put up the best arguments I can in the television committee. I have everybody in Burnaby behind me; the Burnaby council; the South Burnaby board of trade. Everybody who carries any weight in Burnaby-Richmond says he wants a private television station. We are coming to the point now where we are suspicious of our own policy, because we have appointed a commission to either justify that policy or make some changes.
Let us make the changes cleanly. I am not asking for private television stations right across Canada. I am not saying that every little two-bit operator with a million dollars should be allowed to put up a television station. I am not saying that Horsefly, British Columbia, should have a television station because there are 35 people there. I propose to the minister and the C.B.C., in all sincerity that they give us a television station within the confines of the B contour.
The C.B.C. told me in the committee that they did not propose to build another C.B.C. television station in Canada. That is what Dr. Dunton told me in reply to questions. If I am wrong I know I will be corrected.
Supply-C.B.C.
The answer was given to me that there will not be another C.B.C. television station in Canada. All right; if that is true they have arrived at the point where they have no further proposals to spend capital money in building stations. Then let someone else give Canadians in British Columbia some Canadian programs.
Lately the argument could be used that we have allotted a licence to Victoria, B.C. That only substantiates my argument. No one is going to say-and the C.B.C. has the final say on these things-that Victoria will not overlap the B contour in Vancouver. No one will argue with me that Hamilton does not overlap the B contour in Toronto, because the officials of the Department of Transport will tell that story. I am only saying that if you can give me a directional signal that will reach the boundary between Vancouver and Burnaby I will be satisfied. You cannot do it, but I am willing to go along with that. I am supporting as best I can the request of 80,000 people of the second largest populated area of British Columbia, who says, "We want to spend our money in television; we want Canadian goods televised and advertised to us by Canadian money through Canadian stations". I am going to fight in this house whether I am in order or out of order until Burnaby gets its own station.


Mr. Barnett:: May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? I should like to ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond whether he considers the sole function of a television station to be that of an advertising medium?


Tom Goode: No. No one with any sense
would say that a television -station should be only an advertising medium. I will tell my hon. friend that my riding is, I think, not more than seven or eight air miles from the C.B.C. installation in Vancouver, yet I have many hundreds of people in my riding who cannot receive Canadian television of any kind.


Mr. Low:: Mr. Chairman, I do not often speak on the C.B.C. estimates because that has not been my particular responsibility in the group which I represent, but the hon. member for Macleod, who usually takes care of this section of our responsibilities, is not here at this time. Illness in his family makes it necessary for him to be away. I did think that today I would take just a few minutes of the time of the committee to comment on some of the things that have been said, and particularly on the policy under which the C.B.C. operates.
I can imagine that as the chairman of the board of governors sits in this committee in



B638 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Supply-C.B.C.
front of the minister and listens to all the things that are said he must get a bit red in the ears. I am not going to help that very much today, I am afraid, because I believe he needs to have his ears pinned back just a little bit in this committee. I think we ought to talk very bluntly and straight to him as well as to the minister, and let them know exactly what we think about this whole C.B.C. situation.
I am always interested in listening to anything the C.C.F. defend. When they rush to the defence of anything it is a sure sign that they think its administration, its policy and so on are all in their favour, and today we saw another example of what we witnessed here some few years ago when the leader of the C.C.F. rose in his place and in his very ardent and earnest defence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation also charged the private stations in Canada with being guilty of treason, and indicated that because they were guilty of treason they should have their heads cut off, and so on.
Well, as I said, I am always suspicious of anything the C.C.F. go for in a big way, and when the spokesman for the C.C.F. said today that he hoped these silly remarks-I am not going to say whether or not I agree with their being silly-made by the hon. member for Hamilton South would not cause the people of Canada to repudiate the C.B.C.; when I listened to that and then what followed, I could not help feeling that the C.B.C., its whole set-up, its regulations, the statute governing it and the policy laid down for it by the government, all favoured the leftists' point of view, favoured the very thing for which the C.C.F. have constantly stood. It is a socialist conception; it is a socialist-administered body, and it most often portrays the socialist, leftist point of view. That is the reason we see them exulting over the C.B.C. and hoping that nothing will turn the Canadian people against it.
They do not want a change. Mr. Chairman, that is one of the very best reasons in the world why the minister had better take a look at this thing and the chairman of the board of governors with a view to seeing that it is changed and brought more in line with the spirit of free enterprise, if that is what you believe in. If you do not, then of course let it go on the way it is going, because you have not a free enterprise set-up at all, and you never will have under regulations such as you have today, and the statute and the policy laid down by the government. I am talking very straightforwardly about it. I am not blaming the minister nor the chairman of the board of governors of the C.B.C. The responsibility has to be taken by the whole government for this thing.

My hon. friend of the C.C.F. spoke about quite a number of things in connection with the C.B.C. but, in the main, he defended the whole set-up and pleaded for no change. Well, now, I have never had too much time to listen to the C.B.C. network commentators in the past, but I did this past winter. I was forced by an illness to remain in bed for quite a long time, and I had ample opportunity to listen to commentaries, both from foreign commentators and from our own in this country. While I was convalescing I paid particular attention to what was going on, and I can understand, after listening very carefully to these commentaries over several months, why the C.C.F. exults over the C.B.C. and what is going on, and will rush to its defence so constantly.
I listened to such men, for example, as Milton Shulman, Marcus Long, Leonard Beaton, Murray Ballantyne, Alex Josey and others, some from Britain and some from Canada; and in every single case as I listened to those commentaries they slanted news strictly to the left. They played up the weaknesses of British policy when they were speaking, for example, of the situation in Cyprus, in Malta, or in any other place, such as British East Africa. I heard one of them talk about Kenya. They slanted their commentaries strictly to the left and ran down British policy. They could not have done a better job of trying to destroy the commonwealth and its unity if they had been communists themselves.
I could have understood that if within a matter of a few days, a week or two weeks, I had been able to listen to commentaries that presented the other point of view; but, Mr. Chairman, I listened in vain. There was not a single instance of the other point of view being given a chance on the C.B.C. Is there any wonder that British policy has come under very great, destructive criticism; is there any wonder that the commonwealth is being weakened? Is it any wonder that people are coming to think more and more leftist all the time? I charge the C.B.C. with the responsibility of refusing or neglecting, one or the other, to give an opportunity to commentators on the other side of the question to present their views in order to balance this thing up. I have been told on several occasions that the C.B.C. does try to present a balance. Well, if they do I must say that in all the months I was required to lie in bed, when I had nothing to do but listen to the commentaries and news broadcasts over television, I never heard one single effort made to present the other side of the case; that is the pro-British, pro-private enterprise, the pro-policy regarding, let us say, the right of the self determination of people.

