1958-08-25

[Stage Direction]
Fifteenth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. McCleave.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I know that hon. members would wish to associate themselves with a message of condolence which I sent to his colleagues on learning of the death yesterday of the Prime Minister of South Africa, Hon. Johannes Gerhardus Strijdom.
Mr. Strijdom long struggled against serious illness, and until a short time ago continued against odds the service he had so long given to his country. Born in 1893 in what was then Cape Colony, Mr. Strijdom became a farmer, a civil servant, a lawyer and a journalist. Throughout his life he continued to be interested in agriculture and journalism. In 1929 he was elected a member of parliament for Waterberg in the Transvaal, a seat he continued to hold. In 1934 he became joint leader of the National party in the Transvaal. When in 1948 the National party took office he was appointed minister of lands and irrigation, and in 1954 succeeded Dr. Malan as prime minister and leader in chief of the National party.
In an active political career lasting through a generation, Mr. Strijdom spared no effort in the public service of his country. I am sure I speak for the house in extending the sympathy of Canada to his widow, the government, and the people of South Africa.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we in our party would like to associate ourselves with the message of sympathy which the Prime Minister has sent on behalf of the government to the government of South Africa in the loss of their Prime Minister, a man who has served his country for many years sincerely and with integrity.


COMMUNIST CHINA
Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: As hon. members are well aware, there have been disturbing reports of increased communist Chinese activity
against the nationalist-held islands in Taiwan straits. Since the cessation of the attacks of 1955 it had been hoped that the Peking regime, while disputing jurisdiction over these islands, would not again threaten the peace in this area. At this time I have in mind the concern which I am sure all of us share regarding the grave consequences which may ensue if the Chinese communists resort to force to settle issues in the Taiwan straits.
The United States has a mutual defence treaty with the nationalist Chinese government, and it would of course be for the United States government to decide the nature of its obligations in case of an attempt by the communist Chinese government to alter the status quo in the coastal islands of Formosa strait or of Formosa itself.
I take this occasion to assure the house that the Canadian government has no commitment to involve itself in a dispute over this territory between the two Chinese authorities.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members will be interested to hear that a decision has been reached to combine the medical services of the navy, army and air force into one unified medical service. This decision has been taken after careful study extending over many months, and is in line with the recommendations of the estimates committee.
The unification will commence on the 1st of January, 1959, and it is intended to include in the plan all medical officers, nursing sisters and non-medical administrative officers. Planning to this end is now proceeding at national defence headquarters, care being taken that the interest of all three armed forces is protected.
The new armed forces medical service will be placed under the direction of a surgeon general, who will be assisted by a single medical headquarters in Ottawa in place of four such medical headquarters as previously existed. Similarly, there will be subordinate regional medical headquarters appropriately located in relation to armed forces requirements both in Canada and abroad. The total number of regional headquarters will be, as a result of their unified character, considerably less than has been the case in the past.

Motion for Papers
In reaching this decision I have had the advice of the Canadian armed forces medical council, which body includes prominent members of the civilian medical profession. I am satisfied that this move will result in more efficient and economical provision of medical services for the armed forces. As a result of unification, the professional development and career prospects of medical officers will be greatly improved.


MOTION FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 37-Mr. Carter:
For a copy of all memoranda and other documents prepared and submitted to the Minister of Public Works by the deputy minister and other officials of the department, since June 21, 1957, regarding the national printing bureau.
Mr. Green:: Stand.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo does not wish to press this motion.


Mr. Carter:: Well, Mr. Speaker, I certainly would like to have this presented today if at all possible.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is not going to allow the motion to stand, I will put the motion.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the request contained in this motion is out of order, because it is not proper for confidential documents circulating within a department to be produced.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I take it that the minister is refusing to table these documents. My purpose in rising on a question of privilege is to state that in the meetings of the committee on public accounts there has been a pretty free and general use of this kind of information relating to the former administration. I had thought-


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Lionel Chevrier: I have risen on a question of privilege-


Howard Charles Green: I am rising on a point of order-


Lionel Chevrier: Well, I have already risen on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will have to hear the hon. member for Laurier on his question of privilege. We cannot have two interventions at the same time.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I submit that the hon. member in rising on a question of privilege-*
[Mr. Fearkes.l


Lionel Chevrier: My point of privilege has priority over the point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I was stating that it would seem to me there should be the same free use of documents relating to the present administration as there has been with those relating to the former administration in the committee on public accounts. And, sir-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must not allow a debate on this motion before it has been decided whether or not the motion is to be put. The hon. member's question of privilege is really an argument in favour of the motion. Do I understand the minister to take the position that this motion is not properly brought before the house?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Your Honour. This is a motion demanding the production of confidential memoranda circulating within a department, and as such there is no right to have such a motion made.


Lionel Chevrier: And my point, sir, was that similar documents having been produced relating to the former administration, these documents should be produced now with respect to the present administration.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, whatever happens in committee has nothing to do with what happens in this house. Certainly I cannot be responsible for what takes place in a committee of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: It is open to the government to object to any motion of this kind on the grounds that the documents should not be produced and to ask the house to vote against it, but the motion is properly brought before the house for its decision and I will now read it unless the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo wishes to allow it to stand.


Chesley William Carter: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Inquiries of the Ministry of the railways accepting the federal conciliation board majority report?
Hon. Michael Slarr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, we have received a communication from the unions accepting the majority report of the conciliation board. So far we have not received any word from the railways, but from all indications we expect that such a communication will be received some time this week. A decision will then be made as to the next step in this dispute, which will depend, of course, upon the answer received from the railways.


BRITISH COLUMBIA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Drysdale (Burnaby-Richmond):: Would the Minister of Labour advise the house as to what steps are being taken by the federal government to solve the current dispute between the British Columbia shipping federation and the 1,500 members of the international longshoremen's and warehousemen's union involving the ports of Vancouver, New Westminster, Chemainus and Port Alberni?


Michael Starr: I notice that in my absence on Saturday, August 23, the hon. member for Megantic asked a similar question, and I hope that in my reply I can answer both questions.
The government interceded in this dispute at the request of both parties as of March 25 of this year. A conciliation officer was appointed at that time, and when he was unable to bring both parties together in respect of a settlement a conciliation board was appointed. This took place on April 15, and on July 25 the majority report of the conciliation board was received but was rejected.
At the moment the representative of the Department of Labour on the west coast, Mr. Currie, is in constant touch with both parties on an almost hourly basis, and we are hopeful that this intervention will result in bringing both parties together in a settlement of this dispute.



UNEMPLOYMENT


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question either to the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Labour. Would either minister care to inform the house as to the state of affairs in regard to the dispute between the railway unions and the two major railways? Does the government intend to discuss with the parties concerned a possible solution and, in particular, is the government prepared to discuss with the railways the possibility
On the orders of the day:


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour if he would care to comment on a Canadian Press dispatch in this morning's newspapers to the effect that informed federal sources believe that unemployment next winter will reach new heights? Could the minister inform the house as to what action the government is planning to prevent this increase in winter unemployment?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member does not expect an answer to a question of that breadth to be given on orders of the day.


Hazen Robert Argue: If I might ask a supplementary question, could the minister inform the house when he can make a statement on the conference which was held in Ottawa and the report which he informed the house a few days ago was being dealt with by his department? Can the minister say what steps are being taken to act on the basis of that report?


Michael Starr: I expect to make the report available to the government in a very few days so the government may have an opportunity to study the recommendations that have been made.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: In the absence of the Minister of Justice perhaps I might address this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I regret that I was not able to give him notice, but this matter has just been drawn to my attention. Is it true that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have been invited to stage their musical ride at Little Rock, Arkansas, and, if so, what attitude does the government intend to take toward this invitation?


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, of course I have no knowledge of this situation, but I must remark that I find this type of question most interesting and intriguing.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: In
the absence of the Minister of Justice, might I direct this question to the Prime Minister. Is it not possible for an immediate decision to be made with relation to the commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment for Robert Boudreau, age 16, and Aubrey Blades, age 17, who are both due to face the hangman in a few days, namely on September 4 next?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the ordinary course of events this application will come before the governor in council within a day or so, and the decision of the governor in council will be announced thereafter.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Minister of Labour on what date the government received the report of the advisory committee of the unemployment insurance commission which was tabled in the house the other day?


Michael Starr: I do not have that information at the moment and I do not want to reply from memory, but I will check into the matter and give the information to the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask as a supplementary question if it was received before the minister's estimates were completed in the house?


Michael Starr: My reply to that question is the same as my reply to the first question.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. N. L. Spencer (Essex Wesl):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister of external affairs. The United States congress has now adjourned its session. Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs any information on the fate of the bill which would have provided for the diversion of additional water from lake Michigan at Chicago?


Sidney Earle Smith: I am happy to inform the house that I received information only this morning from our ambassador in Washington that this bill relating to the diversion of water at Chicago was not passed at this session of congress.



BROADCASTING


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minisler of National Revenue) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-55, to establish a board of broadcast governors and to provide for the continuance of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to move the second reading of this bill, which is of great importance, I could perhaps be forgiven if I spoke at considerable length. Certainly the subject matter warrants it. But in view of the fact that I have already spoken

on three previous occasions this session on the matter of broadcasting generally, 1 am sure the house will understand-and will even appreciate it-if I speak very briefly on this occasion.
There are one or two preliminary remarks I should like to make before referring to the bill itself. The Leader of the Opposition, in speaking on the resolution the other night, as did the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate and, I think, other hon. members, suggested that the bill be introduced and allowed to stand until another session. The government cannot accept that suggestion, and proposes to go forward with this legislation, in the hope that it will meet with the approval of the parliament of Canada, and to enact it in due course.
There are various reasons for this. One, I think, is very obvious. It was in 1955 that a royal commission was appointed to consider broadcasting in Canada, and there had been much discussion prior to that date regarding the attitude which the government of that day would take toward broadcasting. Therefore, from at least 1955 down to the present time there has been an atmosphere of uncertainty with respect to broadcasting generally and in particular with reference to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and I do not think it would be fair to the staff of that organization, the people who are heading it and the thousands who are engaged in it to continue this atmosphere any longer.
I think Canada owes a great debt to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, its officials and its personnel, for the work they have done, and it is certainly a tribute to their morale that they have been able to carry on as they have during these uncertain days. For that reason, if for no others, I think it will commend itself to the house that the bill be enacted and the situation clarified so that both the C.B.C. and the private stations may know what is ahead of them and what will be done. We therefore propose to proceed with this legislation in due course.
One other remark should be made at this time. At the opening of parliament this government undertook to have a committee appointed to deal with this legislation. That was an undertaking given on behalf of the government and, of course, we are prepared to carry it out. If the house requests it a committee will be appointed after the bill has received second reading, and the measure will go to that committee. The spokesmen for the C.C.F. group indicated the other day that the opinion of their group was that it was not advisable to have a committee at this time. As I say, with regard to that matter the government is in the hands of the
57071-3-256
Broadcasting
house, but I would point out that the legislation creates a framework and nothing else; it establishes a board of broadcast governors; it reconstitutes and reaffirms the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and lays down certain broad general principles. The details have to be filled in by regulation and, frankly, I do not know just what a committee could do at this stage in dealing with this bill.
If there were obvious objections to the bill in principle and there was a possibility of having those objections at least aired, if not corrected, in committee, I could understand why the bill should go there. But I think on the whole, if I may be forgiven for saying so, this bill has met with general acceptance across the country. We can see that from the editorials and the general comment in the press. If the bill were to go to a committee today or tomorrow, just what could be done about the details? We could not ask about the regulations, because the regulations are going to be prepared by a body which has not yet been constituted; and if we were asked as to the personnel, I can say this quite frankly. This government has given no consideration whatsoever to the appointment of the personnel of the board of broadcast governors and/or the board of directors of the C.B.C. We have been dealing with broad general principles, and we have not given consideration to the personnel thus if a committee were constituted and were to ask who was going to be on the board, I should have to say frankly that we had no idea at all.
I have received several hundred letters, I may say, from persons suggesting that they have all the qualifications necessary for such appointments, and I have received as many letters from people suggesting names which they consider to be highly suitable.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister table them?


George Clyde Nowlan: Broadcasting
which hon. gentlemen know always accumulate during a session. Then it will give consideration to the personnel of these two boards.
When they will be appointed I cannot say, but knowing something of how governments work and the time it takes with respect to a broad national board to select personnel representative of this whole country, taking into consideration its vast geographic areas and all the rest of it, it is obvious the board is not going to be appointed too soon after parliament rises. I would think, as a matter of fact, the board would just nicely be in operation and have begun drafting regulations and so on when this parliament again reconvenes.
On behalf of the government, Mr. Speaker, I would say that if it is requested at the next session of parliament, we will shortly after the session begins set up a special committee of the house to deal with radio and broadcasting generally. All these matters can be referred to that committee, and perhaps the committee can watch the organization take shape and form and grow during the session rather than speculate, which is all we can do now concerning the operation of the bill.
As to the bill itself, there are two broad general principles laid down. The Prime Minister before the election, as did other hon. members of this party in years gone by, stated that he felt it was inadvisable to have the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation acting in a dual capacity in, both passing and operating regulations and passing judgment on broadcasting. One of the fundamental principles this government wanted to see was the divorcing of those two functions, the operating and the regulatory. This bill does that. Through the medium of this bill we will have established the legislative framework for a broad national board of 15 members, three full time and the others part time, who will be entrusted with the various duties laid down by this bill. The principle set forth in clause 10 of the bill is, I think, worthy of repeating here:
The board shall, for the purpose of ensuring the continued existence and efficient operation of a national broadcasting system and the provision of a varied and comprehensive broadcasting service of a high standard that is basically Canadian in content and character, regulate the establishment and operation of networks of broadcasting stations, the activities of public and private broadcasting stations in Canada and the relationship between them and provide for the final determination of all matters and questions in relation thereto.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the crux of the situation. You cannot legislate good broadcasting; that is impossible. You can have the best act in the world, and if the right personnel are not appointed to these boards then the act
[Mr. Nowlan.l
will be a failure. On the other hand you can have a poor act and obtain the very best results because of the personnel who are selected. As I see it, Mr. Speaker, that is the core of this matter.
Incidentally, as a side note, I wish to relate an incident that occurred the other day. I was speaking to a former member of the original board governing broadcasting who told me that when the broadcasting bill was brought down by the Bennett government, I think in 1932, the government had spent weeks and months drafting the bill. It was discussed in parliament at great length and went through a committee where it was carefully examined. Everything was done in connection with the bill. Before the board held its first meeting it was found that the bill contained one clause which made it practically inoperative. Despite that flaw in the legislation they carried on with their work.
That is one thing that is established by the present bill, the board of broadcast governors, which will have general supervision over private and public broadcasting in Canada. I wish to pay my tribute here to those involved in the C.B.C. and public broadcasting generally, and to the private broadcasters as well. There are varying records of performance in those groups, but on the whole a great deal has been done and this country has been extremely fortunate in its public and private broadcasting and the co-operation that has existed between private broadcasters and the C.B.C. I am sure this co-operation will continue in the future.
It will be the policy of this government in selecting personnel to select no one who is associated with broadcasting in any way. There may be obvious defects in that policy, but there are also obvious advantages. Also, no one who is not a Canadian citizen can be selected. The thought is that this board, wisely chosen as I trust and believe it will be, will develop, strengthen and maintain broadcasting in Canada in an integrated system, both public and private.
The other phase of this bill, of course, concerns the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is continued. The name "board of governors" has been dropped for obvious reasons. We will now have a board of broadcast governors and the name "director" has been chosen in its place. This corporation will be continued and will have the operative-and only the operative-factors of the broadcasting system under its responsibility and control.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are the broad general outlines of this bill, coupled with the fact that to the board shall be given the power to make regulations on a broad basis; and

on those regulations and their enforcement will depend the success or failure of the future of broadcasting in this country.
I will not anticipate the debate, but I know there are certain comments which could be made to which I will probably have the opportunity of replying. It is not for me to express the hope as to when the bill will be passed, but I believe I have said sufficient for the time being to sketch the broad outlines of this bill, and I commend it to this house for its favourable consideration.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the minister and I hope the house will forgive me if I spend a great deal more time on the second reading of this bill than the minister did at this stage in the debate. The minister will also perhaps not be surprised if I do not share the satisfaction he has expressed about this bill, or if I attribute a great deal more importance to it than he has indicated in his remarks that he attaches to it at the present time.
The minister said the bill was more or less in the nature of a framework which would have to be filled in by administration and operation. I believe it is much more than that, and I shall endeavour to indicate as I go along why I take that view. As a matter of fact, it is because we consider this bill so important and indeed so complicated that we condemn the government for introducing it along with two other bills of major importance, one on customs procedures and one on human rights, in the dying days of a long and exhausting session. We consider that this procedure in regard to a bill of this importance is indefensible.
The minister said that if we requested a parliamentary committee to be set up this session the government would accept that suggestion, because it saw fit to include such a reference in the speech from the throne. But the minister also indicated, and it is a hope shared by a great many people, that this session will be brought to an end within a short period of time. If that is the case, much as we would like to see a committee deal with this bill in this session, there certainly would be no opportunity at this time for such a committee to give the kind of consideration to this bill which is required. The committee should have an opportunity of calling witnesses and receiving submissions and views of interested parties affected by this bill. There would be, I fear, through a committee set up this session no opportunity now of giving this bill the careful, complete and unhurried committee examination which its importance certainly warrants.
On behalf of the government the minister has rejected the other suggestion I ventured 57071-3-256J
Broadcasting
to make when we were discussing the resolution before the introduction of this bill, namely that it should be held over until the next session when it could be considered as a bill, not as an act, by a committee of the house which would be set up at that time. The reason the minister seems to object to this is that it would leave the whole situation in an uncertain position; that it would prolong the uncertainty which now exists in regard to broadcasting in this country, and that it is desirable to get this matter cleared up at once by the passage of this bill. But the minister also said, and I think he was right in saying it, that it is going to take quite a long time to appoint all the members of those two boards. If I heard him correctly, he indicated it might take almost the whole of the intervening period between now and the calling of the next session to make the appointments.
If that is true, and it may well be true because, as the minister says, it takes a lot of time to make appointments of this kind- and there are 25 to be made under this bill -then that uncertainty which he talked about will be prolonged, whether we pass this bill or not, until even the next session. Therefore that argument, it seems to me, against submitting this bill to a committee next session for the kind of consideration which it should get, falls to the ground.
Apparently the government has decided to rush this bill through at the end, or just before the end, of this session. That procedure is to be condemned all the more because we on this side brought the necessity of an early declaration of legislative policy on this matter to the attention of the government six weeks ago; I think it was six weeks ago today. Well, apparently this procedure which we suggested as the most sensible, the most democratic form of procedure to take, of submitting this bill to a committee at the next session of parliament after it has been given preliminary consideration at this session, is not to be adopted. We regret that, because it seems to us a procedure which would respect both the rights and the responsibilities of parliament and of the public. Even now, in spite of what the minister has said, I plead with the government to reconsider the matter and perhaps adopt this course.
I rest my case for that plea on the fact that this is an important and complicated bill, indeed a bill of the highest importance in the national development of this country. It is not a bill which is easy to understand in all its details. However, we are now on second reading, and I assure the minister that we on this side will do our best to bring