Not once in all the time I lay there listening to these commentaries did I hear one rightist objective talk about places like Cyprus. I never once heard the' fact mentioned that Greece had never been in possession of that land. I never once heard that a great proportion of the population on Cyprus is Turkish. I never once heard it emphasized to the public that if the island and its people were given over to the complete control of Greece, these many thousands of Turkish residents who have just as much right to be there as the Greek residents would be at the mercy of a group of-what shall I call them? I cannot find words to describe them. They are nothing but anarchists who want to gain control by force. What better are they than communists? Not a bit better.
Under the circumstances it would seem to me it is the responsibility of the C.B.C., which chooses these commentators, to see to it that the other side of the question is given as much prominence as the leftist side is given.
Mr. Philpoii:: What about Wilson Woodside? Did you not hear him this year?


Solon Earl Low: I am sorry but I did not.


Elmore Philpott: He has been on several times.


Solon Earl Low: As I said, during the period of months when I was on my back and listening carefully to these broadcasts I did not hear one single commentator present anything but the leftist side of the case. It may be that Wilson Woodside occasionally gives a newscast that presents a more objective view or that plays up the right side, but if so he is one of the very few. He is like a voice in the wilderness.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Solon Earl Low: I hear one of my C.C.F. friends saying "Hear, hear". He agrees with what I said. He does this, of course, because it is true.
The hon. member for Hamilton South spoke at some length about slanting newscasts. I am not going to comment whatever on what the hon. member said, except to say that what he said is in large part very true. There was serious slanting done in relation to the news during that period when we were having the pipe-line battle in this house. I would like to mention an incident that occurred about that time over the C.B.C. television network which is not a case of slanting but one of absolute falsification.
I was lying on my back at home one evening listening to a telecast; I believe it was "Press conference". One of my colleagues, the hon. member for Macleod, was being interviewed by a group of people amongst 67509-422
Supply-C.B.C.
whom was Grant Dexter of the Winnipeg Free Press. At one stage Mr. Dexter referred to something that had happened just a day or two before in the house concerning my friend the hon. member for Bow River.
During the course of one of his addresses the hon. member for Bow River pulled out a dollar bill and said something to this effect; "Now, what is it that gives value to this?" He referred to the fact that the bill was signed by officers of the Bank of Canada and proceeded to read the names on the dollar bill. He mentioned the name of Mr. Coyne who is the governor of the Bank of Canada. Now this bird, Grant Dexter, up in the gallery, took for granted that he had deliberately mispronounced it, and on the "Press Conference" program to which I have referred he charged

*


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I do not think it is fair to refer to a member of the press gallery who is not able to defend himself as a bird.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Dexter should be referred to as a man, which he is.


An hon. Member:: He was looking at you.


Mr. Sinclair:: You should practise what you preach.


Solon Earl Low: Does my hon. friend who has raised the objection think anybody could ever win a battle against a columnist in his own column? My goodness, don't think we are so naive, my friend, as to believe this is true. Mr. Dexter will have plenty of opportunity to reply to me through the columns of the Winnipeg Free Press and by other means. He will say what he thinks about me; in fact, he has done that already. I would not have a ghost of a chance.
Mr. Chairman, let me now return to what I wanted to say. If this is distasteful to my hon. friend he can always leave. There is a nice room back of this chamber where he can cool his heels.


George Harris Hees: I just do not believe that you should make remarks like that concerning a man who cannot answer back.


Solon Earl Low: Oh, he can answer back.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Peace River should be permitted to continue what he is saying.


Solon Earl Low: Well, Mr. Chairman, this bird up in the press gallery-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, just in order to avoid confusion I think it should be mentioned that there are two gentlemen in the

Supply-C.B.C.
press gallery by the name of Bird, so we had better be careful how we refer to them in order to keep things clear.


Solon Earl Low: Thank you. I shall be more specific. This gentleman, Mr. Grant Dexter, went on the C.B.C. and prostituted his very grave responsibility by twisting and falsifying what the hon. member for Bow River had actually said. He tried to make it appear that the hon. member for Bow River and his colleagues were anti-Semitic by saying that the hon. member mispronounced the name Coyne as Cohen.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did he not? He certainly did; I was here myself and heard it.


Charles Edward Johnston: I was the one
who said it, and just because you did not understand it does not mean that I said it. I did not say "Cohen".


Stanley Howard Knowles: In this instance I will support that bird Grant Dexter.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I was here and I heard my hon. friend pronounce the name twice, Mr. Chairman.


Ray Thomas: He pronounced it correctly each time.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I think I should point out to hon. members, both those of the same political party as the hon. member for Peace River and those of other political parties, that the hon. member should be permitted to continue his speech without interruption.


Solon Earl Low: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for mediating in this squabble. As I said, Mr. Chairman, it is a prostitution of the grave responsibility of the press when a man goes on the air and attempts to absolutely falsify a thing which was said in this house, and to twist it to his own liking. In this case I charge that Mr. Dexter, who enjoys tremendous freedom in this country, ought to have measured up to the responsibility devolving upon him, and should not have tried to deliberately falsify something which, if it amounted to anything, was at the most a mere trivial incident that anybody could overlook if he had a clean decent outlook on things. I mention this as an example of the things you frequently hear on the air.
The C.C.F. spokesman said in the course of his address that the private broadcasting stations were doing very well. I do not know why, but he used as an excuse for the fact that the C.B.C. is not able to compete with the private stations and is unable to show a favourable result the reason that they are expanding and building stations and generally increasing their facilities. The

C.B.C. have never been able to compete with private broadcasters, even before they started setting up new radio and television stations. They never have shown equal results and they never will. There is just that difference between socialism and interested private ownership and management. I submit that the private broadcasting stations in this country are doing well and under the circumstances I think they are doing very well. They would be doing a whole lot better if they were not subjected to the overriding control and oftentimes the dicta of people who consider themselves to be completely omnipotent in exercising their powers.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: My reference to the private stations doing well was strictly in connection with the financial end, not the service.