Broadcasting
the weaknesses ol this bill to the attention of the government. We shall give it the detailed consideration, in so far as we are able, which it deserves when it reaches the committee stage. Certainly, as I have just said, its importance in our view can hardly be exaggerated.
In no sector of our national life more than in the field of broadcasting is there a greater and more continuing need for strong and independent public service and public control. This sentiment has been expressed more than once in this house, and by the minister himself, that to strengthen and preserve our cultural life and ultimately perhaps develop and preserve our national identity, broadcasting should be brought and maintained under strong public control. Canadian ownership and control of our material heritage, of our natural resources, of our means of production is, of course, as necessary as it is desirable; but that control would lose a great deal of its significance in our continued development as a nation if we lost public control over this important aspect of our non-material life, of our cultural life.
This was certainly appreciated in the earliest days of parliamentary consideration of broadcasting legislation, Mr. Speaker. Certainly earlier statutes-I propose to mention two of them-were not rushed through parliament. I go back to 1932, when the first basic broadcasting legislation in this country was introduced by Right Hon. R. B. Bennett in a bill in that year. Before that bill was introduced-and I commend this precedent to my hon. friend-the Aird royal commission had been discussing broadcasting for many, many months, I think perhaps for as long a period of time, though I may not be accurate in this, as the Fowler commission. Indeed, the Aird commission was set up, I think, in 1929 and Mr. Bennett brought in his bill in 1932.
But in spite of the consideration given to the matter by that commission a parliamentary committee was set up at once, consisting of nine members of the House of Commons. That committee gave very careful and non-partisan consideration to the report of the Aird commission. The committee met 26 times over a period of six weeks and received 53 briefs and submissions. It then made a unanimous report to the house. It was on the report of that parliamentary committee that the 1932 legislation was based.
Again, in 1936 new broadcasting legislation-there had been some amendments to the earlier act before this-was brought in by the Liberal government. Again a parliamentary committee was set up before that legislation was considered in this house,

consisting of 23 members who met for two months and gave very careful study to the whole matter. Twenty-five meetings were held and 37 witnesses were heard. That report, as hon. members will recall, recommended the repeal of the 1932 act and the setting up of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as it has existed since that time.
In those days, Mr. Speaker, we had careful, exhaustive parliamentary examination before legislation was passed. That procedure reflected the concern about public and parliamentary control of this vital national service, concern which was felt not only by members of parliament but by the people of Canada, and concern which they still feel today, concern over the necessity of doing nothing by legislation to interfere with a strong and independent national broadcasting system.
At the first stage of public and parliamentary consideration of this matter, the first stage of Canadian radio history was that perhaps initiated by the Aird report in which, remember, it was proposed to establish a public broadcasting agency in Canada which would take over and absorb all the private stations operating at that time. It was felt that broadcasting should be exclusively a public service.
The second stage began with the act of 1932, when it was decided to have a single national broadcasting system which would be operated basically as a public service; but private stations would be permitted to function, I emphasize, under the control and regulation of the public agency as an integrated part of a national system to complement on a local and regional basis the public element which was to remain in any case the heart and backbone of the national system.
When private stations were given this complementary and important role at that time under the direct supervision of the public broadcasting agency, that meant that we did have indeed a single national broadcasting system operating primarily as a public service. Experience since that time has shown that the private stations, under the conditions I have mentioned, could and did render very useful services and in a manner very profitable to themselves.
We must bear in mind, however, that an essential and clearly recognizable feature of that system was that these private stations had no special rights of their own. They had a privilege granted to them by the government, and it was a profitable one, of being part of a national system. In a sense they had, rights of course, but only rights as part of that national system. If they were granted more rights it was feared that the national

system might suffer, that pressures on government might develop which would be too strong for the independence of the public element of the national system.
The minister may remepiber that the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was one who warned against that possibility in the 1930's. It is interesting to note that he argued strenuously against the 1936 bill because he thought that placing the licensing authority under the Department of Transport would put the C.B.C. "completely under the power of the government and expose it to pressures and influences which would weaken its national character." Mr. Bennett was particularly worried that the government would not be able to withstand pressures from private broadcasters who, he warned the Commons of that day, as found on page 3710 of Hansard, tor June 15, 1936, "have been watchful of their own interests and have determined that if it is within their power this facility"-radio broadcasting-"is not to function as a public enterprise."
These direct pressures may have been resisted and I think were resisted more effectively than Mr. Bennett thought would happen but, of course, they have not ceased, and none of us needs to be surprised at this. The fact that they have not ceased was shown by the presentation of a brief to the Fowler commission by the Canadian association of radio and television broadcasters, Exhibit 312, in which they proposed that in principle the burden of providing broadcasting facilities to the nation should be largely shifted from the shoulders of the Canadian taxpayers to Canadian industry. The implication of that statement is clear and it arouses all the more anxiety in us because over the years we have perhaps begun to lose sight of the initially accepted doctrine of public control through a national system and of the vital necessity of maintaining and strengthening that system.
What was at once, for instance, as I have stated, a privilege for private broadcasters has gradually become a vested interest and eventually has been invoked as a right. As soon as this privilege could be put forward in public discussion as a right, which of course it was not, then the position of the C.B.C., the public corporation, could be attacked on the ground that the public agency was at the same time a judge and a competitor. Under our system of broadcasting over the years since 1936 the C.B.C. in one sense, and perhaps it was an undesirable sense, was a judge controlling, appraising and supervising certain aspects of the operations of private stations. But that was always done within the framework of the essential features of our national system. Strictly speaking the C.B.C. was not a competitor with the private stations, as those
Broadcasting
stations did not have separate rights to claim but rights which were merely an extension and complement of the national system.
I have dwelt on this matter at some length because it seems to me it is quite important for us to bear in mind the historical background and these essential features of our present broadcasting system as we consider the proposed legislation which, it may be argued, makes only superficial framework changes in our set-up, changes designed merely to eliminate-and I am not objecting to this-the so-called incompatibility of functions of the C.B.C., and to assure just and fair treatment to the private stations. While the bill may appear to be doing only that, if it is studied carefully and analysed in all its possible implications I suggest it may be found to change in a substantial way the very basis of our broadcasting system. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it is a sanctioning by law of changes which had been creeping in.
Members of the house and the Canadian public should be very clear as to what the government is proposing to do in the bill, because once a decision has been made with regard to it, it will be very difficult indeed to reverse any undesirable consequences of that decision and change again the broadcasting set-up we are now being asked to approve. On second reading, of course, the criticisms I propose to put forward will be general in character, because we will have an opportunity in committee to deal with the specific clauses of the bill.
As I see it, however, there are certain major defects in the legislation. First, in my view it goes a long way toward creating two national broadcasting systems. Second, it weakens the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in some undesirable ways. Third, it provides for an undesirable and cumbersome administrative setup. There are, of course, some good features in the bill, but it is not my purpose to dwell on them. I thought the minister would have spent a little time on the good features of the bill when he spoke.


Howard Charles Green: How are you going to vote on it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will come to that. If my hon. friend has any doubt on that matter that doubt will very soon be clearly removed. There are, of course, some good features in the bill which may improve the national system, and by facilitating the extension of that system in its private and public elements may give viewers more and varied television and radio enjoyment. This will depend, as the minister has pointed out in other contexts, on how it is set up and administered. If that can be done through private as well as public

Broadcasting
stations without weakening the national system as a whole, that will be fine. The viewer and the listener are certainly entitled to every reasonable and practicable consideration in this matter.
On the other hand, and it is the other hand about which I am concerned at the moment, there are provisions in this bill which I consider to be harmful and perhaps retrogressive. This might not worry us so much if the provisions of this bill when it becomes law were to be implemented and enforced by a government composed of persons who in the past had shown that they really believed in a strong, independent Canadian broadcasting corporation as the mainspring, the essential part, of our national system, and who could be counted upon to use the provisions of this bill for that purpose. However, the opinions of some of the members of the government as recorded in Hansard do not give us too much confidence in that regard.
My first criticism then, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to dwell on this at some length because I think it is a very important criticism, is that this bill might weaken the principle of one national system. We have been told by the minister on more than one occasion that this bill is based on the recommendations of the Fowler commission. This commission, in its report, warns us more than once against any action which might lead to the creation of two systems of broadcasting in this country, one public and one private. It is my submission that this bill could lead to just that.
I know, of course, that section 10 of the bill, to which I think the minister referred a few minutes ago, mentions the continued existence and efficient operation of the national broadcasting system as an aim and objective of the new regulatory body. But in fact, as I see it this bill, whether intentionally or not, may have the opposite effect. Under it the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation complies with regulations imposed by the proposed board of broadcast governors, and will conduct its activities separately. It will have its own responsible minister through whom it will report to parliament, and not through the board of broadcast governors.
On their part the private stations, whether they operate separately or as a part of a network, will be now entirely apart from the C.B.C. Certainly this bill, as I interpret it, gives the C.B.C. no special position, no predominance which would enable it to discharge more effectively its national responsibility. Both the private and public sectors of broadcasting would, as I read the bill, appear as equals before the new board which

would regulate their separate activities and their relationship. This board would report to parliament through its minister independently of the C.B.C. board. There are some who may approve of this, but I am not one of them because I feel that this provision may well lead for all practical purposes to the serious weakening, with all the consequences that may follow from that weakening, of the single national system, something we have always considered to be essential and which indeed is put forward as a main objective of the bill itself.
This seems to me a very important change from the concept of broadcasting in Canada which we have held in the past. First, as I have said, the private stations were to disappear. Then it was realized, and quite rightly, that they could be of value on the local and regional level. It was decided therefore, as I tried to point out, that they should operate in that way, complementing the public service. Now under this legislation the private stations would secure equal rights with the C.B.C. before the new board.
While it may appear that the two elements in the system, private and public, have equal rights before this new board of broadcast governors, in fact it is clear that their position before that board will not be the same. The private broadcasters, while rendering a valuable service-and we on this side have always admitted the value of that service-have to make a profit to survive. They must continually keep that necessity in mind when they appear before the new board. Such things as more advertising, lower costs through minimum regulations and standards, the Canadian content of programs, and so on, would naturally be their main preoccupation when they appear before this new board.
I know, and the Fowler commission confirms it, that the C.B.C. did not always exercise adequate control over private stations in their programming. I ask, will the new board do better, especially in the face of the new and more independent status achieved by the private stations? Will the new board not have as a major consideration the financial problems and costs in determining the program standards and advertising control? Its regulations, however, cannot discriminate between public and private stations. These regulations will have to be the same for everybody, and as a result it may well be that the uniform standards which will have to be adopted by the new board will have to fit the financial situation of the weakest private station, even if it is part of a C.B.C. network and is subsidized in the same way as now happens by the C.B.C. Will there not be a danger that the standards

which will be laid down as of uniform application will be too low? I suggest that this is a danger, even though in practice those standards applied by the C.B.C. will be, as I certainly hope they will be, higher than those prescribed by the board for all stations.
In short, Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to point out is the danger that under this legislation broadcasting in Canada may cease to be conducted by a single national system, mainly as a public service, and we may come to have two systems, one public and one private, becoming more and more independent of each other and having equal rights and status. They will tend then to develop along parallel lines, meeting before the new board only when operating licences are discussed or disputes decided. Therefore, instead of clarifying and strengthening the present situation this bill is likely to create confusion and uncertainty. It certainly raises many doubts and some anxieties.
This new board of broadcast governors, because the C.B.C. program standards will likely be above the minimum prescribed, will tend to become a regulatory body for private stations only, influenced increasingly by the financial situation of those private stations. More and more, then, this board may be concerned with private stations rather than the control and regulation of a national system. I submit, Mr. Speaker, there is a very real danger in this to that system. Surely in the light of this possibility, and it is a real possibility, this bill with all it involves and with all it implies should have been reserved for the most careful and critical examination of a parliamentary committee before it was either adopted or rejected.
Another basic weakness of this new bill which bears on the dangers to the national system which I have mentioned is that it provides for two boards of a generally comparable character. If these two boards do not get into each other's way, or indeed into each other's hair, with resulting confusion and conflict it will be because one of them-more likely perhaps the C.B.C. board-will become more or less useless. The Fowler commission report has been put forward as the basis of the legislation which the government should adopt, but let us see what that report had to say on this very important point of two boards. I read from page 134 of the report:
But suppose . . . we had the two boards set up today;
And that is what is being proposed.
-one, a board to supervise the operations of C.B.C., the other a board to regulate and control the operations of both C.B.C. and private stations and to deal with licensing matters.
Broadcasting
The report goes on:
The two boards, composed of people of similar background and qualifications, operating in many of the same fields and necessarily in close contact with each other either would draw together or pull apart. If all were harmonious between them, if they generally thought alike and agreed with each other, the situation would quickly become indistinguishable from that existing today; except that it would be more cumbersome to have a double review of many issues and more expensive to the taxpayer. Alternatively, if the two bodies (as is probably more likely) pulled apart, one or other would be bound to assert dominance, through the skill and strength of personality of its members, especially of its chairman. If the C.B.C. board became dominant, the regulatory body would tend to become a cipher; it would be an extra expense and formality to approve, generally, what the C.B.C. wanted. On the other hand, if the regulatory board became dominant, and the real centre of power, the C.B.C. board would become unimportant, and real control would be exercised by the regulatory body over both the C.B.C. and the private stations as well. As far as management of C.B.C. was concerned it would be frustrated; as far as control was concerned it would probably become a more active and onerous regulation of private stations by the body interested in and dominating the C.B.C.-the very basis of the present complaint.
This excerpt from the report concludes:
As a practical matter, we do not believe you can have two administrative bodies, appointed by the same government and with similar personnel involved in the regulation of broadcasting, without having duplication of expense and effort, undesirable friction between the two, and a loss of efficiency.
This leads me to our second criticism of this bill, which is indeed implicit in what I have been saying; namely that this bill might lead to the weakening of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I have already implied that this might happen and if it does happen it will be very unfortunate indeed. But having said that, I would like to make it perfectly clear that if we on this side of the house are opposed-as we are opposed-to any measure which in our view tends to reduce the independence and efficiency of the C.B.C., we would also be opposed to anything which would result in unfair treatment of the private sector of broadcasting.
I cheerfully admit that there are some provisions in this bill which from the point of view of the private broadcasters might perhaps give them fairer treatment in some matters. We have always said and we still believe that the private broadcasters up to today have rendered a very useful service to Canada. In certain instances they could no doubt have improved their standards, as pointed out by the Fowler commission, but we on this side of the house believe that in spite of some deficiencies-and the C.B.C. has also shown evidence of some deficiencies-the private broadcasters now constitute an integral and valuable part of our national system.

Broadcasting
Having said this I wish to emphasize once again, because I think it requires repeated emphasis, that we in this party still believe that broadcasting in Canada should remain, in the interests of national development if for no other reason, basically a public service. Furthermore we believe that the expansion and the independence of the C.B.C. as an agency indispensable to our national system should continue to be preserved, guaranteed and strengthened. We do not find any satisfactory guarantee in that respect in this proposed bill. On the contrary we believe that the status of the C.B.C. is weakened by it in several ways, and whether or not one approves of that weakening, I think it is important to know the facts of the matter.
In the first place this bill does not give the C.B.C. clear control of its own networks. That control, as I read it, is not clearly assured in this bill. In the second place, in this bill- and perhaps there are those who would approve of this-the C.B.C. loses its power to recommend the issuance of new licences, which power is transferred to the new board of broadcasting governors. This could prevent the C.B.C. from expanding when it is required, and could interfere with its competitive position vs-a-vis the private broadcasters.
Whether this will happen will largely depend, of course, on the personnel of that board, and I fully agree with the minister that this is a vitally important feature of this legislation. The minister said the other night that any piece of legislation in the world can operate only as well as those who are appointed to administer it, and perhaps no legislation which has come before this house for a long time has made this fact more apparent and indeed obvious; because in this legislation 25 men are to be appointed to administer it. Nevertheless, while it is true that so much does depend upon the administration and upon the calibre of the men appointed for that purpose, the possibility I have mentioned with respect to the weakening of the C.B.C. is, in my opinion, more likely to be realized under this bill if the new board operates in some of the ways I have mentioned. If the minister when he replies could assure me on this point I would be most grateful.
A third danger to the C.B.C. as a result of this bill is, as I see it, that the new administrative set-up of the corporation will become more cumbersome, and its independence will be somewhat less than that which now exists. It will have its own board, but its activities will be subject also to regulation, at least in principle, by the new board of broadcast governors. It will also have to submit its activities for approval to the responsible minister each year-also to the 
Minister of Finance, and I will come back to that in a moment,-and to the governor in council and finally to parliament. It will readily be seen that in this procedure there will be opportunities to restrict the C.B.C.'s activities, to discourage leadership and enterprise within the C.B.C., and to tamper with its independence which is so essential to the corporation.
I would like to support that statement by reference to some of the provisions of the bill in question. The C.B.C. will now not only be shorn of its former power and influence in the maintenance and development of the national system but will, I think, now be more exposed than it has been to the possibility of political interference. It was this operating phase of the C.B.C. that the Fowler commission wanted to protect against the ever-present threat of government interference, and that was one of the primary reasons why the commission recommended a single board of governors.
I suggest that the bill before us does not safeguard the C.B.C. sufficiently against this danger. Under existing legislation the operating personnel of the C.B.C. from the general manager down are insulated, if I may use that word, from direct political pressure and political interference by the presence of a board of governors and a full time chairman of that board. That particular form of insulation has now been removed.
Perhaps the minister will say that something else has been put in its place, but I suggest that the new insulation is not going to be as effective as the old. The senior executive of the corporation now will be the president, who will also function as chairman of the board of governors of the corporation, which means that the responsible minister will now deal directly with the senior operating officer of the corporation-the president-instead of with an officer removed from day to day operation, the chairman. The new board will no longer be able to act, as it did formerly, as a protective shield for those concerned with the development, production and broadcasting of programs.
I am coming to the end of my criticisms, the minister will be glad to learn. However, there is a fourth and, I think, very important consideration, and one which makes us critical of this bill. It has a bearing on this matter of political interference which I have just mentioned, and it concerns the financial provisions of the bill which, we think, are such as to weaken rather than strengthen the independence of the C.B.C. from government. At the present time, as the minister knows, parliament has earmarked specific sources of revenue to the C.B.C. which, together with

the income derived from commercial operations, ensures at least a degree of financial independence. During some years it allowed a very high degree of financial independence, though I agree that in recent years the gap between those revenues and the needs of the C.B.C., especially in the field of television, has been increasing and has had to be filled by annual appropriations by parliament.
As the minister knows, the Fowler commission devoted a great deal of time to this financial problem. In fact that was the main reason why this commission was set up in the first place. And the conclusion of the Fowler commission which, I think, is rejected in this bill, was that a very high degree of financial independence had to be maintained in order to prevent unwarranted governmental interference with operations and to permit sound planning. The commission put forward what were, in its consideration, three possible methods of financing designed to preserve the prerogatives of parliament, to maintain the independence of the C.B.C. and to meet the need of the corporation for funds, a need which was bound to grow in the years ahead. In that connection the commission said on page 256:
The greatest financial weakness of the C.B.C. has been the lack of an assured and definite basis of current financing.
I do not intend at this stage to discuss the merits of the various suggestions which were put forward by the Fowler commission or, indeed, of other suggestions which have been put forward to ensure that the weakness referred to by the commission might be removed. At the present moment, during this debate on second reading, I am more interested in the very important principle which is involved here of establishing, in so far as it can be established, the reasonable financial independence of the corporation so it can plan ahead. I am quite confident that a practical solution safeguarding this principle, and also safeguarding the principle of parliamentary control, could be found if the government desired to find one, but it seems to me that the present bill neglects both these principles and the recommendations of the Fowler report concerning them. This is one of the things that worry us most about this legislation, and it is one of the reasons we do not find it acceptable.
If the proposed legislation is approved the C.B.C. will have no independent source of revenue whatever except the revenue it derives from its commercial operations. Not the listener, nor the viewer, but the taxpayer will pay everything else, and its financing will therefore depend to a much greater degree 57071-3-257
Broadcasting
than formerly on the discretion of the Minister of Finance, whose views on the C.B.C. are well known, and on the minister responsible, and on the governor in council.
That, as I have said, is one of the disturbing features of this legislation which we cannot accept. We fear that using this system of annual appropriations and nothing else under a government not too enthusiastic about the C.B.C.-and we have no reason to believe the present government is too enthusiastic about it-the activities and the necessary expansion of the corporation could be prejudiced and the power of the purse used annually could impose the views of government in a field where this kind of interference could be damaging to the right of the people to be informed objectively.
I am not stating, Mr. Speaker, that this will happen, but I do state that it could more easily happen under this legislation than it could under the previous legislation.
This proposed method of financing also hampers the management with regard to planning its operations ahead over a reasonable period of time. I agree that in the bill before us, clause 35, subclause 2, the corporation is required every five years to submit to the minister to whom it is responsible, and to the Minister of Finance, a capital expenditure program covering a five-year period, but there is nothing in this provision which stipulates that this program must be submitted to parliament for consideration, or even made public. If a government chose, that report could become merely an accounting exercise.
It is interesting to recall that while the Fowler commission insisted that the C.B.C. should be given a reasonable assurance of funds over a reasonable period of time for operational purposes, the commission opposed extending that period of time for capital development purposes. The minister must remember that in the report the commission says that the capital program of the C.B.C. can only be determined year by year, while the operating programs should be formulated four or five years ahead. This bill completely reverses that principle, and it is laid down that the capital program shall be considered for five years but the operating expenses covered by appropriations through parliament each year for one year only. And the corporation would have no other source of revenue except that derived through its commercial operations.
Then there is one final criticism which the minister would certainly expect me to make, and on which I have already touched in reference to other aspects of the bill. That is that this measure sets up a cumbersome and undesirably complicated machinery. I suggest to