Solon Earl Low: I will go further and say that they are doing well in service. I want to tell you that the C.B.C. will not do what private stations are doing. By the way, my hon. friend is one of the beneficiaries of the private stations which make it possible for every hon. member of this house to make regular reports to their people free of charge while they are here in parliament. The C.B.C. says, "We will grant to this party four telecasts; to this one, three; to this one, two; and to this one, one." It is even worse than that when we come to sound broadcasting.
Let me indicate just what the private stations of this country are doing. I know personally that in many cases they are going far beyond the call of any financial return or obligation. I should like to refer just briefly to station CFGP at Grande Prairie in the Peace river country. As I have travelled through Peace river constituency I have listened day after day to that station and have heard them providing a service to the people of that constituency, not only in the form of newscasts and commentaries and that sort of thing but by providing during certain hours lovely music played by artists in their own studios, particulars of people who have recently taken ill, reports from hospitals to the people at home on how their sick ones are getting along, and all that sort of thing.
Many of these private stations are performing almost heroic services for the people they serve. If they make some money out of the advertising which is paid for by private business, then I simply say that is all to the good. It is fortunate that they can get this money out of the advertising so they can carry on and give the service they do. I shall defend these private stations and what they are doing. I want to make it abundantly clear that it has been my experience that many of these stations are going away beyond any call of duty, away beyond what they are required to

do by the C.B.C. They are helping people in many ways which are never made known in this house.
I do not know how much time I have left, but you call me to order, Mr. Chairman, when it is up. I want to say a word about government policy, because the C.B.C. operates under government policy. The statute authorizing the establishment of the C.B.C. set up a crown corporation which was given authority to operate radio and television stations across Canada. The corporation is doing that. The same statute gives the C.B.C. authority to draw up rules governing the conditions under which private stations may compete with the C.B.C. The statute also clothes the C.B.C. with authority to regulate those competitors.
The hon. member who spoke for the C.C.F. denied that there was any such thing as a judge-jury complex in this business. If he or any other C.C.F. speaker will explain how you can get away from a judge-jury complex under circumstances like that I shall be prepared to listen. I would like to hear my hon. friend give an explanation, and he will have another chance to speak.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: On a question of privilege, I should like to explain my position once again. I maintain that there is only one body broadcasting in this country, that the private stations are operating in conjunction with and as an adjunct to the C.B.C. There are not two separate organizations. My argument is that they are not in a competitive position.


Solon Earl Low: That is an absolutely fallacious argument. They are in a competitive position; they are constantly in competition. When they go into competition who is it that has the final say, who is it that clamps down on the private stations and says they have a position of priority? It is the C.B.C. The policies governing the C.B.C. are a hodgepodge of socialism and private enterprise, with socialism having the upper hand. That is what I am complaining about.
In my judgment the private stations have done a magnificent job under the circumstances, but I am wondering how much more they could have done if they had not been circumscribed, if they had not been kept down by the weight of C.B.C. regulations. The government policy is a straight out and out denial of free enterprise. In my judgment it encourages the board of governors to look upon themselves as absolute dictators and omniscient manipulators. Not only that, the government's policy in many respects is most contradictory.
Let me tell you why I say that. The government's policy says that the C.B.C. and
67509-422^
Supply-C.B.C.
the government of Canada can go into the broadcasting business, but that no other government or crown corporation in Canada can. What kind of consistency is that?


James Joseph McCann: That was decided by the privy council.


Solon Earl Low: What was decided by the privy council?


James Joseph McCann: The matter of whether the government of Canada or the governments of the provinces had jurisdiction with reference to the use of the air.


Solon Earl Low: I am not talking about that. The minister has missed the whole point, and I shall explain it to him. We do not need to get hot about it. I said that the policy laid down in the statute setting up the C.B.C. is completely inconsistent in that it provides for the government of Canada to go into the broadcasting business, which it did through the C.B.C., but it denies the same privilege to a government in any other part of Canada.


James Joseph McCann: That is the exact point that was decided.


Solon Earl Low: It is quite true that with the C.B.C. statute before them the supreme court would rule in favour of the government of Canada. Of course it would. What I am getting at is that the government provided themselves with a policy by law governing the air waves, and in the operation of that law and policy they will not allow the government of a province to have a radio station. If it is good for the one, why should it not be good for the other? All you need to do is to simply provide for it under the regulations. You have that power, but you will not. You hide behind a supreme court decision and claim that gives you justification for not granting a licence to a provincial radio station.
I had some experience with this. Up to 1939 radio station CKUA was owned by the University of Alberta. That station gave most excellent service in many fields; in the field of school broadcasting, in the field of classical music, in the field of religious broadcasts open to every denomination, Protestant, Catholic, Jewish and Moslem in the province. Eventually it got to the stage where it wanted and needed to expand its power and facilities so as to reach the other parts of the province, because the C.B.C. would not allow private networks under regulation 14. So the university came to the provincial treasurer and asked him for some more money.
When we talked the whole matter over we decided that the only way we could justify expanding the facilities was to place the station not under the university but under

Supply-C.B.C.
the department of telephones of the province, so they would have the advantage of the engineering facilities, technical know-how and so on. We did expand the facilities, and then we applied to the C.B.C. for a commercial licence. That was all we needed, a commercial licence, in order to put that station on an even basis with other stations in the city of Edmonton and northern Alberta.
That application was made in 1941, again in 1943, 1944 and 1945, and it was turned down each time on the ground that there was not room for another station in Edmonton. That was the ground; it was not on any constitutional ground at all. That position was maintained all the way through, in spite of the fact that the department of telephones had gone to the expense of expanding the facilities and building up the power so the advantages of the university broadcasts could be enjoyed all over the province, particularly because of the failure of the C.B.C. and this government to allow private networks so the other radio stations could carry those excellent school programs, 4J hours per week of "School of the Air" for educational purposes. Yet the C.B.C. turned down the application for a commercial licence because they said there was not room for another station. Since 'that time two other stations have been opened in the city-


James Joseph McCann: How long was it used for political broadcasts?


Solon Earl Low: It was not used at all for political broadcasts. That is exactly the point of view I expected from the minister, "How long was it used for political broadcasts?" It would have been wonderful had it been open constantly for Liberal broadcasts so the minister and his colleagues could use it, but if there was any possibility of anybody else ever using it, then, "No, sir; the C.B.C. will grant no licence." That is typical of that attitude of the Liberal party.
We meet regularly, in what we call these interparty meetings with the C.B.C., to work out the division of free time on the "Nation's Business" broadcasts. In almost every single one of those, Conservative, C.C.F. and Social Credit have pleaded with the C.B.C. to divide the time equally-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Solon Earl Low: They say "Oh." Let me just point out-


Elmore Philpott: It is slanted on your side now.


Solon Earl Low: My hon. friend says, "It is slanted on your side now." He takes for granted that all the opposition members do is poke at the government. He takes for granted that whenever we get on the C.B.C. networks all

we do is try to tear down the government, everyone on this side. That is not true. There are some in this house who still have some statesmanship in them.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am sorry, but it is my duty to advise the hon. member that his time has expired. Of course with the consent of the house he may continue his remarks.


Solon Earl Low: I would not want to go on at this time, but I shall have more to say about this interpolation that the hon. member for Vancouver South made.


Elmore Philpott: I guarantee right at the beginning that I shall not take as much time as some of the members on the other side of the house, but first let me make some remarks on what has just been said by my good friend the hon. member for Peace River on the question of commentators, because this is a question on which I am a little sensitive myself-


Solon Earl Low: I can understand that.


Elmore Philpott: *-having been a commentator both for the C.B.C. and for the private stations for a great many years. I would say that as far as I was concerned, of the different jobs I have had in this house, on newspapers or in any other walk of life, I never had to work harder for the money I got-and it was not too much at that-than I did as a commentator on the C.B.C.; because on that job, believe me, you are on a really hot spot indeed. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that whatever else is wrong with the C.B.C.-and I think there is plenty wrong with the C.B.C., about which I intend to mention a point or two in a minute-there is nothing wrong with the C.B.C. on two scores; first, they try to be absolutely fair and are absolutely fair in their political broadcasts.


Solon Earl Low: I deny that most vehemently.


Elmore Philpott: This country has the fairest system of political broadcasts of any country in the entire world, bar none, with the possible exception that it is definitely slanted in favour of the opposition, especially the minority of my hon. friend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Elmore Philpott: My second point is that the C.B.C. tries very hard-and succeeds, I think, very well-over the years in the extremely difficult field of providing a balance of political comment. If any of you think it is an easy job to provide a balance in political comment, or for that matter even to provide fair comment in the newspapers of this country, I suggest that you

take on the job yourself for a while. I know, as an old newspaperman of 33 years' experience, that everybody in Canada thinks he can run the newspapers better than the newspaper editors, and I also notice that same characteristic applies a little to radio, because it seems to me that just about everybody in Canada thinks he can run the radio better than the professionals who are in charge of running the radio. I just do not happen to think it is true.
When you get down to picking out political commentators in a country like Canada, with all the diverse interests and diverse political backgrounds that we have, it is not the easiest thing in the world to get a balance of commentators. I myself have had some experience from time to time in trying to get up panels. Not so long ago the program "Town Meeting of the Air" was getting up panels of three or four speakers of different parties so as to make a balance. The difficulty is quite obvious. There is a great and growing scarcity of right-wing Conservative speakers who are both intelligent and vocal and who are willing to go on the air and do the job. So you are always left with a lop-sided panel. You always have plenty of good vocal Liberals, and you might also have some good vocal leftists. We certainly have enthusiastic Social Crediters willing to go on any and every panel.


Solon Earl Low: They are never asked.


Elmore Philpott: But it is not the easiest thing in the world to get a balance which suits all the people of Canada. I must say X was truly astonished to hear my hon. friend from Peace River suggest as leftists the names that he mentioned.


Solon Earl Low: I did not say they were leftists.


Elmore Philpott: I understand that two of the names you mentioned were Murray Ballan-tyne and Marcus Long.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, may I correct my hon. friend? I know he would want to have it correctly. I did not say they were leftists.
I said that in the commentaries made by these whom I named and many others, more often than otherwise their comments were slanted heavily to the left. I did not name any one of them as a leftist.
Supply-C.B.C.
Mr. J. B. McGeachy, until recently of the Globe and Mail. I do not think we can call Mr. McGeachy a leftist.


Solon Earl Low: There are many of us who could.


Elmore Philpott: If that is the case I think we had better skip that matter, because we cannot find any common ground.
I rise at this time particularly to support my colleague the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond in expressing quite candidly what I think is the opinion of British Columbia. During the Easter recess we had the largest and most enthusiastic Liberal convention that has ever been held in the history of the province, at which people from all over the province of British Columbia devised a new platform for the party. One of the points which was passed by an overwhelming majority was that there should be in Canada a new name for the controlling body of radio and television in this country. I forget exactly what they called it, but the substance of the recommendation was that instead of having a board of governors in charge and control over both the C.B.C. and the private stations, we should have a new independent tribunal over both of them.
At this point may I say that while I am personally in favour of it and shall certainly support it, as I supported it in this house some three years ago, I do not believe there was in that proposal as much substance as there is in the proposal made by my colleague the hon. member of Burnaby-Richmond. In my opinion it will not make very much difference what may be the name of the body that controls radio and television in Canada, because if they took effective control of radio and television in Canada all they would do would be to put in my good friend Mr. Davidson Dunton as chairman of the new body. They could not find a better man in Canada. He is by far the most competent radio and television man there is in Canada. Hence all that it would do would be to give a new title to an old job. But I think it would perhaps take the C.B.C. out of the false position in which it is so often accused of being, namely of being both judge, jury and policeman and all the rest of it. It would take it out of that false position.


Elmore Philpott: I happen to be a little luckier than my hon. friend. I hear some of the comments by C.B.C. commentators on the other side. I heard a very good commentary by Mr. Wilson Woodside, who not so many months ago ran as the Conservative candidate for Trinity and is a man who could not by any stretch of the imagination be called a leftist. Then I often hear, and with great pleasure,
But as to the question of competition in Vancouver and in British Columbia generally, I am personally quite convinced that at least 95 per cent or I suppose I could go even higher than that and say well over 95 per cent-of the people of Vancouver certainly cannot see any sense in our being forced to choose between listening to or viewing a C.B.C. television station and the competing