Broadcasting
the minister that he and his colleagues have soon forgotten what they used to say in opposition about a multiplicity of boards and commissions as a solution for every government problem.
In the first place, as I have already said, these two boards and the way they will be reporting independently of each other to the minister may easily lead to conflict, confusion and duplication. As I have tried to point out, the Fowler commission warned specifically against that. The creation of these two boards is unnecessary, unwise and costly. Moreover-this will be the minister's problem; he has already indicated that it is a problem, as indeed it is-it may not be too easy to find 25 or 26 first-class people in Canada who are not connected with broadcasting, who are competent to deal with this highly complex field, and who are willing as unpaid members, except for expenses, to serve on these boards, except, of course, for the permanent members of the boards. That difficulty may be the more serious when we realize that with the type of legislation that is now proposed so much will depend on the kind of people who will compose these boards, as the minister himself has said.
The composition of these boards and especially that of the new board of broadcast governors raises certain other questions. The new board, as I understand it, will have two quite different functions to perform. The first and by far the most important will be to decide questions of policy and regulation and to hold hearings for that purpose. The second function will be to supervise broadcasting stations and to make sure that the regulations drafted by the board are being followed. In the opinion of the Fowler commission the first function would not be too burdensome, especially after the initial period, and would not take too much time of the board; while the second task, that of policing, could be quite effectively accomplished under the directives of the board by a competent and strong secretariat.
That is why the Fowler commission did not recommend that any member of the board should be full time. But the provisions of this bill are different from the recommendations contained in the report of the commission. Under clause 2 of the bill it is in fact being proposed that we have two distinct types of membership on the proposed board of broadcast governors. Three of them would be full time and ex-officio members of the executive committee, while the others would be part time and paid only when attending meetings of the board. Surely that will mean for practical purposes, and even if wide and skilled representation is provided, that the three full time members, one of whom

has no special position, are likely to become the czars of broadcasting in Canada, and will be in a special and privileged position to influence the decisions of the full board. The other members may not always, by the very nature of their relationship to the full time members, be in a position to prevent undesirable developments; because even with a large board three full time men who will be carefully selected by the government could exercise a profound influence on the future of broadcasting in this country.
In so far as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is concerned the manner of the appointment of the new president and vicepresident in my view is a backward step, and it raises again the danger of political interference. Under the present act, and the minister will correct me if I am wrong, the chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation holds office during good behaviour for a period of ten years, and he can be removed only by the governor in council for cause. In the proposed bill, and unlike the provisions governing the appointment of members of the board of broadcast governors, the president and vice-president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation shall be appointed, and I quote from the bill-
-to hold office during pleasure for a period of seven years.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, they could be removed for reasons other than cause and without an address of the House of Commons and the other place. That applies to the president and vice president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation under the proposed bill, but the minister will realize that also under this bill the other members of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation board can be removed only by an address of parliament. Why protect the security of tenure of the other directors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation more carefully than that of the president and the vice president? Surely a sense of frustration and insecurity could quite easily develop because of this anomaly, which would affect the whole corporation in the knowledge that the two senior executives could be subject to the whims of a cabinet. That feeling of frustration and insecurity in the whole corporation could be increased by the knowledge that these two executives were appointed directly by the government, while today the general manager and the assistant general manager of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are appointed by the government but only on the recommendation of the board of governors.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this bill is an uneasy and uncertain compromise between two points of view and, as is often the case, the effort to satisfy both points of

view has resulted in proposals that are not likely in the long run to satisfy either but might only weaken the essential principles on which a national broadcasting system has been built up in this country over the years. There is too much in this bill that is unclear. Above all, it is the kind of bill which should be given the most careful, complete and expert examination by a parliamentary committee, where experts from the varied interests concerned could appear and give their views not merely on the general principles involved but on the details of the bill itself; how it is likely to work out in practice; what are its defects; what are its advantages; what changes should be made to improve it.
This is a vitally important national question, that of broadcasting. The way to deal with it is not by a bill rushed through the house during the dying days of a long and exhausting session. This procedure, Mr. Speaker, is surely no recognition of those parliamentary rights or of that devotion to parliament which my hon. friends opposite talk about so often and at such length. For the benefit of the leader of the house, I may assure him that we will not support the second reading of this bill.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, we felt considerable disappointment today at the brevity of the statement made by the Minister of National Revenue in introducing this bill. We felt that he failed to spell out government policy as fully as we thought we were entitled to have it on a bill as important as this. We feel, too, that the board of broadcast governors, when it is appointed as a result of this bill, will be looking to this debate, to statements by the minister and by other ministers, to learn what is the direction it should go in carrying out the very general outline of policies enumerated in the bill. If they cannot get it from this particular debate and from the statements of government ministers, it seems to me they will have to get it in discussions with the governor in council or with certain members of the government, and we wonder whether that will be the proper way in which the board of broadcast governors should decide what direction their policy is to take.
The bill states that the broadcasting regulations, as they now exist, will continue until 57071-3-257J
Broadcasting
changed by the board of broadcast governors. Well, if they are to change them, and I suggest the regulations do need changing, in what way are they to be changed? It does not seem to me that we get any indication of that from the minister's statement. We all have misgivings about the question of whether the regulations are going to be pro or anti private broadcasting or, if you wish to put it the other way, pro or anti C.B.C. We would like as a matter of fact-we cannot demand it, Mr. Speaker-to have a statement from the Prime Minister and from the Minister of Finance on their particular interest in this bill and what they conceive it to be.
We would not like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we do not have trust and confidence in the minister who has brought the measure before the house, but I think the whole atmosphere is filled with misgivings; I would suggest misgivings not only as expressed by the Leader of the Opposition, and expressed very well, but also misgivings among many of the members of the government party. We would like to know whether this bill is designed to improve and extend the national broadcasting system, or is it designed to lead to a gradual withering away of public broadcasting and the gradual taking over of broadcasting by the private broadcasters? Could we have a clear-cut statement on this particular point?
It seems to us that the whole speech of the Leader of the Opposition reflected misgivings as to the government's intentions. Maybe that is as it should be, since it is the duty of the opposition to express that misgiving, but we believe it is more than that. The central point of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, as I understood it, was that a strong, independent public control of broadcasting is essential. Further than that, we cannot afford to lose control of this vital, cultural and non-material aspect of our life. For the C.C.F. I would say, in slang terms, you can double it in spades. We agree with that very strongly.
It was noticeable that in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition there were very few accolades for the private broadcasters. There was a certain amount of amusement there. We wondered what the Leader of the Opposition's alter egoes on the Winnipeg Free Press will think about that shortcoming in his speech. Of course we do not look upon it as a shortcoming.
We have had two fairly recent royal commissions looking into the whole broadcasting situation, and each of those commissions has found the private broadcasters wanting; each of those commissions has dynamited the main contention of the private broadcasters that

Broadcasting
they are supposedly hamstrung by the C.B.C. Those royal commissions have dynamited the whole idea fostered by the private stations and by those newspapers that are intimately connected with them, some of them in ownership terms, that there is an analogy between freedom of the press and freedom of the air. Each of the commissions has pointed out quite clearly that there is no logical support for this because of the limitations of the number of channels. Those royal commissions have pointed out that the private broadcasters have not been struggling against economic adversity; that when you look at the statistics as they were revealed in the chapter on private broadcasters I think any free enterpriser in the house will soon see what a wonderful investment those private stations have been. They have made a terrific amount of money and their net income after expenditure is, I would say, as high as in any kind of commercial operation we have in this country.
One of the other things the royal commissions have pointed out is that those private enterprisers are really neither free nor very enterprising. I ask the minister whether he subscribes to this comment, which is found at page 154 of the Fowler royal commission report:
We recommend that the board should insist on the improvement ot the programming of some private stations. We recommend further that the board should discharge its statutory duty of promoting and ensuring the greater use of Canadian talent by private stations with greater vigour than the board of governors has shown in the past.
Is that what the government wants this new board of broadcast governors to do? It is projected here. We would very much like to know. It is all very well for the private broadcasters to go around hollering that the C.B.C. provides unfair competition, and it is especially unfair because the C.B.C. is the taxpayers' agent. Where do they stand on competition? Well, as hon. members who followed the C.B.C. hearings know, we do not know of a single case where any private applicant came seeking a licence and was not opposed by private broadcasters who already had a licence in that particular field. Surely that very attitude shows how much they want competition.
One of the other things the Fowler royal commission brought out very clearly was whether the private broadcasters could afford to do much original programming. The report says at page 153:
It was suggested in evidence, and we believe it is generally assumed, that private broadcasters cannot afford to do much original programming or use much Canadian talent because the cost cannot be spread over several stations. Indeed this argument was advanced in one of the documents filed

by the C.A.R.T.B., although not discussed in evidence during the hearings. This assumption is, we believe, incorrect on two grounds. First, the financial results of a great many private radio and television stations, which we have examined, are quite good enough to permit these operators to do more original programming and to use more Canadian talent than they have done.
It is very clear that the Fowler commission did not trust the private stations and the private broadcasters. They did not go down the line with the private broadcasters; they turned them down. We want to know, and we still do not know from this government, whether it agrees with these general criticisms of the private broadcasters' position. If the government will state that it expects the board of broadcast governors to do something about the talent situation, to do something about getting higher standards on private stations, I think many of the misgivings we have would just evaporate, and we could assume that the government's intentions are the very best. We would like to know whether this bill is the augury of the victory of the private broadcasters. Does the government see it in that light, or is the bill a compromise designed to avoid making a hard decision? At several places in the bill there are provisions that the Canadian outlook should be supreme and that there should be high standards, but we wonder whether that is enough. Is this bill part of a real Canadian vision? We do not know. That is why we would like the Prime Minister and after him or almost co-equal with him, I suppose, the Minister of Finance to give us their views on the bill; because if there are misgivings I think that is where they generally settle at the present time.
As the Leader of the Opposition showed this morning, all the historical evidence, all reports of parliamentary committees and all reports of royal commissions that have studied the problem are in favour of a strong public system and public control of broadcasting. It is for that reason that a few of us feel, no matter what the intent may be, that when the board of broadcast governors is appointed the very same logic that led Mr. Fowler and his associates to take the position they did will lead the board of broadcast governors to recognize the strong need for control of the private broadcasters. A few of us feel that will likely happen, and we would like to know more about the government's intentions.
The Leader of the Opposition emphasized that we are now going to have two very clumsy boards. I think his suggestion, which is in line with the Fowler report, is very good; that we should cut down the membership of the C.B.C. board and have it report to the board of broadcast governors. What is

going to happen to the old C.B.C. board of governors? I should like the minister to tell us whether there is any thought of transferring some of its members to the board of broadcast governors in order to give some sort of continuity of ideas.
So far as the C.B.C. itself is concerned, we would like to know what is going to happen to the audience research section and the regulations section. We wonder how the board of broadcast governors can really carry out regulations, exercise control and have some idea of the standards of the private stations unless it does have an audience research section and a fairly substantial regulating section. The bill is not definitive enough to tell us what is going to happen.
A question has already been posed to the minister with respect to the conflict between the two boards. Which is going to win out? Which is going to wither away? Which is going to atrophy? As has been suggested, a lot will depend on the personnel. It would be quite possible to select as the three permanent members of the board of broadcast governors men of great drive and intent who could soon overshadow completely the directors of the C.B.C. Therefore it seems to me that the suggestion that the bill might be altered to have the C.B.C. report to the board of broadcast governors and thus dispense in a sense with the C.B.C. board of directors is worth considering, especially because of that conflict.
At the beginning of the minister's remarks he said that if necessary, if the opposition requested it, a committee would consider the bill at this session. We have not changed our attitude in that regard. We do not want a committee on this bill at this session, for somewhat the same reasons as the Leader of the Opposition advanced. We do not think the committee would have the time to do a very good job. I might also say that some of us wonder what the attitude of the large Conservative majority on such a committee would be, because we are not convinced that they know where the bill is leading.
The minister also went on to say that if it was requested a committee would be set up in the 1959 session to deal with this matter. We would then be considering an act rather than a bill. I would assume that we would have the opportunity to have the board of broadcast governors appear before us, and could consider the regulations they had spelled out up to that time. We think we would like to take advantage of that suggestion, but we would like to push it further and suggest that such a committee should meet every two years. Some people might even think it should meet every year, but
Broadcasting
in the past the general practice has been for such a committee to be set up every second year, on the average. We think there should be an undertaking in that regard so we will be able to follow fairly closely just what line the board is taking.
I should like to make one suggestion to the minister which is not covered by the bill in detail, yet must involve one of the most difficult problems the government must face and certainly the board of broadcast governors will have to face when looking for advice from the government. What are we going to do about the licencing of other television stations in the real plum market areas? One thinks of Toronto and of Mr. Bassett of the Telegram, Mr. Sedgwick of CFRB, Mr. Jack Kent Cooke of CKEY or some of the other people in that area who want television stations, and one wonders how the matter is going to be settled fairly.
I wonder whether the government has thought of suggesting to the board of broadcast governors anything like the independent television authority in England, where a corporation has been set up to provide programs, and advertisers go to that corporation to buy their programs rather than purchasing them through their own advertising agencies. One thing such an independent television authority would do would be to end the pressure which I am sure the government is under at the present time and which the board of broadcast governors will be under, as to who is going to get the plum.
Dissatisfaction with the financing aspects of the bill was revealed at least partially in an editorial this morning by a Toronto newspaper that usually strongly supports the government. The suggestion they make is one that we feel is good, that the financing should be put on a better long-term basis. I notice that there is provision in the bill for the capital program of the corporation to be submitted to the government once every five years. I cannot see why plans could not be made for a five-year period and brought up to date at the end of every year. We would then always have a five-year projection before us. That may be too often, but it is pretty difficult to go along with the once every five years provision.
One reason why many of us in remote constituencies are interested in this matter is that we would like to get some sort of timetable with respect to when the C.B.C. is going to establish radio relay and television satellite stations in our constituencies which will provide coverage for the people on the fringe who at the present time are not getting either radio or television broadcasts. A financing set-up based upon a five-year program that

Broadcasting
would be projected each year would be much better than the set-up now suggested.
Fears were expressed by the Leader of the Opposition about the role of the Minister of Finance with respect to financing, and the fact that he would have a power and authority which perhaps would be unfortunate for the steady growth of the C.B.C. Again we have the very same misgivings about that particular gentleman, though perhaps they are based more upon the particular gentleman than would be the case if someone else were holding the office.
There is one point that always comes up in any discussion of broadcasting. We are told by newspaper people and particularly radio people that the private stations are giving the people what they want. I think it has been decided by some of the best people in the country who have looked into the problem closely that what the thinking people of the country want is a public system that has a national bias and a national interest, something that extends right across the country.
The point, which was well made in this debate, that private broadcasters tend to concentrate upon local and regional rather than national interests is quite obvious. We know where the rich market areas are and we know where the poor market areas are. You can be sure it is not the intention of the private broadcasters to ever get themselves trapped into the kind of national network broadcasts that will have them doing work in those areas from which they cannot get a good financial return. The whole question is, are they to be allowed to concentrate networks in those rich market areas to the disadvantage of our public organization, in this case the C.B.C.?
We do not know what the government's intentions are. There could very well be a kind of regional network, composed of private broadcasting stations, set up under this legislation which would siphon off all the cream from national advertising revenues and leave the C.B.C. with a fantastically expensive role which would give poor coverage to the less attractive areas. Before this group votes either for or against this bill we want more information as to the intent of the government with regard to this particular measure. We reiterate our trust in the minister's attitude, especially as that trust has been reinforced by the three forthright statements he has made in this house. We have further misgivings, however, in connection with this bill. Before this debate closes let us hear from the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister as to what vision they have for our national broadcasting set-up. If that is done

we will be able to make our decision on the vote on second reading in a much more intelligent fashion.
We trust that when the bill goes to committee the minister will be agreeable to certain minor amendments, or that he may be interested in having some minor amendments made in the bill and especially in those clauses relating to the C.B.C. The attitude of this party has always been strongly in favour of the C.B.C.; as a matter of fact sometimes I have thought so strongly in favour that we have allowed ourselves to miss some of the weaknesses of the C.B.C. I believe the primary weakness we have missed has been that the C.B.C. did not really regulate the private broadcasters in regard to advertising to even the standards that could be applied without any qualitative judgment.
Our position is essentially the same. We believe in a very strong public broadcasting set-up, and that it is in our national interests. We suspect we will never get anything like that from the private broadcasters of this country. We feel that the whole position of the private broadcasters has been exploded by two royal commissions. We would like assurance from the government at this time, in this debate, that they agree the bill is not a victory for the private broadcasters but that it represents a victory for national broadcasting in the public interest.
(Translation):


Mr. J. N. Tremblay (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, this is a most important debate. It deals not only with the informing and educating of the public, but also with cultural matters in general.
I therefore trust that it will not be considered out of place for a member with quite a lot of experience in education to take part in this debate. I do so in a completely nonpartisan spirit for I believe it would be wrong to rouse sectional differences in a matter which calls for respect of principles and utter impartiality.
I am delighted that this new legislation on broadcasting has been introduced. It is what most people wanted. It gives expression to the representations of various undertakings, bodies and public organizations of every nature which have probed into the broadcasting question from a national point of view and which have made their opinions known. Thus, in introducing this bill, the government shows the importance it attaches to

popular opinion. Alter having aroused public interest and questioned people from all walks of life, the government is today introducing a bill based on excellent recommendations from all sides, especially the Fowler commission; but it is the government which initiated the bill. It will not come as a surprise, therefore, if I express my satisfaction to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan).
The problem of Canadian broadcasting has been in the limelight for a long time, and several commissions have gone into the matter on different occasions. Various systems have been tried out, and an attempt was made to set up a regulatory body which would allow of government-controlled broadcasting side by side with private station networks. What was necessary was, on the one hand, to make sure that there would be no invasion by the influential American broadcasting organizations-this by setting up a government-controlled national network-and, on the other hand, to still extend a welcoming hand to private enterprise. That is how Canada has come to have government-controlled radio operating side by side with numerous independent stations.
I do not think the coming of television has altered the basic elements of the problem; it has simply magnified the problem and made it more intricate. All that has happened is that the difficulties encountered by our national broadcasting system have continued, but on a larger scale. What we have to do now is to devise, for the former problems, solutions which allow for the new factors. And these solutions must be based on the principle which, from the very start, guided those who built up our broadcasting system: I mean the balance that must be struck between a government broadcasting agency and broadcasting by private stations.
I do not intend to retrace the stages of development of our national broadcasting system which resulted in the setting up of the C.B.C. mechanism entrusted with supervision of both government-controlled and privately-owned broadcasting. Suffice it to emphasize that it was eventually felt to be difficult for the C.B.C. to be both judge and litigant in some matters involving the interests of both government-controlled broadcasting and broadcasting by private stations. It was purely and simply a matter of devising a solution which would satisfy those who asked for more independence for private networks, hand in hand with closer supervision by the C.B.C.
When all is said and done, the object of all those who put pressure on the government was not to introduce a completely new look in the broadcasting system obtaining up to now, but to modernize it so that it will
Broadcasting
change with the times, and to widen the scope it offers to private enterprise.
Even a cursory study of the bill will show that it involves no aggressive designs. The whole essence of this act is that it should perfect our broadcasting system. It is an attempt at an answer, a solution (subject to oher improvements) to the problem of supervision.
That is just where the state comes in-to ensure that supervision. Nobody denies it that right. Whether you consider radio and television as a source of information, whether you turn it into an instrument of education or culture, you must necessarily concede that its activities call for supervision.
For a long time, it has been recognized that it would not be good for the government-that is to say, the Canadian parliament-to directly control broadcasting. Political interference could pave the way to certain abuses on which I need not dwell. However, no one can imagine a regulatory body absolutely independent of parliament and in no way answerable for its administration. We must also take into consideration the twofold problem of state broadcasting and broadcasting by private stations. The experience of the C.B.C. proves that it is not easy for such an agency to control both its own operations and those of similar agencies whose interests conflict with its own. Moreover, state-controlled radio broadcasting cannot be absolutely independent of parliament; it cannot provide its own regulations, nor can it rely to that end on private stations.
It is therefore necessary to set up, at the intermediate level, a regulatory body distinct from but answerable to parliament, an agency independent of both a public agency and private radio and T.V. stations. A body such as this has been advocated in virtually all various recommendations submitted to the Canadian government for quite some time.
Through this bill, the Minister of National Revenue is setting up that regulatory body. The bill, which sets out all the legal aspects of that new institution, emphasizes the need for a balance between a state agency and private stations for the broadcasting of radio and television.
As will have been noted, the bill also provides for the reorganization of the C.B.C. It has been emphasized, and rightly, that the government has no intention, as shown by the terms of the act, to revamp the C.B.C. from top to bottom.

Broadcasting
To put it simply, it will be governed by the new board of broadcast governors. An administrative body is being established, similar to the previous one, except that its functions are limited to the operations of the corporation for which it is designed.
The fact that the government does not radically change the C.B.C. has been favourably commented upon by the press in general. At most, a very few cautious remarks have been made about the fate of the present management of the corporation. The thing to do in this case, Mr. Speaker, is to trust the government, as should be done in the case of all our democratic institutions, which are based above all, on the confidence given those who are entrusted with the responsibility of government, at any level.
Besides, the legislation clearly defines the duties of the C.B.C.'s high officials. On the other hand, it is based on the general principle of serving, in all respects, the common good. It is in such a context that it is important to judge the actions of all those who will take part in the operations of government-sponsored broadcasting. There is absolutely nothing ambiguous in such an attitude. We would be ill-advised to charge anyone with malevolent intentions.
In the final analysis, only those who feel guilty in some way would have any reasons to fear. It is in this sense that, speaking of the Liberals, a journalist of Le Droit wrote, last Saturday, and I quote:
They begin to realize that there is such a thing as C.B.C. "monopoly" over the broadcasting of news, as well as over the broadcasting of national and international news on television; that this monopoly places present C.B.C. officials in a delicate position with regard to the new leaders of the federal government; that freedom of speech will become a sinister farce unless there is a change in the present system and unless private television stations in the larger cities are granted the right to use commentators other than those picked by ministers, by ministers' representatives, or representatives of ministers' representatives of today or of yesterday.
The government's intention therefore consists in meeting the wishes of the taxpayers by providing the country with an adequate broadcasting system. The government thinks that the popular will has sufficiently expressed itself in this regard to believe that it is necessary to satisfy its legitimate requests. I do not see why the adoption of some legislation which would meet the views of the great majority of our citizens should be postponed. There is talk of creating a committee, and all kinds of reasons are given to postpone the passage of this bill.