Supply-C.B.C.
private stations in the United States. We believe in competition. We believe in plenty of competition. The only thing in which I differ with my hon. friend the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond is this. He wants to put up some kind of iron curtain around the borders of Burnaby. I do not think that would be quite practical.
I think perhaps this is what differentiates me from some of my friends immediately opposite. Sometimes I have noted in them what I would call a hostility to private enterprise as such. Some of my hon. friends even seem hostile to the idea of anybody starting a private television station and making money. For what it is worth I say this. If 50 people construct private stations and make money, that suits me fine. I think we can do with one or two of them in and around Vancouver, and all to the good. My policy is to let anybody do anything in the way of private business as long as he is not doing anything that hurts anybody else.
That brings me to an extremely important point. I will frankly confess that if anybody could show me that it was impossible to licence these competitive outlets and still maintain the C.B.C. in the prosperous and sound condition in which it is from coast to coast, I myself would be against any change. Let me make this absolutely clear, Mr. Chairman. I regard the C.B.C. as perhaps the greatest single agency which has yet been built up in this country for the creation of national unity and harmony in this Dominion of Canada. Whatever else we have or do not have, let us never forget the great debt we owe to the C.B.C. It has done a great service to the people of Canada, and it is doing a great service right now.
It is not perfect. I have never met any perfect people. I have never known of any perfect political parties. I have never seen any perfect newspapers. I do not know of any perfect institution anywhere. The C.B.C. is not perfect. I do not expect it to adopt all my ideas or to agree with my ideas which are fairly lowbrow in some respects. For instance, every night is Wednesday as far as the C.B.C. are concerned. They have too much Tschaikovsky and not enough cowboy music, especially in the morning; and I cannot "go" Tschaikovsky before 10 a.m.
I do not expect everybody to agree with me. By and large I think the C.B.C. is doing a wonderful job. Whatever else we do or do not do, I think every intelligent and patriotic person in Canada should make absolutely certain that we keep the C.B.C. in operation, and that we put up whatever amount of money is necessary for that purpose from time to time. While I for one
[Mr. Philpottl
would not dream of trying to anticipate anything the Fowler commission might recommend, I certainly have no compunction in expressing my own personal hopes. Those hopes include the one that, whatever is recommended, the C.B.C. will be kept in flourishing condition; that it will be given the means to do its own job; that it will have taken away from it some of the tasks which it ought never to have been given in the first place and which put it in a false light with regard to some of its own competitors.
Regardless of how the money is raised to finance the operations of the C.B.C., it seems to me that if the C.B.C. can continue to do as good a job for the people of Canada as it has done in the past, it could come before the parliament of Canada every year with its budget and ask for whatever amount of money it needed to do a good job and be reasonably sure of getting it from this house and from the people of Canada.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, there is one thing of which we can be certain when we discuss the estimates of the C.B.C. There is always a great variety of opinion. Certainly this afternoon, in the speakers who have taken part thus far, we have seen the same situation repeat itself. I think it was in the issue of April 2, 1955, that Maclean's magazine presented an extremely interesting article under the heading, "Everybody Throws Rocks at Davey". In that article they were referring to the chairman of the board. A few rocks have been thrown this afternoon and also a few bouquets. I am not going to decide just how the score stands at the moment.
However, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that by the very nature of things there is bound to be long and bitter discussion on a subject of this kind, where you have a broadcasting agency growing larger and larger and more powerful and more powerful under the control of the state. It has been said by some speakers here this afternoon that we have a public utility in the C.B.C., providing a public service. In some respects that is quite true. In this instance, however, we have a public utility, we have a crown corporation dabbling in the very controversial arena of ideas. There are as many ideas or different opinions as there are people in this world. When the broadcasting media are under the control of the state, as they are at the present time, we are bound to have great difference of opinion and rather acrimonious debate.
Actually it is a good thing that we have this opportunity of discussing the C.B.C. estimates at least once a year. Even from the comments that have been made already it is

obvious that there is a need, for changes in our broadcasting policy, and that there is need for very careful criticism and analysis. I think that has been recognized in the appointment of the Fowler commission which, very shortly, will be bringing in a comprehensive report on the state of broadcasting in this country. Upon that report members of this house will be able to base a more or less comprehensive judgment as to what shall be done in the future.
I listened to the statement of the Minister of National Revenue yesterday and today in reporting to the house on the operations of the C.B.C. As he gave us his statement the thought occurred to me that the C.B.C. has a lion by the tail in broadcasting matters in Canada, particularly since the advent of television. This applies particularly to the rapidly rising costs of providing an adequate television service. The minister's report suggested that we have increased coverage; we have increased programming, and what is perhaps most important, we have increased costs. Everything in the field of broadcasting in the last four years has been getting bigger and "better"-I will put that last word in inverted commas in relation to the C.B.C. activities. I am quite willing to agree that the level of C.B.C. programming has improved in the T.V. medium, but that is to be expected when we recall the tremendous amounts of money that are being devoted to this new mass medium of communication.
However, Canada is rich in talent. There is no reason at all why Canada should not be in a position to provide programs that are equal to the best that can be provided by broadcasting activities in any other country. It is not because the C.B.C. is largely a state operation that we have excellent programs. Under any conditions of broadcasting we would have this same talent available. It could be argued, of course, that the state monopoly of broadcasting, rigid state control, might serve to inhibit creativity rather than stimulate it. Other major countries which are extensively engaged in telecasting at the present time also present worth-while programs.
I am glad to see that the C.B.C. is going to extend its activities so far as the international exchange of worth-while programs is concerned. I suppose the country which has the greatest output of high calibre programs for various reasons is our neighbour to the south, the United States. They have the resources, the talent and the manpower. They also have the greatest degree of freedom in broadcasting activities. I have before me a report that I took out of a U.S.S.R. picture magazine for May, 1956. It reports extensively on the aims and tasks of broadcasting in the U.S.S.R. There they have a
Supply-C.B.C.
state-controlled broadcasting service, of course, and the paragraph which sums up their objectives says something to this effect: The Soviet people do not regard the radio solely as a means of getting news or entertainment. They regard it as a means of broadening their store of knowledge and of keeping in contact with all the developments in world culture. It is in line with this approach that radio programs and television programs are worked out. They go on to outline the kind of programs they are doing in that country.
It is quite true that there are various ways of handling this important medium of communication in Canada which, in a relatively short time, has made a fair degree of progress. But I still say it is possible to argue that the rigid control in this country has inhibited rather than encouraged creativity. The matter of programming seems to be the main reason for the rapid rise in the cost of Canadian telecasting. I should like to raise a query as to whether, in order to carry out the announced functions of C.B.C., it is advisable for us to concentrate so extensively on the provision of light entertainment. There are several fairly costly programs of this kind that are promoted by the C.B.C. Most of them are imitations of similar United States variety shows, and are justified as talent producers. Unfortunately, as the minister mentioned last night, as soon as the artists achieve any degree of fame on the network in Canada there is a tendency for the talent to be lured across the border, where the opportunities are wider and the financial inducements greater.
The minister explained that phenomenon as an indication that Canada has reached maturity in the talent field. It is a rather left-handed compliment to Canada that our entertainers are invited across to wider fields in the United States talent market. That, of course, is one explanation; but it is a phenomenon that has unfortunately been occurring for years, that Canada's outstanding talent, not only in the entertainment field but also in other professional fields has been going to the United States. It is something that has not been in the best interests of the country.
I think there is another explanation that might be given, and that is that there is under the present semi-monopolistic position of broadcasting under the control of the C.B.C., no other outlet for entertainment talent in Canada. If a professional entertainer does not find favour with the C.B.C. he has no other place to turn in Canada, and therefore must find his way across the border.
This situation arises particularly because of the C.B.C. monopely of network facilities.