The political intention of such tactics will fool no one. The problem of broadcasting is not new, and members of the opposition have had sufficient time to think ahead of the changes which they might wish to suggest about this new legislation. All their speeches show that they are merely marking time, and the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) showed it this morning. He has developed a lengthy theory-not a novel one either-which can be interpreted as an indirect encroachment upon the rights of private radio and television broadcasting.
I insisted on the problem of regulation, Mr. Speaker, as an essential factor of this bill. I kept strictly to the general principle and to its concrete juridical formulation. I would now like to speak briefly on some aspects of the current procedure to be followed in administering this legislation.
Broadcasting regulations call for some standards of action and clear basic principles, besides those aiming at the common welfare of this country and its citizens. I shall leave the care of discussing the technical aspects of C.B.C. financing to other hon. members, Mr. Speaker. I shall merely discuss the regulations, in so far as they affect the general administration of broadcasting and programs.
The necessity to be aware of exactly how considerable a part broadcasting plays in the field of public information and general education cannot be stressed enough. It may be said today that a citizen may very well be what broadcasting makes him. His political and social attitude will be conditioned by everything that comes out of this marvellous gadget, which has become an indispensable companion in each home. The television screen is at the same time the mirror of the world and an intimate counsellor. It has to provide recreation. It is also asked to give directions. It is expected to have the answers to all sorts of questions. In any case, it brings the latest concepts in our minds and is largely a guide to our way of life.
We certainly remember the apprehension once caused to educators and politicians by the appearance of radio and the development of American networks. People feared the worst for our Canadian civilization. This healthy fright gave us our national network and our government-controlled broadcasting.
I think the promoters of that movement should be commended. They have tried in good faith to preserve us from a too strong influence of United States civilization. At the same time they created a government body of a quality we can hardly praise too highly.

It is however important to keep in mind today the principles that have inspired the creators of our national broadcasting.
It was first of all intended to provide public information. Thus we may hear and observe the world by radio and television, as a means of communication. It tends to inform citizens about the way of life of mankind in the world and in the community of which we are a part. It does fulfil a task of the highest importance which calls for the strictest honesty and complete impartiality.
On the other hand broadcasting indirectly plays another and quite as essential part as educator in the social, civic, political, religious, artistic and other fields. In this respect, its leading principles must be perfectly adjusted. They must be based on an accurate awareness of natural law which clearly defines good and evil, truth and untruth. They have to reflect the philosophy of our western and Christian civilization.
Furthermore, I cannot see that radio or television shed a single one of these fundamental responsibilities just because they are providing people with fun and amusement. Radio and T.V. must avoid, like the plague, anything which could totally or only partially detract from the morals of viewers or listeners, or anything which would end up by impairing their intellectual and moral standards and which would prevent them from being men in the most perfect sense of the word, and-above all-from being public-minded citizens.
Those are the sort of principles which must lie at the basis of any properly inspired working of our national radio and television programs.
In this connection we must remember the original intent of the promoters of radio broadcasting.
I would like to return to this matter at a time when, through new legislative action, Canadian broadcasting is being reorganized. It must not be forgotten that radio and television are instruments placed at the disposal of society with a view to serving its needs. That is their purpose. Their only object is to assist the citizens of the country in their individual or community life. It is not superfluous to insist on that point at a time when we are often tempted to forget that technical progress is not an end in itself, but that it must serve to improve man's living conditions and personal standards.
A moment ago I mentioned the importance which the new legislation ascribes to private enterprise in the field of radio and T.V. broadcasting. This implies a survey of the particular conditions of broadcasting. Every effort must be made to ensure both the development of
Broadcasting
independent radio and television stations and to raise the average standard on those networks. It would be regrettable if private networks multiplied programs which would not be up to the standards of those carried by the government-owned network. True, the position of private stations is often made difficult by the fact that they must rely very heavily on "commercials". It is all the more to their credit that they nevertheless manage to broadcast programs which provide the listener with wholesome entertainment, and full factual information, although there is room for a great deal of improvement in this regard. I wish to insist upon this point that a very special effort should be made to restore to an even degree the Canadian character of private station broadcasting, too often a replica of American broadcasting. In fact, with all due regard to circumstances, we should require from private stations the same standard of broadcasting required at this time from the government-owned system.
Let me emphasize that I am not attempting to pillory anyone. These are merely personal observations with regard to the position of private broadcasting. I am merely pointing out some weaknesses which must not be allowed to develop further but which, on the contrary, must disappear as private networks are extended. I know most of the private stations in our province. I am convinced that their broadcasts are of a fairly high standard. May I be allowed in this connection to point to the excellent work performed by the stations at Roberval, Alma, Jonquiere and Chicoutimi which have done everything possible to produce high quality programs. I believe that the same must hold true of all the other private stations in our province.
It would be well, at this point, to refer to the problem of personnel in radio and T.V. stations. While I know that technical employees are selected with the greatest care,- I refer here to those who are charged with the responsibility of handling radio and T.V. transmission equipment,-I fail to see why equal care should not be taken with regard to selecting the people actually in charge of programs, programming and presentation. It is high time our radio and T.V. stations shut their doors on those people, neither technically nor professionally trained, who have been performing duties requiring wide general knowledge, a reasonable amount of culture and a definite sense of taste, for which they are utterly unprepared. I realize that, at the beginning, it was not easy to decide or to enact laws on the professional ability of radio and television producers and performers. This experimental stage had to be gone through.

Broadcasting
I believe the time has come to require from radio and television professionals what could be called a certificate of ability or proficiency, that is to say an official recognition in the form of a certificate issued by an institution, a conservatory or a university, the recognition of a certain amount of knowledge, of technological training for an immediate career in this field. Some institutions have begun to offer courses to that end. They seek a formula for a training course for announcers, newscasters, or radio and T.V. commentators. Also considered are courses in language and composition, for radio and television script writers. Our broadcasting system is old enough, has given enough proof of its vitality, for us to demand high standards for admission into professional radio and television, especially as there is no shortage of applicants.
Many young people are attracted by a career which in itself is highly interesting and fairly well paid. They are often motivated by a desire for easy success without the necessity of much training. I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not saying that most radio and television professionals are lacking in culture. But I believe that some of them lack immediate and specific training. We have the pleasure of seeing and hearing, especially on the government network, professional performers who give the best example of careful training and concern for perfection which make them outstanding stars. Those are the qualifications that should be required from the majority of people who aspire to a career in that field. I hope that radio and television schools will be established, and also institutions to train people for the careers of announcer, reporter or commentator. Then, it would be possible to lay down rules and require a certificate of proficiency, just as a certificate is required from school teachers. Of course, this problem would have to be studied and left to the consideration of experts who could determine regulations to that effect.
In the same line of thought, I should like to point out one provision of section XI of the new bill whereby the board may make regulations:
-for promoting and ensuring the greater use of Canadian talent by broadcasting stations.
This provision is not unnecessary. Not that Canadian artists have been refused access to radio and television broadcasting, but I believe that there is room for improvement in

that respect. Our radio and television stations are to be commended for inviting, on occasion, foreign performers of international reputation. On the other hand, they should not make a practice of offering refuge to third-rate performers, discredited in their own country or who have not managed to reach a high level of artistic achievement. We have in Canada many high-grade performers. We also have many young people of great promise in this field. Our radio and television broadcasting should serve to encourage this young talent. I know that this has been done, as witness the well-known programs of Singing Stars of Tomorrow, Futures etoiles and, more recently, of the Couronne d'or.
To avoid too many a flower being "born to blush unseen," to avoid some artists monopolizing program time, to avoid favouritism, there should be competitions to determine the candidates' suitability for television and radio. Here again, through competitions, experts should act as judges.
To remain in the field of Canadian talent, the C.B.C. is known to make abundant use of the resources of Canadian writers, except perhaps that it displays towards some of them a sympathy which somewhat transforms them into permanent employees of the C.B.C. I refer to writers of serial stories which for 10, 15 and even 20 years, have been featured over the C.B.C. I believe this is encouraging a form of facility which is fatal to writing talent, and stifling wholesome rivalry or emulation which would be beneficial to the writers themselves if they were obliged to break new ground, under competition from younger writers. It may be argued that the listeners and viewers are clamouring for programs which have become fixtures on our national broadcasting network. It seems to me that those requests could be satisfied just the same if programs were varied from time to time. In addition to giving other writers a chance of showing what they can do, it would prevent some programs, which were undoubtedly very popular at the start, to stretch themselves into vacuity or vapid repetition.
There would be room too, in this field, for a process of competition or contests. Greater interest would be thus stimulated which would promote and foster artistic endeavour.
The danger which threatens this type of institution is monopoly, unconscious monopoly appearing as a result of certain circumstances and which finally becomes glaringly

obvious to detached observers. In this connection, it might perhaps be appropriate, in this appraisal of our national broadcasting system, to recall certain standards that the C.B.C. had established for itself, and that Mr. Raymond David, of the C.B.C., emphasized at the meeting of the 34th Social Week of Canada.
Speaking of public information, Mr. David said the following:
In this important sector of public affairs too. the program division had, since its inception, to comply with the principles set down in the white paper of the corporation and to continue operating according to the following principles:
1.	The airwaves belong to the people, who have the right to hear the main points of view on all questions of importance.
2.	The airwaves should not be controlled by individuals or influential groups by reason of their material resources or their particular position.
3.	The right of rejoinder is inherent to the democratic rule of freedom of speech.
4.	Freedom of speech and the free exchange of opinions are the two guardian principles of institutional freedom.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the true code defining the proper ethics of information and of the exchange of ideas which are so frequently broadcast. It is proper briefly to review each of those points.
1.	The airwaves belong to the people who have the right to hear the main points of view on all questions of importance.
This rule prohibits any controlled one-sided information, which does not leave full liberty of judgment to the listener, because he has only been told one angle of the issue and only been shown one aspect of the picture. It would moreover suggest a dialogue, a free exchange of opinions. Because, if an audience has to be informed, it must be given the means to get an accurate and complete knowledge of the facts.
2.	The airwaves should not be controlled by individuals or influential groups, by reason of their resources or their particular position.
What was intended by that was the elimination of monopolies based on financial or political power.
3.	The right of rejoinder is inherent in the democratic doctrine of freedom of speech.
This aspect is very important. It deals with the right of citizens and institutions of not being convicted without trial. It involves the easy and efficient use of the right of attack and rejoinder. This excludes trials without evidence and convictions in absentia.
4.	Freedom of speech and the free exchange of opinions are the two basic guarantees of freedom of institutions.
This fourth point summarizes all the others. It is a kind of charter of freedom of expression.
Broadcasting
Without any pretense at instituting a trial in due form, one may ask if radio and television have respected the provisions of this charter in our country.
We are led to believe that there may be some reason to reconsider the whole question in the light of principles formerly laid down by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, in view of the absence of dialogue in the very field of criticism of our institutions, of some form of controlled information in the field of politics, of an apparent set purpose of disparagement of particular groups of citizens, of the too negative aspect of some claims, of ungracious insistence upon stressing the real or fancied wrongs and foibles of the political administration.
There are all sorts of ways of intruding upon consciences. Not the least dangerous is that which would consist in remaining silent in the face of the positive achievements of a particular system while, at the same time, laying stress on all its possible weaknesses. There is no justification either for making a permanent comparison between social, economic and educational conditions in one particular province, as compared to those of another province, to the detriment of the former.
I am reminded here of the very appropriate remarks of Monseigneur Paul-Emile Gosselin of Quebec city who, speaking of the government owned broadcasting system at the 34th Social Week of Canada, stated:
We do not believe however that state-owned radio and television give total or faithful expression to national feeling in French Canada. Perfection is difficult of attainment in a field such as this. Without entering into discussions which would appear to be pointless, let us merely express the hope that each and every school of national thought may find some means of expressing itself through these official media. To achieve this result, those entrusted with programming should be broad-minded enough to admit that some people may not share their own particular views on controversial matters and that there are sincere patriots, with a knowledge of present day issues, outside the small select circles they frequent.
Mr. Speaker, that is one of the most difficult problems we have to deal with in respect of broadcasting in this country. Any form of intellectual monopoly is odious and contrary to the right of the people to hear "all main points of view on any important issue", to quote a phrase formerly employed by the responsible people in the C.B.C. Under cover of a mission of intellectual, social or political liberation, no one has the right to attempt to enforce his own views on others nor to make a national system of his own peculiar beliefs or convictions in any particular area. A fundamental right rooted in natural law is thus

Broadcasting
violated. It is especially wrong to misuse the public system in an attempt to force individuals to accept one's particular faith, intellectual, social, political, or religious. Mr. Raymond David, whom I quoted a moment ago, expressed that same conviction when he said:
-radio and television are not and must not become a forum for the propagandists of a given school of thought, but must remain open to all opinions held acceptable by our democratic society in general. They must, and that is their main task, allow listeners to become familiar, on any topic, with the various trends of opinion which, together, make up what is called public opinion,
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the new board of governors will uphold that essential freedom of thought and expression when assuming its regulatory functions over broadcasting by both public and private stations. We are confident that it will discharge this duty so as to preserve the present high standards of public broadcasting and so as to correct what must be corrected and improve what must be improved in the fields of both public and private broadcasting. It must exercise over the C.B.C. as well as over private stations a discreet but firm supervision so as to prevent any form of monopoly. As far as the C.B.C. is concerned, it seems to us that the emphasis must be laid on decentralizing and on favouring all public radio and television stations in all areas of this country.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation, which will soon be enacted, is perhaps not complete nor perfect but, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, we must have confidence in the government whose sole aim is to provide for the good functioning of our institutions and which, by this bill on Canadian broadcasting, is implementing the recommendations put forward by various commissions and by organizations that have been dealing for a very long time with problems connected with broadcasting. To delay the adoption of this legislation would deprive our citizens of their right to a continuing improvement of our Canadian radio and television system.
(Text):


Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, it is most unfortunate that the government has waited until almost the last minute of this session to introduce this very important bill. It is unfair to parliament and to the people of Canada. In the speech from the throne the government promised to set up a select committee on broadcasting, which it did not do. It would have been the proper course to follow. This committee would have
[Mr. Tremblay. 1
studied carefully all aspects of the legislation on broadcasting; it would have called witnesses and informed the members of all aspects of radio and television, and today we would have been in a better position to deal with this bill. Instead of doing that the government decided to put before us at the very end of the session Bill C-55, respecting broadcasting. I want to take a few moments, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the merits of this bill. At the end of my remarks I propose to move an amendment.
In past years I have expressed my opinion in this house as to the advisability of setting up a regulatory body. What I had in mind at that time was a body similar to the one proposed by the Fowler commission, nothing more, and I am still in favour of it. Instead of doing that the government brings forward a major change in the structure of our broadcasting system in Canada. The bill before us today provides for the creation of broadcasting governors, whose objects and purposes are set out in section 10 of the bill, and I quote:
The board shall, for the purpose of ensuring the continued existence and efficient operation of a national broadcasting system and the provision of a varied and comprehensive broadcasting service of a high standard that is basically Canadian in content and character, regulate the establishment and operation of networks of broadcasting stations, the activities of public and private broadcasting stations in Canada and the relationship between them and provide for the final determination of all matters and questions in relation thereto.
There will be two distinct boards, and if we read carefully sections 10, 29 and 36, we see that the powers given to each board may overlap one another. The two bodies will be responsible to parliament, to a member of the cabinet. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that this arrangement will be very difficult to work out. Instead of doing that the government should have followed the Fowler commission's recommendations to the effect that there should be only one Canadian broadcasting governing board to which the C.B.C. would be required to report.
If this bill is accepted it will mean the end of the long-accepted principle that the Canadian broadcasting system is a single system made up of both privately-owned and publicly-owned stations under the control of a single agency responsible to parliament. The proposed bill only seems to add to the confusion, while the aim of the Fowler commission was to clarify the responsibility and eliminate the confusion which had come to exist under the present legislation. As stated

in an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Journal on August 21:
The responsibility for a national service should be clearly enumerated by the government. Otherwise there is danger of overlapping, misunderstanding and inefficiency.
The bill before us rejects the Fowler commission's advice that:
In broadcasting it is of primary importance that the operating agency be independent of control and interference from the government of the day.
The commission goes on to say:
Since in our constitutional practice, money bills must originate from the government, annual votes give to the executive an almost constant vehicle for influence, or the appearance of influence on broadcasting agency.
In an article in the Ottawa Citizen on August 22 by Mr. Frank Swanson, the following appeared:
Parliament and the government will now hold the control of the C.B.C.'s purse-strings which in the eyes of many people, could be a threat to the independence of thought and action by the C.B.C.
This brings me to the method of financing the C.B.C. under the new bill. Here is what the Globe and Mail has to say about it, and I quote from an editorial which appeared on August 25:
But how hesitant these measures are, and how vague! They ask the C.B.C. to plan five years in advance and to get its plans approved, but offer no assurance that approval, once given, will be backed up by cash. They do not even specify that the annual budgets be drawn up or considered within the framework of the five-year plans. They do nothing, really, but perpetuate the unsatisfactory arrangement whereby the C.B.C. goes to Ottawa every year, cap in hand, asking for money-an arrangement which not only invites inefficiency in its operations, but begs political interference in its affairs.
The method of financing the C.B.C., as proposed in the bill, is an open invitation to political interference. It was the operating phase of the C.B.C. which the Fowler commission wanted to protect against the everpresent threat of government interference. That was one of the primary reasons why the commission recommended a single board of governors and that the C.B.C. be responsible to parliament for its finances as well as its activities through the board of broadcast governors.
Under the existing legislation the operating personnel of the C.B.C., the general manager and below, are insulated from direct political pressure and interference by the presence of the board of governors and a full-time chairman. Now that insulation will be removed. The minister will now deal directly with the senior officers of the corporation instead of with an officer removed from day-to-day operations.
Broadcasting
I do not want to imply that the present minister to whom the C.B.C. now reports will personally interfere in the business of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but after listening in this house not so very long ago to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), I feel that the matter has to be brought up at this time. In his speech delivered on July 14, the hon. member said, as reported at page 2228 of Hansard:
A clean-up job is necessary in the C.B.C.
Mr. Robert Rumilly, a well-known Union Nationale active supporter, has been asking for a clean-up regularly in the Union Nationale paper, Nouvelles Illustrees; so has the Union Nationale official daily, the Montreal Matin, in an editorial which appeared on July 19. Knowing for a fact what the Union Nationale people have in mind when they talk about a clean-up, I am afraid that if there were any possibility for them to do so they would fire all those who do not share their political views in order to replace them by political supporters. It would be terrible if the fascists like Robert Rumilly, Adrien Arcand and others like them played important parts in the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I know that since the election of the Progressive Conservative party pressure has been put on the C.B.C. by Union Nationale supporters to fire certain people in the C.B.C. Even the member to whom I referred earlier has suggested in the house that at least three people be fired on the alleged accusation that they were leftists. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has never given us a definition of what he calls a leftist. As far as I know, all those who do not share Mr. Duplessis' views are leftists. I know for a fact that at least one person mentioned by the hon. member on that occasion is a strong supporter of the Liberal party and I do not think that that reason would be sufficient to fire him in order to replace him by Mr. Rumilly or Mr. Arcand. This is the kind of political interference which should never exist in a corporation like the C.B.C.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a public service paid for by the Canadian people and nothing should prevent the corporation from discharging its responsibilities to the satisfaction of the Canadian public. There should never be interference such as I referred to a few moments ago. The C.B.C. should never be an instrument in the hands of politicians. I am sure that neither the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) nor the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker)

Broadcasting
would tolerate that the French C.B.C. networks at least should be controlled by the premier of Quebec and his friends. I am sure that the Minister of National Revenue and the Prime Minister want the C.B.C. to be free of any political interference. That is why I submit respectfully to the minister that any section in the bill which would bring about an opening for political interference should be amended. I respectfully submit to the minister that the C.B.C., instead of having to report to parliament, should report to the board of broadcast governors which in turn would report to parliament.
Section 10 of the bill gives power to the Board of broadcast governors to regulate the establishment and operation of networks of broadcasting stations, the activities of public and private broadcasting stations in Canada and the relationship between them and provide for a final determination of all matters and questions in relation thereto. How can the board of broadcast governors regulate all these matters and provide for their final determination when it has nothing to do with the financing of the C.B.C. and is not able to check on the financial operations of the corporation? Again I submit that the corporation should report through the board of governors and that, radio broadcasting being part of the public domain, private broadcasters should equally report to the board of governors.
I want to stress the fact that the two boards described by the bill will certainly get in each other's hair and in a case of conflict it would seem to me that the C.B.C. board would be placed in an inferior position. The C.B.C. now becomes an agent of the crown in such a manner that it will not be able to maintain its independence. If the bill is adopted without amendment it is my view that it will be very difficult for the C.B.C. to operate.
Not only should there have been provision, as I said earlier in my remarks, for the C.B.C. to report to the board of broadcast governors but the C.B.C. should have had assurance of long range financing. The Fowler commission recommended annual grants to the corporation with a review after five years. Instead, section 35 provides for the corporation to lay annually before parliament through its minister a capital budget and an operating budget which means, in other words, that the corporation will have to come each year to parliament and beg for its financing.
The proposed method of financing hampers the management of the corporation in planning its operations over a reasonable period of time. While the government may argue that the bill provides for the corporation to

have working capital in the amount of $6 million and that its debt to the government in excess of that amount will be extinguished, this money cannot be spent on operating expenses.
The failure to provide the corporation with an assured income for operating expenses places the future growth and development of the corporation in jeopardy. If expenditures increase, as they most certainly will, and the corporation requests ever-increasing sums from the government, the government could conceivably reject the requests on the grounds that the federal treasury could not afford it in view of other, more urgent expenditures. The public might accept the government's view without too great protest, regardless of how valid the corporation's claims were. In other words, the government may now, without any public protest, starve the C.B.C. financially. This is an unfair burden to place upon management.
I should like to deal briefly with another aspect of the bill. Section 19 provides for the board of broadcast governors to report to parliament through a member of the cabinet designated by the governor in council. Section 36, on the other hand, provides for the C.B.C. to report to parliament through a minister designated again by the governor in council.
It can happen that the two bodies will have to report to two different cabinet ministers. What will happen then in case of conflict? There can be cause for ministerial conflict which would hamper the work of the C.B.C. and of the board of broadcast governors. If the two boards are going to be established by the government, the bill should contain a clause by which the two boards should be responsible to the same minister. If the government is going to rush this legislation through, it should be very careful as to who is going to be appointed to the two boards.
In studying the present legislation Mr. Frank Swanson, in the Ottawa Citizen of August 22 last, asked the question, "how will it work", and gave this answer:
In the end, it probably will depend primarily on the quality and abilities of the men who will make up the new board of broadcast governors.
In my own judgment the bill will not satisfy anyone. In an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Star on August 20 last I find the following:
Canadians have a right to expect that federal broadcasting legislation will, so far as possible, guarantee three things:	(1) A strong national
broadcasting system; (2) freedom of this system from political interference; (3) responsible use of the channels and frequencies which private broadcasters are privileged to occupy.