Supply-C.B.C.
The criticism is made from time to time that the private broadcasters have not encouraged Canadian talent to the same extent as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Well, that is quite understandable when we realize that in order to provide programs of the same high calibre it would be necessary for the private operator, under existing regulations, to carry the full burden of the expense on his own financial resources, whereas the C.B.C. with its broad national network resources can pool the expenses right across the network, as well as being subsidized by the public treasury. If the private stations had the same privilege of pooling expenses there is no doubt they could make a broader and wider contribution to the improvement of programming in both the radio and television fields.
The basic function of the C.B.C., the original purpose in establishing a national service, was to knit Canada together as a closer national unit. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, the hon. member for Vancouver South, said that the greatest contribution in this regard has been made by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I was glad to hear him make that confession, because hitherto I had always heard it was the Liberal party that had made the greatest contribution in that regard. I will say that the C.B.C. has done an outstanding job in establishing a national point of view-


Elmore Philpott: Different fields, entirely.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -in helping to knit this diverse geographic expanse together, and that was one of the original basic purposes in establishing a national Canadian broadcasting system. Second, there was the important function of bringing a Canadian content, in the first instance, to our radio programs and now to our television programs. These same functions still remain, and it is in these areas that C.B.C. can serve its most useful purpose. But here again I should like to suggest that as changes have taken place in broadcasting in Canada, the private operators have moved into this area to a much greater extent than was originally expected. For example, we have now some 150 private stations helping to weld Canada together culturally as compared with some 30 C.B.C. radio stations-I am not sure of the exact number-and even in the television field there are more private outlets today than there are C.B.C. outlets.
Notwithstanding the limited resources of the private broadcasters, that have risen from the circumstances I outlined a few moments ago. They have been doing some quite worthwhile programming. Therefore, while the C.B.C. has for its two basic functions the matter of national unity and the provision of
TMr. Dinsdale.]
Canadian content, I think their job today has been lessened considerably by the increase of influence and responsibility of the private broadcasters since the advent of national broadcasting back in 1932.
Perhaps we would be able to deal with this problem of rapidly accumulating costs that has been mentioned by the minister as the bugbear of telecasting in Canada if we used to a greater extent than we are using at the present time the broadcast facilities that are so readily available through the operations of the private stations. Certainly the C.B.C. expenses could be reduced considerably by this method.
I notice that a few days ago-I think it was mentioned in this house-that an experiment was going to be undertaken to make it possible for private operators to carry on a limited network operation. I think that is a step in the right direction, because there is no reason at all why the private stations should be restricted to the local spheres of operation, as they have in the past, and not given wider access to the national radio or television listening audiences. Certainly, it would provide a more representative program and better cultural coverage of the nation if we could get more programs from the local community level than we do at the present time. Under the present set-up a good many of our programs tend to originate in the larger urban centres, which might not necessarily be truly representative of Canadian grass roots culture.
I agree with the minister that we should leave a comprehensive discussion of broadcasting until such time as we have the Fowler report before us, but I do want to mention this one further matter before I resume my seat, and that is the question of the regulation of broadcasting in Canada. This group has never disagreed with the principle that regulation of broadcasting is needed. Obviously, in a communication media so important and so influential as broadcasting, regulations are needed and are carried out in all countries at the present time. But there does seem to be a growing demand for some independence of regulation in Canada.
I raised this issue at the present time because of something that occurred in the Manitoba legislature last March. In view of the fact that I am a member from Manitoba I think it is important that the Manitoba point of view be placed on the record. Certainly we would avoid a lot of the bitterness, a lot of the misunderstanding that arises from time to time in discussions on the C.B.C. if we could remove the suspicion that there was too close a link-up between regulation and the government, for example.

Earlier in the debate we had a suggestion from the hon. member for Hamilton South that the C.B.C. errs too far in favouring the opposition, and he seemed to be bringing forth the thesis that unless the C.B.C. is speaking on behalf of the government it is not performing its function adequately. That seemed to be the implication of his statement.


An hon. Member:: No.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Well, he was criticizing the C.B.C. because it seemed to favour the opposition point of view in a particular debate that took place in this house.