The bill which the Diefenbaker government has just put before parliament guarantees none of these things.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I allowed the hon. member to read an editorial from the Globe and Mail a while ago, which strictly speaking was contrary to the rules. Editorials which comment on what is before the house are not in order. Members are free to use ideas from editorials in their own words but it is not strictly in order to quote editorials which reflect on what is going on in the house at the time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether Your Honour would permit an observation? Is it not in order to quote an editorial if one states that he embraces the views expressed therein?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, I did not understand the hon. member's last words.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If one says he embraces and endorses the views expressed therein, is it not in order?


Mr. Speaker:: I would rather put it this way, that editorials which express opinions about a matter which is before this house have been refused, and I think properly. Hon. members should express their own thoughts. There is nothing to prevent them from adopting the opinions of others, but it is not good parliamentary practice to quote editorials that reflect, either pro or con, on a matter with which the members of the house are currently dealing.


Guy Rouleau: Thank you very much; I shall abide by your ruling. For these reasons, and the one I mentioned in my remarks, I am of the opinion that the passage of this bill should be deferred until we have had an opportunity of carefully studying the matter in a parliamentary committee set up for that purpose. Accordingly, I respectfully submit we should defer passage of this very important piece of legislation until the next session of parliament. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Mitchell):
That the word "now'' be left out and the words "this day six months" added at the end of the question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was wondering if the minister wished to reply to this amendment? In that case, since there seems to be no one else who wishes to speak at the moment, there are a few observations on the amendment itself I should like to make, and a few on the bill, which I think justify the presentation of the amendment which the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) has just presented. He has, of course, simply done in a formal way what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson)
Broadcasting
did informally in his appeal to the government this morning, which I am sure the Leader of the Opposition expected would have been accepted without a formal vote of the house. The hon. member has moved that this bill be not proceeded with at this session, but that it be presented at the next session or a better bill introduced on another occasion.
It does seem to me that the arguments which we made on this side of the house at the resolution stage, that this bill should be given first reading and should be left for study by hon. members during the recess and for study by the public generally, are amply justified by our examination of the bill itself. In the first place, the bill does not live up to the advance notice which, I admit, was in rather vague terms. I am not accusing the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) of misleading the house deliberately, but I must admit that he misled me, and I think he misled a good many others in the country into thinking what the government was going to do was substantially to implement the recommendations of the Fowler report. It is true, and I want to be quite fair about this, that the minister did indicate, in response to a specific question I asked at the resolution stage, that the financial scheme would not be what was recommended in the Fowler report. I must say, from that moment on, I began to have very grave doubts about what we were likely to see in the bill. When we got the bill we saw it was a great deal worse than anything I had feared.
I want to make the same points as the Leader of the Opposition has about some of the respects in which the bill seems to me to be worse. While I really do not think I have any new points to add to those made by the Leader of the Opposition, there are some aspects of those points that he made so comprehensively this morning which I do believe deserve to be underlined. Before doing that, I should like to take up the challenge of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), and say that I am more interested in the views expressed by the Free Press in its great days than I am in its later expressions of opinion on this subject. I assure Your Honour, lest there be any doubt about this, that the editorial I now propose to quote has been quoted many times before in parliament and has no relationship to the present bill or proceedings before the house, although it has a direct bearing on the subject matter of the present bill. The most recent occasion on which this article was quoted in this house was July 14, 1958. It has to do, of course,

Broadcasting
with that great stage in the history of broadcasting in Canada when Mr. Bennett introduced the Canadian radio commission legislation in 1932. At that time, the editor of the Free Press had this to say:
The radio issue now being decided at Ottawa is quite simple and very easily grasped. There is a choice between a national system and the handing over of the radio-supporting public of Canada to the radio monopolies of the United States. All the pleas put forth on behalf of private control of radio in Canada, no matter how plausibly presented, nor how strongly backed by eminent figures in the world of finance, are in support of a system which, in its practical working out will make Canada a subordinate annex of the United States radio-land and give the final (if concealed) voice in the decisions of how radio is to be operated in Canada to purely commercial interests, American in character.
The day of the small detached and supposedly independent radio station is about over in Canada. If the field is left to private enterprise, there will be rapid consolidation of these stations into a combination. We shall have a privately-owned monopoly of the air, and this monopoly will operate in harmony with the great radio monopoly of the United States-the harmony that always exists between the boss that gives orders and the dependent subordinate who obeys them.
I knew the late Mr. Dafoe very well, and that, of course, is just the way he talked. I think Mr. Dafoe was fundamentally right in the first paragraph he wrote but in the light of experience in the recent past, I do not believe I would say he was entirely right in the first sentence of the second paragraph. He said:
The day of the small detached and supposedly Independent radio station is about over in Canada.
I think it is a very happy and fortunate circumstance that he has been proved to be wrong about that one point. I think the small, detached and independent radio station owned by someone in a local community in Canada has performed an increasingly useful service over the years. There are a few stations in the great metropolitan centres that do not seem to perform a service that appeals very much to many of us in this house, but I suppose they must be performing some kind of service or the people would not pay for the advertising. The stations in the smaller places, catering to local needs, supporting local causes and giving a greater sense of community to those localities, have proven to be a very valuable addition to our Canadian patrimony.
I, for my part, feel that anything we do which would have the effect of weakening the detached and independent character of these stations would be most unfortunate. I have never favoured the idea of having them linked up in great chains, although economies might be effected in some ways by having local networks for limited purposes. I feel, however, that the greater the independence of the

private stations and the greater the local character they can have, the better. I do believe that every Canadian today who has given any serious, detached and objective thought to this matter-even the most ardent socialists-now feels this way or at any rate so express themselves.
There is no doubt that there is a problem, although I have always thought it was rather more psychological than really practical. With respect to the situation between the private stations and the C.B.C., a psychological situation has been created in the last few years supported by very respectable organizations and very respectable arguments, arguments which, on the face of them, appeal at first blush to any liberal minded person. These arguments are to the effect that there is something wrong about the regulation of these private stations by the operating officials of the public service. This was one, although I do not think by any means the most important, of the problems which were submitted to the Fowler commission, and I thought that commission had suggested the happiest possible solution of that problem. I agree that there was a genuine grievance on the part of the private stations with respect to the actual operating personnel of the C.B.C. carrying out this regulatory function as opposed to the board of governors. I believe it is a good thing to have individual C.B.C. stations competing with private stations for listeners. I see nothing wrong with that, in fact I think it is a very good thing but, at the same time, we did not wish to see a situation created wherein there would be two systems in this country; we wanted only one, and we, in our party, have always taken that view.
Of course that is not the view which was taken by hon. gentlemen opposite, or some of them, when they sat over here and I exempt the Minister of National Revenue from that charge. I just looked at the record at random this afternoon

because one does not have much time these days to do any continuous research-and when the hon. gentlemen who were then sitting on this side of the house were trying, very ineffectually, to reply to one of the most brilliant speeches made in this house, namely a speech made the previous day on this subject by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), who was then the member for Stormont and the minister of transport. I found, as one would expect to find, that the clearest and most precise statement on the position of the Tory party was made by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), who was then the private member for Kamloops. I think, in view of what we have in this bill it is perhaps fitting

that I should now place on record what the member for Kamloops had to say at page 3040 of Hansard for March 17, 1953, which reads as follows:
The system we want to see is a parallel system to that which prevails in our railway communications, which are still governed by the national policy laid down by a Conservative government-
These departures from history I will just ignore as I go along.
-and to which the Minister of Transport today paid tribute. We want to see the same system as prevails in air transport, to which the Minister of Transport also paid tribute.
The hon. member did not quite have the gall to suggest that that was also done by a Conservative government.
We want to see that policy prevail in the field of television broadcasting particularly, because we believe that policy would preserve the right of parliament through the regulatory body to lay down conditions and regulations under which television programs might be presented, and to prescribe the Canadian content of the programs. These stations would, nevertheless, be allowed freedom of operation and competition within those limits, under a policy which would serve the interests of the Canadian people with respect to building up a television system, and consistent with the building up of Canadian talent and Canadian programs, but without the dead hand which is now holding back that development as is the case under the misguided government television policy.
That is what the Minister of Justice had to say when he was on this side of the house; but the Minister of National Revenue took a rather different view of what we had done when he spoke in this house on June 3 of this year, and I feel I should recall to hon. members the words used by that minister as recorded at page 812 of Hansard for that date:
This year, under the aegis of this government-*
That is to say the government of which he is a member.
-I am not speaking politically now at all because other governments gave the C.B.C. financial support, too-


Mr. Mcllraith:: We did a good job with it.


George Clyde Nowlan: You did a good job with it; there is no question about that, but we are going to do a better one with it.
It was precisely those words used by the Minister of National Revenue, more than anything else said during this session, that lulled some of us on this side of the house into what I can only now describe as a false sense of security, and of course we were the more disillusioned when we saw what it was that the Minister of National Revenue, whose heart was shown to be in the right place last June, had been compelled by the exigencies of cabinet solidarity to accept in late August.
Broadcasting
I am sure that all of us feel that the minister must have tried to put up a very strong rearguard action because, after all, it took him from June 3-which would have been approximately a reasonable date at which to bring in this legislation if any consideration was given to parliament or to the rights of parliament instead of taking until I believe a week ago today, August 18, to get his colleagues to go even one-quarter of the way. I say, like the Leader of the Opposition, that one-quarter of the way is just not good enough. We are far better off with the law as it is than we would be if this bill were passed, far better off.
If there were any hope of defeating the bill of course that would be the best thing to do with it. We could then start all over again, but of course the government can prevent that. It does, however, seem to me that the government might have a sober second thought as a result of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Dollard and might consider whether it should not accept his amendment and allow this matter to rest. While the government was itself resting a little during the recess, it could give the matter some further consideration and could also allow the rest of us to give some further consideration to this very important problem, because this bill does attempt to alter fundamentally the whole structure of broadcasting in Canada. We had hoped it was going to be altered for the better, along the lines of the report of the Fowler commission. I do not accept, and I do not think anyone accepts, that report in its entirety but, speaking generally, I do feel it is the most useful guide we could have at the present time to legislation of this nature.
In order to illustrate a little further how widely and how fundamentally this bill does differ from what the Fowler commission recommended, I should like, as the Leader of the Opposition did, to read one or two passages from the report and I do not wish to trespass on the time of the house by repeating the reading of any of those parts which were read by the Leader of the Opposition. I should like to read, first of all, from the chapter entitled "The regulation of broadcasting", on page 90, beginning at the last paragraph:
We think there have in fact been two public elements involved in radio and television broadcasting. This factual separation of powers should be more precisely defined in law. One of these elements should be an operating agency, engaged in the operation of publicly owned stations and national networks and in the production and distribution of a national program service throughout Canada. We think that the phrase "national program serviGe" should, if possible, have a more detailed definition as to its geographical scope and intended purpose than has been given up to the

Broadcasting
present time. If this agency is given precise responsibilities it should also be given powers sufficient to discharge those responsibilities, and financial resources, on an assured basis, adequate to do the job that parliament intends it to do. A crown company seems to be the simplest and most familiar form for this agency to take. The existing Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, with minor changes in its statutory powers and organization, can be this agency. Many of the subsequent chapters of this report will deal in detail with the powers, organization, operation and finances of the C.B.C.
The other public agency in the Canadian broadcasting field should be a board created and authorized to act for parliament, and responsible to parliament, for the direction and supervision of the Canadian Broadcasting system. This board should have responsibility for all elements in Canadian broadcasting. It should not, we suggest, be part of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its members should not, as in the present statute, comprise the corporation. The provision in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act of 1936, whereby the corporation is made to consist of the board of 11 governors was no doubt a familiar form of statutory provision and a natural method of applying the concepts of private company law to a crown corporation. In other crown companies it may not matter, but in broadcasting it has probably contributed to some public confusion as to the nature of relations between the governing board and the operating corporation.
This board is not part of the C.B.C.-
That is the board they are now recommending.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is what we have made plain.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I admit the minister's point there. That is what he has made plain, but there is something else which he has made anything but plain, and that is what I am coming to in a moment.
This board is not part of the C.B.C. and should not be referred to as "the board of governors of C.B.C.". We suggest that a new board, differently named, should be created by statute. The name we use in speaking of this agency is "The board of broadcast governors".
I do not think I will read the next few lines because it would be just a waste of time, but the beginning of the next paragraph is very important.
The C.B.C. is responsible to the board and is answerable to it for its performance and efficiency.
That is the critical point, it seems to me, about this bill; that is the real difference, expressed in that one sentence, between the bill before us now and the Fowler commission's recommendations.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is the substance of your criticism, is that it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the most substantial part of our criticism on the one point and, of course, the minister is very familiar with my other criticism that the power of the purse is the power to destroy.

The report goes on:
Similarly, private broadcasters are responsible to the board for their performance. The degree of supervision and control by the board may vary as between the public and private elements in the single Canadian broadcasting system, and may vary from time to time as between different units in the system, but the basic relationship between the broadcasters and the board is the same for all stations. They are responsible to the board, which in turn is responsible to parliament for the whole Canadian broadcasting system.
In the following sub-headings of this chapter-
I do not think there is any point in reading further in that paragraph, but there are two final paragraphs in this chapter on the regulation of broadcasting from which I should like to read a few sentences. The last paragraph on page 135 reads:
It may be that some of the misapprehensions of the private broadcasters concerning Canadian broadcasting controls and the apprehensions of the public will be met at least partially by some of the suggestions we have made for clarification and re-definition of present arrangements. For example, the amendment to the act which makes it clear that the proposed board of broadcast governors does not comprise the C.B.C., may confirm the independent nature of the board. Such independence, we believe, has in fact

And this is very important, it seems to me.
-characterized the actual operations of the board of governors in the past. The suggestion as to procedure for hearing licence applications for new public or private stations may avoid some public apprehension that there was some conflict of interest and duty in the exercise of the board's licensing authority: this also we think was more apparent than real. The separation of the C.B.C. activities of station relations and broadcasting regulation may remove one source of confusion and misunderstanding in relations between the C.B.C. and private stations.
Now I should like to read just the last sentence of all in this chapter.
If and when, after public discussion of our recommendations and parliamentary debate on their implementation-
I emphasize that again-"parliamentary debate". Surely that is something more than even the best of us could be expected to do effectively at this stage of the session.
-the suggested changes are made, it is to be hoped that this long and frequently bitter argument about a separate regulatory body will come to an end, and private broadcasters will accept their true role as valued and essential partners with the C.B.C. in the single Canadian broadcasting system.
As compared with those recommendations, what in fact have we here? When I read the bill first, sitting here in my place after it was distributed, I turned to someone sitting beside me and said: "This bill reminds me of nothing so much as the Austro-Hungarian empire before 1914; there is an uneasy kind of duality; no one knows where any of the responsibility lies; it is an utterly

ramshackle structure which is almost certain to fall to pieces if it does not result in some kind of civil war."
It is obvious that you cannot have any clarity with diffused responsibilities. Our great pride in our system of government as compared with any other rests on the fact that the line of responsibility under our system is clear-you always know who to blame and where the blame should rest. It seems to me that it is not desirable to get into this mixed system where nobody is to blame and where nobody has clear responsibility. Who is going to govern the C.B.C. if this bill is adopted; the board of broadcast governors, as Fowler recommended; or this board of directors which has been conjured up like a rabbit out of a hat; or the minister to whom the board of directors of the C.B.C. would be responsible, and responsible in a fashion that I never expected to find in any broadcasting legislation?
I am surprised at the minister framing legislation containing such a phrase as "during pleasure for seven years". I do not know who invented that phrase. I am not a lawyer, and I may never become one, but I have read a lot of statutes in my time. It may be that the minister can produce some precedents for this, and it may be that some of those precedents might apparently prove embarrassing, but I must say that if there are precedents they are probably bad precedents. You either are there during pleasure or you are there during a term of years. It seems to me it is a plain contradiction in terms. A term of years during good behaviour is included in the provision respecting the board of broadcast governors. That is an understandable, normal provision. There is also a normal provision for the determination by some one of what is good behaviour. I do not know if the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) has been giving consideration to this matter but I would be rather interested to hear his views on the phrase, "during pleasure for seven years."
The only construction I could put upon it is that they can stay there for seven years if they keep on pleasing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) for seven years and that is precisely the thing of which we were afraid. That is precisely what we were afraid of, as I said at the committee stage on the resolution, when the minister hinted to us that the government was not following any of the recommendations of the Fowler commission about the financing of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. At that time I believe I used the phrase they would have to go on bended knee to the Minister of Finance but, unless the Minister of Finance
Broadcasting
is to be the minister responsible, it looks to me as though they will have to bend one knee to the Minister of Finance and one knee to some other minister and try to please them both. That may be possible. It may be there is such harmony in the cabinet that if you please one minister you please them all but perhaps one may be permitted to be a trifle sceptical about the clear lines of responsibility about which I was speaking a few moments ago in a situation like that.
It seems to me there should be no one whatever in the new C.B.C. set-up reporting to a minister. If we are to follow the broad scheme that the Minister of National Revenue is asking us to follow in his bill, the C.B.C. should report to the board of broadcast governors in exactly the same way as the management of the C.B.C. in the past and up to the present has reported to the board of governors of the C.B.C. and the government's relations and parliament's relations should be with the board of governors and with no one else.
Here we are going to have a situation, as was pointed out by my friend the hon. member for Dollard, where we will have the board of broadcast governors perhaps reporting to one minister, and the C.B.C. reporting to another, and in addition the C.B.C. having to go to the Minister of Finance for its funds. It is a preposterous kind of arrangement. As the Leader of the Opposition so very well pointed out this morning, it is just inconceivable that it could ever work.
What is even more serious, in my view, is that it opens the door wide to political interference. Here you have the president and the vice president of this great broadcasting organization appointed during pleasure. They can be fired at any time without explanation by the governor in council. They are the people who will be in charge of the operations of the corporation and they will be reporting to a minister. In some vague way they also have over them this entity, the board of broadcast governors. Where are the lines of responsibility going to be drawn? There is no clarity and there is no certainty but there is every opportunity and every incentive-and one would have to be almost more than human to resist the pressure that there is bound to be-for political interference. I suggested the other day and I still think it is true that perhaps the government would not be so crude as to threaten to cut down the appropriation if they did not behave. But the carrot will often accomplish much more than the stick, as we well know.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

Broadcasting


John Whitney Pickersgill: The suggestion is, with regard to the Minister of Finance, if they are good boys, if they present his victory bonds in the right sort of way, if they give him a good break on the budget, if they do not say too much about the deficit and if they are just as careful as can be about these things-


Mr. Hodgson:: Do not tell all your secrets.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -they will get a little more next year so they will be able to increase the salaries and generally have a cozier time. This is the most insidious aspect of the matter.
One can pick up the report of the Fowler commission and almost at random find quotations about the supreme importance-and I come back to this as the most important thing of all-of having a certain budget for a period of years for operating expenses, because it is in the operating expenses and not in the capital development that the opportunities for this kind of pressure are obviously present.
When all is said and done, if you are going to start a big new station somewhere it represents a large new project and is something that perhaps ought to be considered as a single individual item by parliament. It is certainly something I would have thought would not lend itself to any degree to five year plans. But what seems to me is very essential is that by one device or another the C.B.C. should have a certainty as to a minimum amount of revenue. For my own part I again express the feeling that they also should have a certainty as to a maximum, because I do believe the methods of financing of the C.B.C. up to now-and here I agree with what the Minister of National Revenue said earlier this session-are no longer satisfactory. Indeed, I doubt if they have ever been completely satisfactory or if the problem was ever wholly solved, and that is the principal reason why Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Harris asked their colleagues to join with them in recommending to His Excellency that this royal commission be set up. It was precisely to solve this problem in a more satisfactory way.
In order to have political independence of the government it is essential that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should have a certain minimum income, but equally, in order to protect the treasury, which is a consideration of which we must never lose sight, there should also be a maximum, in my view. Since the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is not subject to those commercial pressures which commercial operators have to meet- that is to say their balance sheet-and because, of course, it does not have the same kind of objective measures of service that the railways and organizations of that kind have, it seems to me that by imposing a

maximum you do enforce economy upon the organization. There may be three or four things they would like to do, all of which would be desirable, but there will not be enough money to do them all, and they must make a choice among them and cut their coat according to their cloth. I believe that is a good thing for any public agency. An ordinary government department is financially controlled through the treasury board and other devices and also through the annual appropriations in parliament. But, as I say, annual appropriations are most undesirable in this case for two reasons; first, because there would be a lack of the certainty needed to give the corporation independence and, second, because it would open the door wide to political interference or the suspicion of political interference.
I am not making any accusation to the effect that there is any member of the government who presently has any such design. I am not saying that at all. Perhaps I would not have complete confidence in all of them but I am not making any such suggestion. I do say, however, that insensibly these things can happen, if the opportunity is there, and it is our duty as a parliament not to have the opportunity there. It is not necessary and it is not desirable.
It seems to me that what is necessary and desirable is that there should be a period of years long enough to provide a reasonable degree of stability or, if possible, some mechanical formula such as the formula-I just give it by way of illustration-for calculating university grants, where again we have been very anxious in this parliament to make it abundantly clear that there was no interference with provincial rights; some mechanical formula depending on the growth of the population and the value of money, or something of that kind, something which could not be changed at the whim of the Minister of Finance or of the governor in council, to determine what these C.B.C. revenues should be.
It does seem to me that what is suggested here is wholly and utterly unsatisfactory. It is made worse by this provision that the operating agency, the C.B.C., should be responsible in some respects, which are not defined, to the board of broadcast governors and in other respects, which are also not defined, to a minister, and that the operating heads of the C.B.C., the two chief executive officers, should be employed during pleasure. That, sir, is something which I hope the government, if they persist with this bill, which I sincerely hope they will not, will take out of the bill in committee.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to speak on the shortcomings of the bill since they have already been very ably dealt with. However, I do wish to speak on one aspect of broadcasting and on television in particular. I am concerned with certain programs which are approved for television presentation. I would like the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) to tell the house who is responsible for some of the atrocious productions such as the one which appeared on Saturday, August 16, which inspired the editor of the Fort William Times Journal to write an editorial which I trust you will allow me to read, Mr. Speaker. This is an editorial which describes a condition rather than offering an opinion. I quote:
Last week the world president of Rotary visited Fort William. He is an American from Milwaukee, an idealist who heads an international organization devoted to the cause of building good will between peoples of all nations. Warmly received here, the distinguished gentleman radiated friendship.
At the same time he was being welcomed in the city, labourers in the vineyard of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at Toronto were putting the finishing touches on a production-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. I must draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that on second reading we refer to the principle of the bill; we do not go into individual programs.


Hubert Badanai: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am merely describing what the broadcasting corporation did produce on that particular day. I am not going to read the editorial; I am merely summarizing what the editorial said. The production was put on by Duffy. It was supposed to be some kind of comedy and the supporting actors staged a scene-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I will have to remind the hon. member again that on second reading we cannot discuss individual programs. We must discuss only the principle of the bill.


Hubert Badanai: I wish to say this, behind the direction of C.B.C. productions-and I refer particularly to this one-there seems to lie an enormous dislike of the United States and of Americans because this refers particularly-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. I do not want to have to ask the hon. member to take his seat, but once again I certainly ask him to refrain from discussing individual programs and stick to the principle of this bill.


Hubert Badanai: I will wait until the committee stage comes up but nevertheless I cannot refrain from saying this. As intimated by the contents of this particular editorial, the president of Rotary International, an organization
Broadcasting
with clubs established in more than 100 countries or geographical areas of the world, is the president of a movement one of whose objects is the promotion of understanding, good will and peace with all nations, and while visiting the cities at the lakehead, on the screen of the television set in his hotel suite, scenes as described in the editorial I have mentioned, which were objectionable, were portrayed.
Surely, the responsible minister should take effective measures and without delay to see that such objectionable programs-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I am afraid I am going to have to ask the hon. member to take his seat. Is the house ready for the question?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, before the amendment is called I should say a few words, I think, in reply to some things which have been said today. On the whole the debate has been on a high level, and I appreciate the comments which were made. I must say it has been rather difficult to follow all the arguments which have been advanced. I was particularly intrigued with the speech of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, (Mr. Pickersgill) who had such great apprehensions about the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and about the powers which are given under this bill.
This bill simply carries out one of the main fundamental recommendations of the Fowler commission, and a fundamental policy of this party throughout the years, namely that there should be an independent regulatory board controlling regulations of both public and private stations. That is a matter to which we have been committed; that is a matter which the Fowler commission report recommended and that is what we have carried out in this legislation.
It is all right for the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to talk about devious lines and where the authority lies and we do not know just how this is going to work. It is easy to say that. As I said earlier, many of these things have to develop with practice. Under this board of governors the C.B.C. is in exactly the same position in so far as applying for a licence is concerned, or regulation, as any other private station. We have done nothing whatsoever to interfere with the C.B.C. as an operating unit. Let us not have any nonsense on that score whatsoever. The C.B.C. still has its own network; the C.B.C. still operates that network and the C.B.C. will continue to do so.
If anyone has any question as to the attitude of this government towards public

Broadcasting
operation of radio, and in general, I refer him again to section 10 of the bill, Mr. Speaker, which says:
The board shall, for the purpose of ensuring the continued existence and efficient operation of a national broadcasting system and the provision of a varied and comprehensive broadcasting service of a high standard that is basically Canadian in content and character, regulate the establishment and operation of networks of broadcasting stations-
And so on. The powers given to the C.B.C., Mr. Speaker, by this bill are exactly the same, with minor technical changes, as the powers given the C.B.C. under the act of 1952, chapter 32, which again was a reenactment of the act of 1936, except in so far as the power to make regulations is concerned. Otherwise, the powers given in sections of the old bill are virtually the same, with the one exception of regulation, as are the powers conferred by this bill today.


George James McIlraith: I should like to ask the
minister a question in order to clarify one point. In quoting section 10 he quoted the general part containing the statement of the purpose of the C.B.C. but when he came to the actual powers granted by section 10 he omitted dealing with them and, I presume because we are at the second reading stage, referred to them only as "and so on and so on." It is those very powers in section 10 now given to the board of broadcast governors that are causing us concern.


George Clyde Nowlan: I certainly did not leave that out deliberately. I read the first part of section 10 as an enunciation of policy and what may be causing trouble to hon. gentlemen opposite with respect to the rest of section 10 I do not know unless it is the fact that it refers to regulation of networks in the plural. Although no one opposite has mentioned it and I thought someone would, hon. gentlemen well know that that section is in the old act too. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's board of governors has the power to inaugurate various networks and from time to time they did establish temporary networks on special occasions for such things as hockey games, games of other kinds and so on. Therefore there is no difference there whatsover-


John Whitney Pickersgill: No one said there was.


George Clyde Nowlan: -although some of our editors across the country apparently misunderstood it and thought we were going to create something new by starting to establish networks for the first time when it has been the law of the country since at least 1936.
As I said earlier, I think the matter of personnel is more important than anything else. The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) said he was disappointed because I

had not enunciated what government policy was going to be and what instructions we were going to issue to the board of broadcast governors with respect to regulation. That is the last thing in the world I will do as long as I am the minister in charge of the C.B.C., and I am sure that applies to every other member of the government. That is why we are appointing a board of broadcast governors. You cannot in one breath say that you want an independent board and in the next breath criticize the spokesman for the government at the moment because he has not set down what the board has got to do. The board itself will lay down its own regulations within the framework of the act and particularly within the policy enunciated by section 10, and far be it from me or any member of the government to enunciate policies to them other than what are contained in the bill itself.
As far as I can see, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), in an able and careful speech this morning could not point to one specific matter in the bill at which he took offence. He had forebodings. They have had forebodings about this party for a long while but most of them have been dissipated. They have had forebodings throughout the years. There were forebodings that we could not even form a government and that if we did we would not be able to carry on. There were forebodings about what we were going to do to the C.B.C. and all the rest of it. These things have been pretty well dissipated.
The Leader of the Opposition said in his speech that this might happen or this could be done and he had fears as to the future, about which it is his responsibility to have fears, but there is nothing in the bill itself to suggest this in any way, shape or form. The only material point I can see in the criticism, and I hope I am fair to hon. gentlemen opposite, is the fact that the C.B.C. will report to parliament instead of to the board of broadcast governors. What is the point in that, Mr. Speaker? Does it make any great difference whether the C.B.C. reports to the board or whether it reports to parliament? It is true that the Fowler commission recommended that it should report to the board. I am sure hon. gentlemen opposite know very well that if they wanted to have a debate on the C.B.C. or to criticize the C.B.C. the mere fact that the C.B.C. reported to the board rather than to parliament would not prevent that for one moment. Hon. gentlemen opposite, or whoever sat in this house, as would be their right, could take the report of the board of broadcast governors and use that as a basis for talking about or criticizing the C.B.C.

Frankly, I can see no merit whatsoever in the suggestion that the bill changes something fundamental because we have the C.B.C. reporting to parliament rather than to the board. Bear this in mind, Mr. Speaker, that this year the C.B.C. will be spending over $41 million, not commercial moneys but public moneys, which is voted by parliament. Surely an organization which is spending that amount of money should be required to come to parliament and to report to parliament. Surely parliament should exercise at least some scrutiny over the way in which these moneys are spent. That was my feeling anyway, I think it was the feeling of my colleagues and substantially I think it is the feeling of the house. I cannot believe that hon. gentlemen were serious when they raised that point.
There is another matter which may have some merit. I could see that an argument could be developed but with all due respect it is one which I think has no merit in substance. The point was made that the president and vice president of the C.B.C. are to be appointed to hold office during pleasure for a period of seven years. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate made a great point of that. I have not got the documentation here but I am told that that principle occurs in other statutes enacted before this government came into office. I am not certain; I simply say I have been told that.
Frankly, I questioned that point and wondered about the phraseology. We discussed the matter with the draftsmen, law officers and others and, while you can debate the point, the justification for it is that under this legislation the president and the vice-president are managerial. They are executive officers responsible for the management and managerial and executive officers generally are supposed to be at pleasure because if they do not do a job their superior officer has to exercise some control over them. That is the justification or argument, call it what you will. I must say it is a point to which I had not paid much attention one way or another until I heard the matter put so forcibly a while ago as undermining the whole structure of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I do not think my hon. friend intended it that way. However, that is the justification and as I say I am told that it is not original with this government. The other directors of the board are appointed to hold office during good behaviour because they exercise a semi-judicial function whereas the president and vice-president are executives as well as directors of the board.
A great deal has been said this afternoon about the Minister of Finance and the fact
Broadcasting
that he exercises power in some way over expenditures. You would think that there was something new in this. No one knows better than the hon. members who have spoken today, at least two of them who were of the privy council, that the estimates of departments and the estimates of the C.B.C. during all the years that they were in office-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, no.


George Clyde Nowlan: -were submitted to the
treasury board after having been recommended and approved by the Minister of Finance. They were discussed and reviewed by treasury board. That is the advice I get from the senior officers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Only in the last two years.


George Clyde Nowlan: I know it was done and hon. gentlemen opposite know that when they went out of office a year ago treasury board had only approved six months' estimates and that these estimates had been approved heretofore by treasury board. I heard the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate say that it has only been done in the last two years. I think I know the argument on that and I should like to deal with it right now. We have been told that the C.B.C. is now going to have to come cap in hand to the government, treasury board or parliament for money. What has the C.B.C. had to do during the last few years, in fact, pretty well throughout all the years of its existence?
In the old days, of course, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was a relatively minor corporation so far as expenditure was concerned. Radio was not expensive. It had its commercial revenues, its licence fees and its own budget and it had to live within that budget. When it exceeded its budget it had to fire someone or discontinue a program. That was the situation in the earlier days. Along came television, and what have we had? We have had increasing expenditures. The government made the excise tax available to the corporation, which had no reference whatsoever to the needs of the C.B.C.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But which was certain and not under the control of the government.


George Clyde Nowlan: They received extra money from that source. As for the later years, I have the figures here. In 1957 my hon. friend was sitting on the treasury benches and the Leader of the Opposition was sitting on the treasury benches.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is precisely why we appointed a royal commission.


George Clyde Nowlan: What happened in 1957? You had an annual grant voted by parliament of $18,250,000. You also had a loan, but this is

Broadcasting
a euphemistic expression, as the hon. gentleman well knows. What was the difference between a loan to the C.B.C. by the government, which would never be paid back, and a grant? You covered it up by calling it a loan. In 1957, in addition to the $18 million, you had $18,500,000 as a loan. You could say it was for capital, and it probably was. In 1954 you lent $4,350,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question?


George Clyde Nowlan: Surely.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is it not true that over the years, until very recently, those loans to the C.B.C. have all been repaid?


George Clyde Nowlan: I have not the balance sheets here, but I do not think so. The Fowler commission recommended they be wiped out. As they said, it was a foolish thing to be getting money from the government with one hand and paying back the interest on these loans with another. I have not the figures in front of me, but I think the hon. member will find that the amounts are still very substantial. If they were repaid, then they were paid back with moneys parliament voted; that is about the size of it. I say, therefore, that at least since 1954, there was a grant voted of $6,500,000 by parliament to be paid in three years, and even before that parliament granted moneys to the C.B.C. In 1957 there was $18,250,000 granted in addition to the revenue from the excise tax. In 1958, on the estimates the hon. gentlemen opposite prepared and tabled in this house before their government went out, there was an annual grant of $24,343,000 submitted to parliament. There is, therefore, absolutely nothing new in this situation of getting money from parliament. It is true that from a philosophical or theoretical point of view a good argument could be made out that they should have their own funds. It would be a good thing if the C.B.C. did not have to get any money from parliament at all.
However, this party believes in the supremacy of parliament, and I think the country generally does. I think hon. gentlemen opposite expect, when you are dealing with moneys to the extent that we are here today, then it is time that parliament expressed its judgment on that. Parliament would do that anyway. There is no possibility in the world of dealing with $40 million or $50 million and avoiding a discussion on it, even if any government wanted to avoid a discussion on it which I do not think any government would. This bill faces that situation realistically and says that the C.B.C. shall come to parliament for annual grants.

Look at the sections of the old act, and what do you find? You find the same provisions exactly. Section 17 says that the governor in council may authorize certain things and provide money for them on application. Then section 18 says that the corporation shall deal with the Minister of Finance. All of these sections here refer to the governor in council and refer to the Minister of Finance. What is the situation with respect to the C.B.C. now? It cannot get more than $25,000 without going, cap in hand, as my friends say, to the minister who, at the moment, happens to be me, and have the minister recommend to the cabinet this expenditure of $25,000, whether it is for a radio tower or for a program.
You will notice that nothing has been said about one important aspect of the bill, Mr. Speaker. We have heard a lot of talk about this terrible thing which is being done to the C.B.C., threatening its integrity, and so on. That is sheer nonsense. I have not heard a word today about the fact that under this measure the C.B.C. can spend up to $100,000 without going to the minister. We increased this ceiling largely because electronic equipment is so expensive today that when you are in the realm of $25,000 you are only buying relatively cheap material.
There is another thing in that section which has not been mentioned in this debate today, and that is that this limitation of $100,000 has no reference whatever to programming. Under the present act, which I am administering today, the C.B.C. has to come to me, and through me to cabinet, for approval to spend $25,000 on a program. There are very few programs today that do not cost more than $25,000. Under the bill which we have introduced, and which I am asking this house to pass, there is no limitation whatever on programming. A criticism could be made that there is a danger of the C.B.C. overspending; I prefer to deal with that criticism rather than be open to the other one. Now, and in the future, the C.B.C. can spend money for programs, program material and anything necessary in connection with programs, without any limitation whatever in so far as the government is concerned but subject, of course, to living within the general financial framework within which it has to operate. If that is not a substantial improvement over the existing system, I should like to know what is. Amidst all these dire forebodings and rumblings of doom I should have liked to have heard some discussion of those things which have been done for the C.B.C.
I do not believe it is essential or advisable that I should take up much more time. There

is, of course, one other matter which is very imnortant and that is the section providing for the five-year program. The Leader of the Opposition said he did not think that would be very effective. I feel it is, at least, a distinct step in the right direction. I think it is something that will be effective. It is true there is nothing in there that says it shall be binding; it does not have to be submitted to parliament. However, I am sure if the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate gets up at the opening of the session and asks for the provision of the budget, I do not see how it could be denied, and I do not think it should be.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We have been denied a lot this year.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is a five-year program. The hon. member for Port Arthur said he thought it should be a longer one, and it might be. You cannot chop off a five-year item just like that. In general, it gives a picture of the capital commitments for the next five years. The C.B.C. has the commitment of the government, at any rate, that these moneys will be provided and, subject to some unforeseen disaster such as a change of government which is something that would be an unmitigated disaster, there can be no question but that the C.B.C. knows they have this capital framework within which they may operate. They need to come to parliament for current operations. It is true that Fowler recommended the reverse. However, he said he only used the capital item as something for which they had to go to parliament in order to give parliament an opportunity for discussion. If hon. gentlemen get involved in a discussion of programs they may be called out of order by the Speaker, but in any discussion of capital, such as recommended by Fowler, there is no hon. gentleman who would not be able to carry on a discussion in a very wide field. It is immaterial, so far as I can see, and so far as the discussion is concerned, whether the discussion takes place on a capital item or current operations.
Something has been said about the two boards getting in each other's hair-I think that was the expression used by the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate quoted at some length from Fowler in connection with this matter who pointed out that two boards were not necessary. If one looks at page 135 of the Fowler report, one finds that he was referring to two boards of similar personnel involved in the regulation of broadcasting. This bill was designed so that regulation will be carried out by the board of broadcast governors and the financial and other administration of 57071-3-258
Broadcasting
the C.B.C. as an operating unit will be carried on by the board of directors of the C.B.C. It is true that you may get a conflict. I know what has been said about one strong one and one weak one, or something of that kind, but I doubt if that follows. There are two different views but the board of broadcast governors is the overriding agency which is going to lay down the regulations and to enforce them, I hope and believe, and under which regulations all operations will be carried out in the future. The board of directors will administer the C.B.C. as the business and operating unit. There is no thought whatsoever of destroying the single system, or anything of that kind.
This, I believe, is going to make it better for the private broadcasting stations in that they can go to an independent body. Some of the criticisms levelled at the C.B.C. were probably not justified but the psychological problem is there. The fact that the private broadcaster had to go to the C.B.C., which was operating networks and perhaps operating a competing station in some communities to make application to the C.B.C., caused frictions and difficulties and I believe inter-ferred with the efficiency and the public relations of the C.B.C. to a marked extent.
I am confident that when this bill is passed, the C.B.C. will find itself in a stronger position than ever before because that criticism will be removed, and it will be able to carry on as an operating unit and an absolutely independent body will administer the applications and will deal with these matters from both a public and private point of view. I believe that when the bill goes through and becomes law it will be found that we have solved this fundamental problem which has bedevilled broadcasting for 15 years because of the ambiguity of the situation and the criticisms in connection with it. This government has tried to clear up this problem and I believe we have succeeded in doing so. The future of broadcasting will, as I say, depend upon the personnel of the board of broadcast governors but I am confident that men and women will be found in this country who will man those positions and will give good administration to Canadian broadcasting in the future, making it even stronger and better than it has been in the past.
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have no apology to make for the fact that I am taking advantage of the amendment moved in order to say a few words-and they will only be a few words-on this bill for the second time. After all, we have been debating this matter only since 11.30 this morning and we are now perhaps on the point of voting on

Broadcasting
second reading at five o'clock this afternoon. As has been pointed out by more than one speaker, we are dealing with a matter of the most fundamental importance and I would have hoped that in view of that fact we would have heard some statements about this bill, its purposes, objectives and principles, from members opposite.
Although it may be arguable, broadcasting is now perhaps the most important agency for the formation of public opinion and the dissemination of information which exists. Whether this is true or not, no one can deny that there can hardly be anything more important in a democratic society than broadcasting by radio and television. We in Canada know-although perhaps not so definitely or so tragically as is known in some other countries -what can happen to public opinion and what can happen to a country if this agency gets into the wrong hands or goes the wrong way. I am not suggesting that anything like that is going to happen in Canada; of course it is not. But this is a special problem for us in another respect because there is perhaps no country in the world where its own broadcasting agency can be more influenced or where its public opinion can be more influenced by the operations in this field of a neighbouring and friendly country. Therefore we have a duty to ourselves and to this parliament fully to discuss the principles of this bill in the light of that important fact.
While the debate on second reading may be coming to a close, we hope to have an opportunity to go through this bill in committee, section by section, and at that time to be able to point out to the minister the significance of some of these provisions as we see them and the way in which they do differ from the recommendations made by a royal commission set up to deal with this matter; a royal commission which did deal with it very effectively and in great detail and has made its report. If we keep on referring to that royal commission and to its report it is because the impression has been created that this bill is based on the report of the Fowler commission; I think it has already been made clear, although perhaps we can make it even clearer in our discussions in committee, that there are some very important differences between the provisions of this bill and the recommendations of that committee.
The minister has said that we really have not pointed out very many weaknesses in the bill; that we on this side of the house have expressed forebodings which no doubt will be removed after we have had some experience of the working of this bill if it is passed. I will leave it to the record to
[Mr. Pearson.!
indicate whether we have or have not pointed out specific and concrete weaknesses in the bill as we see them; I believe some of the arguments we have advanced against it have not been met by the minister although, as I say, we will perhaps have a chance to deal with those matters in committee. So far as our forebodings are concerned-and like other speakers I do not include the minister in this particular foreboding-I particularly have in mind the views expressed by some hon. members opposite in years gone by as to the functions of the government in respect of broadcasting. These forebodings have been increased by the fact that we are discussing this bill in the house, not in June when it could have been sent to a committee, but on August 25, at the end of this session.
I will just take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to itemize the more important criticisms we have already made. We do feel that this bill could weaken the national system of broadcasting and could make it possible- although I am not going any further than that because I want to be fair and we do not know exactly how this bill is going to work out-its provisions do make it easier than was previously the case to develop two systems of broadcasting. Our worries in that regard are increased by the fact that under section 10, which outlines the objectives and purposes-


George Clyde Nowlan: Would the hon. member
permit a question? Would he point out how it does make it easier to do this other than by the fact, of course, that under the existing act the board of governors of the C.B.C. has the right to grant licences whereas now it is to be done by an independent body. Is that what the hon. member meant?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I thought I had gone into this in some detail this morning but not, apparently, in a way that made any impression on the minister.