Elmore Philpott: Surely the hon. member realizes that the whole point made by the hon. member for Hamilton South was the allegation, which he backed up by some evidence, that during a certain debate in this house the news reports were slanted in favour of the opposition. He was not pleading for propaganda; he was pleading against slanted news reports.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That was just his opinion. Then he went on to say further the only way that could be overcome would be by having C.B.C. reporters in the gallery, which suggested that they might be more amenable to the government point of view. That was the implication behind his presentation, as I took it. Rather than move in this direction I think it is imperative that we set up some sort of independent regulatory body to avoid any suspicion of that sort of close tie-up between the government and its broadcasting agency, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I have in my hand a long statement that was made in the Manitoba legislature last march by a Liberal member who took just the opposite point of view. If time afforded I would read it. This takes an opposite point of view from that of the hon. member for Hamilton South, and claims that the C.B.C. is always pro-government and does not allow a fair airing of the other side of the question. We have two sides of the coin, one presented by a Liberal member in this house and one presented by a Liberal member in the Manitoba legislature. Certainly we should take steps just as quickly as possible to avoid any allegations and misunderstandings of that kind.
A monopoly of any kind comes under suspicion and, of course, a state monopoly comes under even more suspicion because it combines not only economic power but political power as well. The sooner we rid the C.B.C. of any shadow of doubt concerning the combination of political and economic power the sooner we will rid ourselves of at 67509-423
Supply-C.B.C.
least some of this rock throwing that has been taking place in the past few years.
Professor Marcus Long was mentioned in the discussion today. I think he came to the nub of the matter in a statement made in Vancouver recently, when he said:
I am opposed to any more government control than is necessary . . . If it is necessary to err between control and freedom it is better to err on the side of freedom. That is, increase the number of private stations rather than increase government monopoly and control.
On the subject of regulation, Mr. Chairman, this is what the Manitoba legislature had to say. A resolution was passed and approved in March, 1956, by a vote of 46 to 5, which is one of the largest majorities which has been given any resolution in the Manitoba legislature within recent days. The resolution was phrased in these terms:
Whereas, Manitoba citizens have a wide choice of radio stations;
And whereas, there has been a demand for the establishment of more than one local television station;
And whereas, due to Manitoba's geographic position, a great number of our citizens have but one choice of a television station;
And whereas, it is desirable that Manitoba citizens have a wider selection of television stations;
Therefore be it resolved that this house go on record as favouring competition in the television broadcasting field in the greater Winnipeg area;
And be it further resolved that the federal government be urged to encourage the establishment of television stations in other parts of the province of Manitoba.
Then an amendment was moved which was passed with an unprecedented majority of 47 to 5. The amendment reads:
Be it still further resolved that the federal government be urged to set up and establish an independent board of regulation for Canadian broadcasting.
We are dealing with a very controversial and complex field, and nothing I can say at this time will throw any further light on the matter. I think it would be in the interests of the best functioning of the C.B.C. if we move toward a more representative position for private broadcasters in this important field, and further if just as soon as possible we establish an independent regulatory body that would remove any shadow of suspicion of political interference in the important function of broadcasting.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I was extremely surprised, as I am sure all hon. members of the house must have been, to hear the hon. member for Hamilton South this afternoon make a charge-which was very vigorously applauded by the many Liberal members in the house at the time-that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canadian Press and the British United Press, the two news services which supply the Canadian

Supply-C.B.C.
Broadcasting Corporation with its news, and the press gallery in general are guilty of slanting the news.
I have been a member of this parliament for six years -


An hon. Member:: Too long.


George Harris Hees: -and during that time I have become convinced that the C.B.C., the Canadian Press, the British United Press and the press gallery generally report the news both fairly and objectively. From time to time each hon. member, of course, feels that certain speeches did not receive the reporting which they merited. On the other hand, if each one of us is honest he will admit that at times we are very pleasantly surprised by the reporting we do receive, and often we must admit to ourselves that our speeches appear better when we read them in the paper than they perhaps sounded or than we ourselves thought they were.


Mr. Harris:: Speak for yourself, George.


George Harris Hees: Of course I know that the Minister of Finance always thinks his speeches are masterpieces, but I am just an ordinary man and I know I make some which I must admit are only fair.


An hon. Member:: So do the rest of us.


George Harris Hees: I think a vast majority of the hon. members in this house will agree that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canadian Press, the British United Press and the press gallery generally call them as they see them, and that they are very fair indeed. In sports, Mr. Chairman, one learns to take the referee's decision without whining.


James Joseph McCann: You have not learned that yet.


George Harris Hees: Oh, yes, I have. That is one thing I have learned. I have never complained about a referee's decision in my whole life, and I'll bet you have, if you ever did happen to participate in sports, which I doubt.


James Sinclair: You complained about 24 of the Speaker's rulings in one month.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, before the growling started across the line-and it is nice to hear the hon. members on the other side start squealing, because it shows we are sticking them where it hurts-*


An hon. Member:: Oh, don't be like your leader.


George Harris Hees: The hon. member for Hamilton South and the many Liberal members in the house at the time who applauded him so vigorously whined this afternoon when they

claimed that the reports given by the C.B.C., which were given to the C.B.C. by the Canadian Press and British United Press concerning the pipe-line debate, were not flattering to the Liberal party.


An hon. Member:: They were lies.


George Harris Hees: Practically every newspaper of every political stripe in this country from coast to coast vigorously criticized the Liberal party's policy and conduct in that pipe-line debate. To single out the C.B.S.'s reports in this instance is, I believe, whining on a very large scale. From what was said this afternoon by the hon. member for Hamilton South I can only conclude that he and the Liberal members who applauded him so enthusiastically would like to see the proceedings of parliament reported-


Mr. Studer:: Correctly.


George Harris Hees: by government-selected C.B.C. parliamentary observers over whom the government could exert complete control. Then the people of Canada would receive only the government's version of what transpired in this house.


Russell Earl Reinke: They would receive a true report.


Irvin William Studer: Verbatim.


George Harris Hees: That, Mr. Chairman, would be an important step forward in the creation of the dictatorship which this government's conduct in the pipe-line debate made very clear this government is determined to achieve. I think it was interesting and rather shocking to hear what we have felt has been going on for some time so clearly expressed this afternoon by the hon. member for Hamilton South and so loudly applauded by Liberal members who were obviously behind him 100 per cent in everything he said.


Ambrose A. Holowach: Mr. Chairman, late last evening and this afternoon we have been listening to members of the Conservative, C.C.F. and Liberal parties express their views with respect to the affairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. With much of what has been said I certainly can agree. We agree that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has a very important role to play in the development of the cultural life of Canada. We recognize that many of the issues which are before the corporation at this time, particularly in connection with finance and its relations with the independent broadcasting business in Canada, are matters which deserve our consideration and ought to be resolved satisfactorily as soon as possible.