George Clyde Nowlan: I heard of the forebodings but I did not see any justification therefor.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As I have said, I did not appear to leave any concrete impression in his mind, but I hope perhaps to do so and to raise some forebodings even in that mind when we go through this bill section by section in committee. I hope we will have a chance to deal with the details at that time.
However, section 10 of the bill does state formally-and this is the governing section of this bill-the objects and purposes of this board of broadcasting governors as appointed. But there is no reference in that section to the maintenance or strengthening of the national system or to the paramount

importance of the public service aspect as the purpose of broadcasting. I do not mean to say that this could not be developed as the bill operates, but some of these forebodings about which we have been talking do arise out of the fact that no mention is made in this section, indeed no mention is made in any part of the bill, of this matter, this purpose. Yet, if one reads the Fowler report, as the minister must have more than once, one will see that in practically every chapter of that report the commissioners stressed the vital importance of one national system of broadcasting, primarily carried on as a public service.
My second criticism, which the minister says is not justified, is that this bill seems not to strengthen but to weaken the position of the C.B.C. Perhaps we will also be able to establish that point a little more clearly when we deal with the detailed provisions of the bill. Surely the fact that we now have two boards of a comparable character, two boards reporting to the govermnent, two boards reporting to parliament through the same minister or two different ministers; surely the fact that two boards have to make two reports through two ministers does emphasize that there has in some way been created a division of responsibility and, perhaps, a division of broadcasting. I cannot, myself, believe that this kind of division in the channel, in the line of responsibility is not going to have a bad effect on the C.B.C. It runs absolutely against the report of the Fowler commission. Were I to read page 135 and following paragraphs of the report I think I could prove to the hon. gentleman that that is true, and that the Fowler commission did not recommend this kind of relationship between the regulatory board and the C.B.C.
One other specific criticism is directed against the cumbersome nature of the organization. We cannot for one moment accept the minister's statement that this bill will clear up the present situation and clarify confusion and remove, as the minister said a minute or two ago, ambiguity. We think it will have the opposite effect, especially when the two managerial heads of the C.B.C. are to be appointed at pleasure and can, therefore, be removed, if necessary, at pleasure.
The minister explained this by saying the government proposed to appoint them at pleasure because they were managerial personnel of the C.B.C. That is the very reason why they should be given increased protection and increased security. It would have been much less damaging, I think, to the C.B.C. if the other members of the board had been appointed at pleasure.
57071-3-258J
Broadcasting
Finally, there are the financial provisions. The minister has dealt with these at some length. It is perfectly true that the C.B.C. in the last few years, because of increasing expenditures,-the reasons for which we all understand-in the development of its national broadcasting system has had to go to the government for increased grants. There is no doubt about that. It is also perfectly true that during all these years the C.B.C. also had access to certain sources of revenue in addition to commercial revenue. It had licence fees in the early days, and it has had excise tax revenue since that time.


George Clyde Nowlan: That was an indirect one, the excise tax.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps that is right, but the corporation did have access to certain sources of revenue and to that extent, at least, it was made independent of the government. During one or two years-the minister has the figures and I have not-I think he will agree that there were periods when these revenues were sufficient; in one year, I think they were more than sufficient to cover the expenditure of the corporation. But now, for all the corporation's expenses except those which can be met by commerical incomes, the C.B.C. must rely on the government and it has no other source of assured revenue.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am sure the hon. gentleman wants to be fair. He should qualify that statement about the excise tax by noting that it is now falling so rapidly that the effect on the C.B.C.'s revenue from this source is almost negligible.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is true it is falling in relation to the costs of the C.B.C.-


George Clyde Nowlan: And very rapidly.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -but the fact remains that the previous government, aware of the necessity for increasing expenditures by the corporation and the increasing charge on the public purse, and aware, also, of the falling off in revenue from excise tax which the hon. gentleman has mentioned, did appoint a royal commission to look into the operations of the C.B.C. That royal commission found that the C.B.C. had been well run and well administered. After giving as much consideration to this financial aspect of broadcasting as to any other phase, this royal commission made a report.
I do not propose to read this chapter on financing into the record, but I will make a reference to it-pages 274 to page 279-in which it dealt with the provision of operating funds. The commission, in this chapter, emphasizes the importance of giving the C.B.C. some assurance of a continuing income

Broadcasting
for this purpose and of giving it as much independence as possible subject to parliamentary control-we all accept that-and an assurance of a certain income over a period of years ahead. The royal commission put forward certain specific plans for that purpose. It also stated that this could be accomplished without any infringement of the right of parliamentary control. Perhaps I should emphasize that again. One way in which the royal commission said that parliamentary control could be insured was by having the corporation go to the house every year, whatever procedure might be in effect with respect of operating expenses, for its capital budget.
This particular bill, Mr. Speaker, as I said this morning and as the minister has admitted this afternoon, is exactly the reverse of that recommendation. The Fowler report says on page 271-this is the reason why they suggested the corporation should go to parliament every year for its capital budget-that there is a practical difficulty with regard to forecasting capital cost over a six-year period.
The report went on to say:
These developments of physical plant and equipment of a publicly owned broadcasting enterprise ought to be considered by the government and parliament at regular and frequent intervals. These are the things that really determine the course of future activities. This is where the policy can be effectively determined rather than in the sporadic examination of programs or other operating details. This is the surest way, we believe, to carry out the intent that the broadcasting system should be directly subject to parliamentary control and supervision.
That particular recommendation of the committee was not accepted. But now the corporation must go to parliament every year for an appropriation for all its operating expenses. We continue to believe that the recommendation of the Fowler commission in regard to financing will be more effective, will not impair parliamentary control in any way but will be more efficient with respect to the future conduct of broadcasting in Canada. I do not think the minister should dismiss these differences between us in respect of this bill as a small matter. They seem to us to be almost fundamental-the fact that the C.B.C. is to go to parliament for all its income, except that which it derives from commercial sources, every year; the fact that the president and the vice president are to be appointed, not on the recommendation of the board but directly by the government; the fact that they would hold office at pleasure for seven years; and the fact that the board of the C.B.C. reports directly through a minister to the government and not through a regulatory board. - '	

IMr. Pearson.]
Surely I have said enough to indicate that there are important differences of opinion between us and those who drew up this bill. We continue, notwithstanding what the minister has said, to hold the view that this bill if it becomes law will not advance the cause of national broadcasting in this country, will not strengthen public control of national broadcasting and will not emphasize, as it should be emphasized, that broadcasting is a national service for national development. We believe, on the other hand, that this bill will leave broadcasting in Canada in a weaker position, from the public point of view-and that is of paramount importance-than it was before it was introduced.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my associates in this group I feel I should explain why we are going to vote with the government against the amendment brought in by the Liberal party. Perhaps the most important factor-and at first glance it appears to be a short range one-is that a six-month hoist coming at this time when we so badly need regulations will be far too damaging to a situation that is very nebulous. We in this group believe that this would open up just another six or eight months of propaganda and warfare especially on the part of the agencies we fear the most in their efforts to hamstring the national broadcasting setup, and I refer generally to the C.A.R.T.B. and the private broadcasters. It seems to me tins would do nothing more than play into the hands of these people.
Our misgivings about the bill have by no means been completely allayed by the minister's statement. We would still very much like to have a statement on the bill and on the government's intention from the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). That may go begging, but we would still very much like to have that statement.
Everything depends on the board of broadcast governors; but who has the choice of picking the board? There is almost an innocence in the reliance of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) on the appointment of the board: wait until the board is selected; everything will depend on it; instructions cannot be given to the board; detailed policy cannot be threshed out because that would restrain the board. But who is going to appoint the board? I believe we all have a good idea who will be the key person appointing that board and he is now sitting in the front benches on the government side of the house. We would all like to hear some words from him as to the direction the board might go. What is the kind of person

he feels should be chosen for the board? That is one of many questions to which we would like to have an answer.
Clause 10 of the bill has been read into the record four or five times today and it does sound pretty good. It is rather difficult to quarrel with it. However, it is not as detailed or specific as the draft bill contained in the report of the Fowler commission. That is why so much is going to be left in an uncertain condition. If the bill goes through without any more detail I can anticipate that we are going to have a dandy guessing game for the next several months. Everyone will be speculating; it will all depend on whom the government appoints; whom does the Prime Minister have in mind; who has been visiting his office lately; thus the speculation will grow.
I wish the government would go a little further in stipulating the kind of things it wants the board of broadcast governors to do. I cannot believe that the government by its choice of personnel is not going to influence the direction of future policy of broadcasting in Canada. That is why we will continue to have our misgivings about this.
The minister indicated earlier that he was giving a complete assurance that a committee on broadcasting would be established at the next session of the house. I should like to put a question to the minister at this time. Will the minister give us his complete assurance now that at the next session of the house a committee will be established and have before it the three permanent members of the board of broadcast governors so an opportunity will be provided to question them as well as anyone else attached to radio including people in the C.B.C. in order to see what the status is early in 1959?


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, when the minister introduced the resolution on which the bill is based a few days ago he was reported by the press as having said that the bill brought about only one major change. To some extent that is correct, but I think that most of us are concerned about the many other changes which will flow from this major change of setting up a separate regulatory body. Radio and broadcast policies have been well established by parliament down through the years and

Broadcasting
they were summarized in the committee report of 1942-43. Perhaps it would be worth while to put on record in this debate the findings of that committee. In its report on Canadian broadcasting made during the session of 1942-43 the committee had this to say:
Your committee would like to preface its recommendations by stating its confidence in the framework provided by the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936. In the reports as well as in debates in parliament, a number of principles governing national broadcasting in Canada were enunciated and emphasized. Your committee now desires to reaffirm these principles as stated in the reports of the committees for the years mentioned in brackets:
(a)	The paramount importance of a single national authority to control all broadcasting in the public interest: (1932).
(b)	The public ownership of all high powered stations under a national system of broadcasting, with low power stations individually operated or co-ordinated in relation to the dominant system; (1932).
(c)	The co-ordination of all broadcasting in Canada through exclusive control being vested in the nationally-owned system of:
(i)	The character of all programs, political or otherwise, broadcast by all stations and of the advertising content thereof; and
(ii)	All wireline networks used for carrying broadcast programs; (1936).
(d)	The independence and flexibility of administration of the national broadcasting authority to be assured by its constitution as a public corporation. Under this constitution decisions as to policy are to be made by its board of governors while administration is to be unified under a general manager, and an assistant general manager, responsible to the board for the conduct of all business of the corporation;-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope the hon. member does not propose to read the entire report. It seems to me that what we are dealing with now is a change in the law as it was at the time that report was made and it would be more appropriate to discuss the principles of the bill before us. If he wishes to apply some principles from that report to this bill, well and good, but just to read it seems to me to be making no contribution.


Chesley William Carter: That is exactly what I am doing because this report actually summarizes the principles.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member do that instead of just reading the report.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Get on the right line.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, the summary of all these principles amounted to a partnership between the national system and the private system, each to be operated and managed in such a way as to complement each other in the public interest. The reason I put these principles on the record is to show that the present bill departs from principles which have been established all through the years and have been approved by every parliament

and every committee since 1932. The bill destroys that concept of partnership completely because under the bill the private stations and networks will no longer be junior partners in a single system but will be competitors. They have been made competitors under the bill and both the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the public system, and the private system are now to be under the control of another body.
That brings up another question as to the exact status of the public system under the new set-up. In the past the C.B.C. has been completely responsible to its board of governors and that board of governors in turn has been responsible to parliament. Now we have a divided authority because the public system will be responsible to this supra-body that is being set up and also to parliament. I think that is a matter of concern because the public system can certainly no longer function with the freedom that it did before.
I should like to say here that we in Newfoundland are very fortunate with respect to our private stations. I think they are second to none in any part of Canada. I would say that they are a splendid example of the private system and the public system complementing each other. I should like to take a moment to pay tribute to the extent to which these private stations go in developing local talent. This is particularly true of station CJON, which has developed a glee club and put on local plays. This station carries many live programs, on both radio and television, which provide a fine op-, portunity for the development of our local talent. The C.B.C. has done its share, too, in this regard. We have had plays performed written by our own Ted Russell, one of our prominent Newfoundland playwrights, who is making quite a name for himself. A couple of Sundays ago we heard a program which was devoted to Newfoundland folklore. I hope I can get a copy of what Uncle Mose said on that occasion because I want to read it to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) and the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) so they will know what Uncle Mose had to say about the post office and the Canadian National Telegraphs in Newfoundland. I hope I can get that before the minister's estimates come before the house.
I believe this is a perfect example of the two systems complementing each other, but we are doing away with that under this bill. There will not be the same compulsion now to complement each other. Under the previous system the private stations had no rights of their own, and that was understandable because the airwaves are limited. They are part of the public domain and no

single person could have any vested right in them. Consequently they must be allocated year after year by the state. Under this bill, the private stations have acquired rights which they did not have before. They now find themselves on an equal footing with the public system. It does not take a great deal of imagination to see that this is not going to work out. I think a system of partnership is ideally suited to conditions in Canada, in our present stage of development. I believe that in 50 or 80 years time, whatever it is, when we have doubled our population and when we do not have as many sparsely populated localities as we have today, there will be a necessity for a change in our system. However, I cannot visualize any conditions under which a competitive system will be superior to a partnership.
On several occasions I have brought to the attention of this house the needs of my own riding and the fact that those needs are not being met by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation today.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member does not intend to bring those needs to the attention of the house again, as he will be out of order.


Chesley William Carter: No, I will have the opportunity to do that when the estimates are before the house. What I do want to point out is that the gap in the coverage which cannot be filled by the public system is being filled by the private system. If we alter this setup now the situation must develop, as our leader explained this afternoon, whereby a private station must of necessity become interested in profit because without profit it cannot operate. These stations, therefore, must be interested in those localities which have the densest population and the best market. I do not see how anybody could administer fairly on a basis that will, on the one hand, give the private station a market in which to make sufficient profit to make their operation worthwhile, and at the same time give the public system a chance to earn its way so that it will not be such a severe drain on our taxpayers.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that even yet the government will take another look at this bill and not force it through the house at this time, but withdraw it and let everybody have an opportunity to see what is in it, formulate their ideas and then at the next session of parliament set up a committee so that all those ideas could be heard. This procedure, I am sure, would result in a much better bill than we have at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?
Broadcasting


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Speaker. May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I was not very happy about this bill when I spoke this afternoon on the amendment and appealed to the government to put off this legislation and to take a sober second look at it. I very much regret that the government did not see fit to adopt the motion which would have made that possible.
As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) has said, in the circumstances we on this side of the house have no alternative but to vote against the measure, and I must say that the minister's defence of the measure made me all the more convinced that this was the right and proper course to take.
The minister made a statement which I cannot allow to go unchallenged. The Leader of the Opposition referred to it, but said he would spare the house quotations from the Fowler report on this point. I am afraid that being less forbearing than the Leader of the Opposition I do not intend to do so. I am not going to quote at length what the Leader of the Opposition quoted earlier today, but I am going to read one or two short sentences which seem to me to demonstrate completely the fallacy of the statement made by the minister. Indeed, I would say that if the minister did not comprehend this part of the Fowler report any better than he seems to have done the others, then it is perhaps not surprising that the rest of the bill bears so little relation to what is recommended in that report.
The minister stated-and if I am not stating his position absolutely correctly I would be very happy to be interrupted and corrected -that this bill was doing precisely what the Fowler commission had recommended, namely setting up a separate regulatory body. The Fowler commission recommended nothing of the kind, and in fact it condemned in the most specific and categorical language the establishment of a separate regulatory board. I read the first sentences on page 134 of the report as follows:
The real objection to the proposal for a "separate regulatory board" is a practical one. It is likely to prove unworkable and is certain to be cumbersome and inefficient.
In other words, the Fowler commission in the most categorical language, using the very

Broadcasting
words used by the minister, recommended against and not for a separate regulatory board. Again, at the bottom of that page and at the top of page 135, appear these words:
As a practical matter, we do not believe you can have two administrative bodies, appointed by the same government and with similar personnel involved in the regulation of broadcasting, without having duplication of expense and effort, undesirable friction between the two, and a loss of efficiency.
It seems to me that that disposes of the minister's claim in regard to what he, I think, described as the fundamental recommendation of the commission being followed by the government. The government has moved in a direction diametrically opposed to the recommendation of the commission, but this fact is at least camouflaged by the use of the language employed by the Fowler commission. The board which the government proposes to set up is described as a board of broadcast governors but it is quite clear that this board of broadcast governors is not going to have exclusive jurisdiction over broadcasting and that is, as I said earlier and as I repeat now, one of the fundamental objections, though perhaps not the most serious one, that we have to this bill.
I think the Leader of the Opposition was not just fearing something intangible when he talked about the dangers in this legislation with respect to our arriving at two different and perhaps competing and conflicting broadcasting systems in this country, and I call as a witness to the fact that this is not a purely theoretical danger the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). The Minister of Finance when he sat on this side of the house was an expert on many things, but on no subject did he pontificate more frequently or with greater apparent authority than on the subject of broadcasting. I have before me Hansard for June 4, 1954 and at page 5521 the estimates of the then minister of national revenue were being discussed and the present Minister of Finance had this to say about the C.B.C.:
But the fact of the matter is that as long as it is government policy to attempt to confine people to one source in this rapidly developing means of communication, television, the effects and influence of which on the minds and lives of people are simply incalculable, we are courting a danger to the very fundamentals of our whole conception of freedom.
Hon. members will note that the minister was talking about freedom, and he continues:
I do urge upon the house that the house address itself to the imminent, pressing perils for Canadians of a policy of monopoly which this government has deliberately followed, has deliberately fostered and to which it still unrepentantly adheres. This policy must be put aside. The government must
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
cease to impose monopoly upon the people. Encouragement should be given, with all the safeguards that are available under law, to permitting people to have alternative sources of communication in this important and rapidly expanding field. The time has come, Mr. Chairman, for a drastic change in our policy in relation to regulation in this field.
And I think that is, of course, what the Minister of Finance thinks he is getting now.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) made a good deal of the fact that, in the last year or two, when we were in office we had been obliged by reason of rising costs, particularly those of television broadcasting, and declining revenue from the excise tax, to make temporary and interim appropriations to the C.B.C. That is true; but those were, if my memory correctly serves me, the only appropriations of that character which were made. In all previous cases the financing of the C.B.C. was done on a basis which did not depend upon annual appropriations, and when these annual appropriations were brought in during the last year or two, the minister of finance of that day and the minister reporting to parliament for the C.B.C. were both very apologetic about having to do this kind of thing. It was primarily for that reason and not to settle the question of a separate regulatory body that Mr. Harris and the former prime minister were so anxious to have a royal commission set up so that this dangerous policy, which we indeed recognized as a dangerous policy-this policy of annual appropriations, which brought the C.B.C. in our opinion too directly under the control of government-could be done away with and something put in its place.
Every device suggested for that purpose was opposed by hon. gentlemen who are now sitting on the treasury benches. I have in my hand Hansard for 1952-53, volume V, and I note that on May 4, 1953, the present Minister of Finance was speaking on the bill to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, which was introduced by Mr. Abbott for the purpose of earmarking the excise taxes on radio and television for the use of the C.B.C.
Perhaps some of the newer members will not recall why that was done. It was done because those taxes were fixed at a definite rate; the government could not control the revenue from them, and the C.B.C. got all that was raised from them. It was a period when people were buying television sets in large numbers; a period, also, when great numbers of Canadians could not have television because they were too remote from the broadcasting stations. The government decided -and I think it was a very wise decision -that the people who were getting the benefit of television should, in the main,

pay for it. This was a very neat way of doing it and one which kept control of the C.B.C. out of the government, because this money went automatically to the C.B.C.
The present Minister of Finance took the most violent exception to this proposal, and here is a small part of what he had to say on that occasion. I would not think of inflicting on the house more than a small part of it.
We are expected, as a sovereign parliament, to trust the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to the extent-
Mark those words-"to trust the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation", that is the attitude, that is the state of mind-of the Minister of Finance.
-to the extent that in the one case we make provision in their behalf for a five-year annual grant in advance totalling $312 million.
That is the Massey grant.
Now we are being asked to turn additional revenue over to them without any future control on the part of parliament over it. Why cannot the alternative and sound principle apply, namely that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation trust parliament to make whatever provision is needed year by year in order to meet the known needs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
In other words, bring it under the thumb of the government. The hon. member for Eglin-ton continued:
That is the issue, Mr. Chairman, which is presented by this section and which can be overcome only by an amendment of the type that I have proposed.
Mr. Abbott, who had a great deal of com-monsense and who had an extraordinary capacity for replying to pompous arguments with rather earthy statements, had this to say as recorded on page 4720:
As to this nonsense about having no opportunity to discuss the affairs of the C.B.C.-
I must say that this is very like the language used by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) this afternoon-
As to this nonsense about having no opportunity to discuss the affairs of the C.B.C., may I say I have been in the house for 13 years, and with the possible exception of wheat-
I draw that to the attention of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue).
-I do not believe any other subject has received such a thorough airing in the house as the affairs of the C.B.C. To use a slang phrase it is pure eyewash to say the House of Commons has not the fullest opportunity to dig into what the C.B.C. is doing and to find out how much money it is spending and to find out how it is spending that money.
We all know that that is perfectly true. We know it is quite unnecessary to have annual appropriations in order to make that true, because there were never any annual appropriations up to the time Mr. Abbott was speaking in 1953. In fact, it has been more 57071-3-259
Broadcasting
true at that time than it has been since the present administration came to office, because although they have made appropriations, up to now they have made those appropriations only by governor general's warrant. Thus there has not been, in the year and two months during which this administration has been in office, much opportunity to consider the finances of the C.B.C.
But there is no doubt that we have the opportunity, and there is no doubt whatsoever that if a scheme of appropriations over a period of years, with minima and maxima set as suggested in various ways by the Fowler commission, for the operating expenses of the C.B.C. there would have to be a bill or a provision in a bill to enable that to be done, and there would be an opportunity at that time of considering it. There would be an annual debate to consider it and, as the Fowler commission very properly suggested, for the capital expenditures, which would be relatively big items about which there might be differences in parliament, there would be annual appropriations and, as the minister very wisely said, if these capital items came before parliament surely some of us would have ingenuity enough to figure out ways for relating arguments on current operations to capital outlays of that sort. If any hon. members should want help as to how to do that I would be willing to offer them a little free advice at any time.
I come back again to this question of financial control. No one on this side of the house is objecting at all to financial control by parliament of the C.B.C. What we are objecting to is financial control by the government of the C.B.C., and that distinction does not yet seem to have penetrated the minds of the occupants of the treasury benches. I will tell the house one reason for our attitude in this regard. The Minister of Finance had something else to say when he was on this side of the house as recently as 1955. I did not get very far in my researches or, no doubt, I would have found a great many more illustrations. But in that year he was talking about the estimates of the Minister of National Revenue. I am only going to quote a little of what he said, but it is very revealing. We all know how flexible the minister is, and how apt to change his mind, but these are his words:
I simply conclude with this. This system, by reason of its developed weaknesses, its inherent unsoundness, its suppression of freedom, its suppression of competition in favour of monopoly and the colossal cost to the Canadian taxpayer, as my colleague, the hon. member for Perth will show, has brought us to the point now in Canada that in this house we are requesting a fundamental revision in policy in relation to radio and television broadcasting.