There are many matters on which we as reasonable men can differ, and in this case the political angle is involved; but I think we will all agree that radio and television, by reason of their impact on commerce, and their daily place in education and entertainment, exercise a tremendous influence upon the public's interpretation of political and social events. For these reasons the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the radio and television industry have a tremendous influence upon our national life. They constitute the most powerful mass medium of communication of our time. In the world of scientific and sociological changes there are bound to be many sensitive problems which have to be tackled, some of which are very controversial. Judging from the speeches which have been made by various hon. members, we are faced with a wide difference of opinion.
In discussing the estimates of the C.B.C. we have an opportunity to examine the entire management picture, and to stress the need of economy. I think one important matter which deserves consideration at this time is the relationship existing between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the independent broadcasting industry. The annual report of the C.B.C. does not refer at any great length to this, but it is an extremely significant matter. We of the Social Credit group believe that it is an important question which involves us very directly. After all, the reason we are here is to see that there is a proper balance between the various industries of Canada, particularly in this field.
Last year we welcomed the suggestion that a royal commission be set up and we are looking forward to receiving the report of the commission. The order in council setting up the commission stated specifically that it should study the licensing and control of private television and sound broadcasting stations in the public interest. We of the Social Credit group approach this entire problem from the standpoint that there ought to be fair treatment for all and special privilege for none. We approach it from the position that there ought to be full co-operation, that there ought to be freedom, and that in this field as in all others there should be righteous competition which would be good for both parties.
Therefore we are opposed to seeing this field ruled or regulated by the excessive power of a government monopoly, which we maintain in this case is the C.B.C., just as we are opposed to private monopoly and excessive power for private money interests which may be interested in this particular field. In either case it is the public who 67509-423i
Supply-C.B.C.
are the losers. There seems to be a trend toward power grabbing and we submit that as members of parliament this should receive our thoughtful consideration.
The Fowler commission has been sitting, and the minister indicated last evening that many submissions had been made. I do not intend to touch upon these, as I think it would be improper to do so. It was my pleasure last year to be a member of the parliamentary committee which studied the affairs of the C.B.C. That committee had many issues before it, many of which also were brought before the royal commission.
Many people have been expressing the fear of abuse and injustice resulting from excess power in the hands of the C.B.C. They claim that this excessive power to regulate the activities of competitors may lend itself *at some future date to abuse. The C.B.C., being directly under government control, the inference has been that either this administration or possibly some future administration may abuse that power and become less dedicated to the principle of impartiality. Clearly we do not want anything like that to happen in Canada. However, I think I am correct when I say that abuse is taking place and has taken place.
Because of the actions of the C.B.C. the people of the province of Alberta have experienced injustice and humiliation and I would say insult. A serious situation has been created. It is encouraging and commendable to know that there are newspapers in this country prepared to report some of these startling facts. I hold in my hand a clipping from the King's County Record of June 28, 1956.
C.B.C. Controls Thought
The Fowler commission on broadcasting can surely have no more doubts about C.B.C.'s control of thought in this country- When one of the commissioners stated that the C.B.C. does not "vet" scripts on private stations, these facts came to light.
A group of Alberta stations was broadcasting a series of programs in which Alberta government leaders reported their activities to the people. C.B.C.'s Mr. George Young, who is in charge of broadcast regulations, immediately sent a curt telegram demanding that copies of the speeches be mailed to him at once so that C.B.C. could study the matter.
If C.B.C. does not "vet" such scripts, why ask for them? What do they do with them? Paper the walls of Jarvis street studios, perhaps?
As a result of harrassing these three stations the broadcast was dropped. Consequently the people of Alberta were denied a service and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as an agency of government, was able, by the threat of enforcement of regulations, to stop the flow of opinions contrary to their party's interests.
This is political interference of the worst kind. It is even worse than line by line censorship. It is thought control by threat.
The royal commission on broadcasting must have access to the files of Mr. Young, who enforces

Supply-C.B.C.
C.B.C. regulations. A study of those files would give an indication of the extent to which the C.B.C. has entered into the political arena with its regulatory powers. Will such a study be made? It should be. and without loss of time.
I am satisfied that, from the circumstances of this case I have reported to you, which took place in Alberta, it is clear that the C.B.C. and the federal government, which after all has guardianship responsibilities over the C.B.C., have offended and done injury to the purpose of the act itself. In any event, the C.B.C.'s action and the manner in which it handled this case without tact-


Mr. Prudham:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Would he say when that alleged program was on the air?


Ambrose A. Holowach: This particular incident took place some time ago.


George Prudham: What year?


Ambrose A. Holowach: I believe it took place in 1951 or 1952.


Some hon. Members:: Oh; ancient history.


Ambrose A. Holowach: It is not ancient history at all. These are facts that have not been disclosed to the people, and that is my reason for bringing the matter to the attention of the house.


Elmore Philpott: Would the hon. member permit a question? He was a member of the radio committee. Why did he not bring it up before that committee?


Mr, Holowach:: When the hon. member spoke a few moments ago I listened very intently to him. If he has any further comments to make, I am sure the house would be delighted to hear him afterward.


Elmore Philpott: It is a plain question. Why did not the hon. member bring up this matter in the radio committee, when he could have had Mr. George Young and all the other gentlemen and the documents?


Ambrose A. Holowach: Business of the House be imposed on the people of Canada. In my view the taxes which the people of this country are carrying at the present time are intolerable. It is quite obvious and clear that there is a need for economizing. In my opinion the C.B.C. deserves a sympathetic approach with respect to the financial difficulties they have at this time; but if they are to get that approach from the public, I think they ought to rid themselves of the idea that they do not have to reform themselves.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


John Horne Blackmore: No, Mr. Chairman. It is almost six o'clock. May I leave my remarks until Monday?
Item stands.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, before I deal with the business for next week I wonder if I may have permission to revert to motions in order to move:
That on Wednesday, August 1, 1956 and on every Wednesday thereafter until the end of the session, in addition to the sittings now provided for by standing and special orders the house shall also sit from eight to ten o'clock p.m.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the minister
leave to revert to motions for this purpose?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Walter Edward Harris: On Monday we shall take the resolution in the name of the Minister of Labour with respect to equal pay for female employees; the resolution in the name of the Minister of Justice with respect to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act; second reading of Bill No. 443, to amend the Supreme Court Act and the Criminal Code; second reading of the two bills in the name of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources; the house in committee on the bill to amend the shipping act and the bill to amend the Income Tax Act.


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

[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:


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 555*-Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):
1.	Are there any public relations officers in the Department of National Defence?
2.	If so, how many in each branch of the service?
3.	What duties do they perform?
4.	If separation allowance, assigned pay, etc., is discontinued to the wife of a serviceman, do these officers contact the family and give reasons for discontinuance of same?
If not, does anyone in the department inform the wife or family that allowance is discontinued, and give reasons for such action?
6. How is the wife or family so informed?
Answer by. Mr. Hellyer, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of National Defence:
1.	Yes.
2.	Navy, 15; army, 22; air force, 17.
3.	The main duties of public relations
officers are:	(a) to facilitate a flow of
Question
unclassified news about the armed forces to the Canadian public; (b) to give advice and information at appropriate levels in their respective services about the various aspects of a suitable over-all public relations program; (c) to advise upon and implement as appropriate-particularly at overseas establishments-a program designed to foster and maintain friendly relationships between service establishments and adjacent civilian communities.
4.	No.
5 and 6. A serviceman is considered to be personally responsible for informing his wife or family of his financial arrangements and of normal alterations in this respect.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Family allowances and old age security-
278. Administration, $2,693,059.
Civil defence-
281. To provide for the civil defence program. $7,010,018.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, July 30, 1956