Broadcasting
So much for the Minister of Finance. I think that before this parliament agrees to make this fundamental change in broadcasting in Canada, a change which affects so intimately the lives of at least 80 per cent of the population of this country, the Minister of Finance, who after all is going to have more control over broadcasting under this set-up than anyone else except the Prime Minister, should come into the house and tell us what his views are and what his feelings are about this matter. It seems to me those quotations I have read give us strong grounds for feeling that to put this corporation and to put the whole broadcasting system of this country at the mercy of the Minister of Finance is not the kind of thing which the Fowler commission had in mind, or the kind of thing which the majority of the people of Canada want.
I said something a moment or two ago about the difference between financial control by parliament and financial control by government. The minister talked almost as though we on this side wanted to prevent debate in this house concerning the C.B.C. We certainly do not. I do not think there is anything healthier than debate about the C.B.C. and I do not see any reason why we should not criticize the C.B.C. in this house if we feel inclined to do so, openly and frankly. What we do not want, and what no person who cares about having a free country wants is to have the ministers in their closets able to control this great agency for the dissemination of objective information. That is what we do not want. It is our duty as a parliament and it is the duty of hon. members in this house not in the government but sitting supporting the government to see that that ideal is upheld.
I appeal at this time, as I used to listen so often to appeals made from this side of the house when I sat on the other side, to the private members in this house to get up and say what they feel about this. Do they feel they want this broadcasting system, the operating part of it, brought under the direct control of the minister administered by two executives who can be fired without notice by the governor in council at any time he pleases? Is that their idea of having an independent broadcasting system in this country?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not mine and I do not believe it is the conception of any person who has any real understanding of freedom, and that, it seems to me, is the fundamental issue here.
So long as we have these annual appropriations, so long as we have these clauses

in this legislation enabling the government to dispense with the executives of this corporation during pleasure, I do not care how pure the government is, human beings being what they are there will be a suspicion. We should not have legislation of that sort. We should remove that suspicion and bring this bill above reproach so these things could not happen.
What is at stake, in my opinion, is one of our essential freedoms. I am not going to transgress the rules of the house but we have been told that before this session ends we are to be asked to consider legislation to guarantee our freedoms. Here is a piece of legislation dealing with one of the fundamental and one of the most important freedoms of all. What do we find? At the present time we have legislation which ensures independence from the government and we are asked to scrap that legislation and substitute for it a measure that will bring the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation under the direct and immediate control of the government in two most objectionable ways. I say that this legislation should not pass and that no one who really cares about freedom should vote for this legislation.
I must say I am not too surprised that this legislation has been introduced. I am a little disappointed that the Minister of National Revenue has been taken in by his colleagues as I believe he has, but I am not too surprised at this legislation.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is the reverse.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh no. The minister did rather a good job of attempting to give us the impression that he had put one over on his colleagues, but after we see how closely the bill corresponds with the prognostications of the Minister of Finance it becomes obvious to us who the real author of this bill is, and it is not the Minister of National Revenue.
I have not often been guilty of quoting myself in this house and as a general practice I do not think it is a very laudable one but it did so happen that on October 19 of last year I made a speech in Winnipeg which I am sure no hon. member heard and in it I had something to say about the subject which is now under consideration. I am not going to apologize for repeating now what I said then because I believe it is completely relevant to this measure before the house. What I said on that occasion was that it was a matter of pride to me that after 22 years of Liberal rule one could travel the face of the globe without finding any other country in which the individual has greater freedom than he enjoys in Canada.
I went on to say that this Liberal achievement of freedom for the ordinary citizen-

and it has been a Liberal achievement-is now taken so much for granted in Canada that we have other parties claiming that they are really more liberal than the Liberal party, and we had a demonstration of that, of course, in some of the observations made by the Minister of National Revenue with respect to this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member intend to relate this particular speech to the bill before us?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh yes, Mr. Speaker. As you will see, sir, it is very directly related to it. I will spare you the reading of a paragraph that is not related to it although, since it refers to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), I am sure that most hon. members on the other side of the house would be very pleased to hear it.


An hon. Member:: Oh no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What I said was that in some of his campaign speeches the Prime Minister deliberately played down the name of his own party and played up his so-called liberalism, and we of the Liberal party can only take that as a compliment. And then I went on to say that the proof of that pudding would be in the eating. I suggested that we Liberals-and I did not mean just the Liberals but all Canadians-had better keep our eyes on what the Prime Minister does without being distracted too much by what he says, and I believe that is very good advice for every one in this country.


An hon. Member:: What about March 31?


John Whitney Pickersgill: To show you that I am not taking too long to come to the subject, I said one of the first places we Liberals had better watch for attacks on freedom was in the field of radio broadcasting. I was censured for making that statement. The Ottawa Journal picked up a report of this address and said there was nothing to this suggestion, that it could never happen; but it is happening right now. I went on to point out that so great has been the freedom of speech and the freedom to criticize in this country that in recent years our national broadcasting system has given more time and more scope to critics of the government than to defenders of the government.


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: There were a lot more of them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said that we as a government never tried to change that and I indicated that 1 made no complaint about that then. But, I said, we Liberals must be vigilant to see that the same freedom to broadcast is maintained under the Tories as 57071-3-259i
Broadcasting
prevailed under a Liberal government and today we see that it is not being done.
I might say, sir, that the next paragraph refers to freedom of trade and gives the same warning. Considering the legislation that is to be called after this bill it will be seen I was not very wide of the mark last October.
There is one respect in which 1 quite agree with the Minister of National Revenue and with the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). I thought at the resolution stage, as did my leader, that we ought to have this legislation go to a special committee. I thought we ought to call witnesses and give them an opportunity to present their points of view. But, sir, I did not expect this kind of bill. I expected a bill roughly in accord with the recommendations of the Fowler commission. I expected we would have something in the package to resemble the advertisement on the cover but we have something that is entirely and completely different, even in the one respect which the minister called fundamental and with respect to which he said the government had followed the recommendation of the Fowler commission report but which I have shown to be the exact opposite. It seems to me this bill is so far beyond redemption that it would certainly not be practical in the time that any special committee could meet in this session to call the witnesses that would be necessary.
I suppose, in the circumstances, if we cannot persuade the government even at this late stage to stop this folly, to arrest this measure where it is now, to go on to the next item of business and to come back to this next year-this fundamental change, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) has said, in one of the most important measures for the national development of this country -we can be outvoted. We know that and we expect we will be. We will do our best in committee to have a few ameliorations to this bill but ameliorations will not make it satisfactory. It is fundamentally wrong in the three respects pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition. It is fundamentally wrong because it has two boards instead of one and thereby threatens to establish two systems instead of one. It is also fundamentally wrong because it brings the corporation directly under the control of a member of the government instead of under the board which always in the past insulated the operating side of radio from direct intervention by the government. In the third place it is wrong because of the financial structure that is suggested.
It seems to me that with legislation of this kind-if the majority insist on putting

Broadcasting
it through-the only thing to do is to take the issue to the eventual arbiters, and I predict that the day will come when this wrong turning will be regretted on the other side of the house as well as on this side, and we shall all want to go back to a system where there is genuine independence and genuine freedom and the guarantee of it in broadcasting.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I think in deference to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) who has just given an exhibition of histrionics that we would expect from him on this occasion, I at least should pay him the compliment of replying very briefly.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


George Clyde Nowlan: The trouble with the former minister, the spokesman of the Liberal party, is that he certainly is disappointed. He is disappointed because, as he pointed out in Winnipeg, this was one of those foreboding experiences. He has been foreboding so long that he is just foreboden now and he is ready to explode. He expected a bad bill-


An hon. Member:: And got it.


George Clyde Nowlan: -and the bill is so good that he just cannot control himself; that is the whole thing. You know, the children of Israel we are told in the Bible many years ago that when they were in captivity in Egypt they had to make bricks without straw. Well, my hon. friend over there has been trying to make bricks without straw in connection with this bill and did not as well as is told us in the Bible.
Of course, anybody can quote from the Fowler commission report. You could probably take any sentence out of context, but he attempted at the beginning to say that this board of governors was something which was not recommended or contemplated by the Fowler commission. I read this excerpt from the report the other day but in view of the histrionic display just put on I think I should read it again. I am reading now from page 91 of the Fowler commission report:
The other public agency in the Canadian broadcasting field should be a board created and authorized to act for parliament, and responsible to parliament, for the direction and supervision of the Canadian broadcasting system. This board should have responsibility for all elements in Canadian broadcasting. It should not, we suggest, be part of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its members should not, as in the present statute, comprise the corporation.

That is the statute under which we have been operating up to the present.
This board is not part of the C.B.C. and should not be referred to "as the board of governors of C.B.C.". We suggest that a new board, differently named, should be created by statute. The name we use in speaking of this agency is "the board of broadcast governors".
That contemplation, that vision, if you call it that, a term bandied around here a great deal lately, that recommendation of the Fowler commission has been accepted entirely by this government except for the fact that we have full-term personnel, three out of 15, instead of voluntary ones. I doubt whether there are any hon. members in this house who were prepared to go down the line of that phase of the Fowler commission report.
Reference was made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), or by someone else, to an article in the Journal by I. Norman Smith. No one would ever suggest that he was a critic of the C.B.C. or opposed to it. Mr. Norman Smith said that you could not accept that recommendation of the Fowler commission in so far as part-time officials were concerned. It is a great prospect. I do not think it would work. We put full-time men in there, three out of 15; we have 12 part-time men.
The absolute bankruptcy of any criticism of this bill on the part of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is illustrated by what he did. He did not discuss the bill; he tried to try the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) on statements he made three or four years ago; he tried to put the Minister of Finance on trial. If that is the only criticism he could level against this bill, then it is a better bill than the other government brought in when they were sitting on the treasury benches. This bill is commended by both the radio league and officials of private broadcasting as well. It does not please everyone in every detail; it does not please me in every detail. No bill will ever please everyone; but it is a direct and honest effort made by this government to try to solve this problem which has been hanging over broadcasting for 15 years. It is not perfect; there will be mistakes in it. Undoubtedly, defects will be found, as I said the other night.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I think earlier in the day, referred to the history of the 1932 bill, or was it the Leader of the Opposition? He said that a royal commission had made studies and had held 45 meetings, and so on. I happened to be speaking to the gentleman who happened to be the vice-chairman of the board after it was appointed and he said that at their first

meeting, despite all that time-and time should be spent; time is always desirable- they found two sections of the act which were absolutely unworkable, and they had to improvise something in their place.
This afternoon the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate referred to something he had said when he read the bill. I did not catch exactly what he said, but he said it reminded him of the Austria-Hungary empire; in other words, two parts, I presume, which could hardly function together, but that empire functioned for more or less a century. I would also remind him of the very distinguished member of the ancient Liberal party, one Goldwyn Smith, who said at one time that the federation of Canada was like a walnut; that it could not work, could not function. But Canada has functioned; Canada has worked; Canada is a nation. Anyone looking at the British commonwealth or at our system of government would say that it would not work. They would say that it was impossible, but it has worked. We know it has worked and we are proud of it. It is the same with this bill, Mr. Speaker.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Impossible, but it will work.


George Clyde Nowlan: It will develop. Undoubtedly there will be faults in it. I am not suggesting for one moment that it is perfect legislation, or anything of that kind; but I do resent any suggestion that it is bringing the C.B.C. under government control or that it is attempting to make a political football out of the C.B.C., or anything of that kind.
We had a great deal of talk about those two men who are to be appointed at pleasure, but there is also a seven-year term, which is a fairly good indication that barring something absolutely inefficient, the seven years apply.
We have heard a great deal of talk about the absolute independence of this board of the C.B.C. I happened to look at the old act and I found that the general chairman of the board of governors of the C.B.C. was appointed for good behaviour, but it also says he shall be paid such annual salary as this nefarious creature, the governor in council, shall determine. He was appointed for a period of years. In other words, under the system of which we have heard so much boasting this afternoon the chairman of the board of governors of the C.B.C. was appointed at an annual salary that could be cut to $1 if the governor in council saw fit so to do. And yet they say we are trying to exercise some control. I am not suggesting that they did but I have heard it suggested. Certainly, no valid suggestion can be made against this government that it is attempting
Broadcasting
to exercise political control because of the fact that two men happened to be appointed for a period of years; but if there is inefficiency, then they can be removed. That is, I think, a sound business principle which should apply to any organization and I am quite sure that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is prepared and expects to measure up to that and if they fail then they would expect to be dismissed.
I have just one more reference and I am through. The Minister of Finance was put on trial by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I want to tell him through you, Mr. Speaker, that this year this Minister of Finance has provided more money for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation than any of his predecessors who are now sitting on the other side of the house provided when they were over here. That is the answer in so far as the Minister of Finance is concerned. He has provided millions of dollars more this year than have ever been provided before.
As I said, they are disappointed because they expected something would be done to impair the C.B.C. seriously but instead they find that steps have been taken to strengthen and develop it. This afternoon and this evening we have had an exhibition of partisan histrionics not worthy of this bill at this time I say again that it is a good bill, a bill far from perfect but which will be improved as time goes on, a bill which given good personnel-and it is the determination of the government to appoint good personnel-will result in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the private broadcasters going along together. This great public agency, whose worth and the need and necessity for whose independence I appreciate just as much as any man sitting on the other side of the house or any man in Canada, will be preserved and maintained. Members who take part in the passing of the bill now should feel that they have contributed materially towards the development of broadcasting in Canada.


George Clyde Nowlan: There is no significance. The other act, of course, dealt with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and this is dealing with broadcasting in general. Therefore, the name was changed so that the act may be cited as the Broadcasting Act. There is no significance to the change.


George James McIlraith: The other act deals with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as does this one, and it seems to me a much better way of doing it would be to call this act the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1958, so that there would be some way of distinguishing the two acts.


George Clyde Nowlan: Of course, Mr. Chairman, there is also the fact that the same policies continue and that the Radio Act is also maintained, and there are some questions of conflict between the various statutes. That was the reason why it was thought by the draftsmen, in which view I certainly concur, that there should be a differentiation.


Mr. Crestohl:: I would like to ask the minister what prejudice he can possibly see, since we are dealing with broadcasting in Canada, against the title being the Canadian Broadcasting Act? Is there any such prejudice and, if there is none, would not the title Canadian Broadcasting Act abundantly cover the fact that it deals with broadcasting in Canada?


Hubert Badanai: When I rose to speak on this subject this afternoon I wanted to speak about certain television programs, and I very much regret that I was prevented-
Badanai Batten Boivin Bourget
Brassard (Lapointe)
Caron Carter Chevrier Crestohl Denis
Deschatelets Dumas Dupuis Forgie Gour
Bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, this is a very small matter but I notice the minister has dropped the word "Canadian" out of the name of the act. What is the significance of that?


Charles Edward Rea: I must remind the hon. member once more than he cannot go into programs.


George James McIlraith: With what are we dealing?


Hubert Badanai: Would the Chairman advise me when I may speak on programs, because I think this is very important?


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member may discuss the mechanics of the programs but not the individual programs.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order. Does the chair not think that since we are discussing an act dealing with a board of broadcast governors we are therefore authorized to discuss matters under the jurisdiction of those governors and that programs would come under clause 1? It seems to me that this is the place where programs could be discussed, otherwise the hon. member is ruled out from discussing a matter which is of extreme importance to him and to the house.
- The Deputy Chairman: I would remind the hon. member that he may just discuss the mechanics of the programs. I do not see how
++NAYS
Messrs:
Habel
Hardie
Houck
Deduc
Macnaughton
Mcllraith
Me William
Mitchell
Pearson
Pickersgill
Ratelle
Richard (Ottawa East)
Roberge
Rouleau
Tucker-30.

we could go into a discussion of individual programs. This covers the over-all field of programming, and the mechanics that go with it.


Leon David Crestohl: On the point of order. The hon. member attempted to discuss this subject on second reading of the bill, Mr. Chairman; you then told him he could not do so, and he is now attempting to discuss the matter on the first clause of the bill, but you have again ruled that he cannot do so. Would you please point out under what clause he will be able to discuss the subject in the way he wishes to?


An hon. Member:: At the resolution stage.


Charles Edward Rea: I do not think the chair should be put in the position of having to say when hon. members may discuss things. There are discussions which come up, of course, as all hon. members know, and I can only refer the house to Standing Order 59 (2), which I am sure all members know pretty well by heart:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
We are discussing a bill entitled the Broadcasting Act, which does not go into individual programs. It goes into the mechanics, I grant that, but does not go into the individual programs, and that is the point I am making.


Leon David Crestohl: May I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to section 11 (b)? Would you be kind enough to look at that?


An hon. Member:: We are not on that.


Leon David Crestohl: While I am not asking you to prejudge the situation-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Leon David Crestohl: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman. I see only one chairman in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Leon David Crestohl: While I am not asking you to prejudge the matter, I would like to know whether you think under section 11 Ob) the hon. member will be able to discuss the subject of programming itself?


Hubert Badanai: I am quite willing to accept your decision, Mr. Chairman, and I will speak on item 11 (b) when I come to it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might make an observation on this point?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would invoke what used to be called behind the curtain the "Howard Green rule." For years when the leader of
Broadcasting
the house sat on this side of the house he argued, generally very successfully, with Your Honour's predecessors that anything remotely connected with a bill could be discussed under clause 1. While I have not had the opportunity to look up the numerous quotations, I think you could look at almost any committee stage on any bill in which the hon. member was interested-and as he was a tenacious fellow there were lots of them- and it will be found that he maintained his position. I am sure he will support the hon. member for Fort William in relating his remarks to this clause.


Howard Charles Green: I always had a much better
case to argue.


Charles Edward Rea: I think all hon. members will realize that the last thing the chair wants to do is to stop anything from being said on a subject about which hon. members may speak, but we could not get into a discussion of all the individual programs right down the line. The hon. member can talk on the mechanics of programming or on the standards of broadcasting, but cannot go into the individual programs. He can talk about standards, I grant that, but those are just regulations, that is all.


Leon David Crestohl: How about the standards of the programs?


Charles Edward Rea: That is under regulations.


Hubert Badanai: It is quite evident that I will be prevented from reading the editorial which is based on the program I wished to discuss, and which is of the utmost importance to my constituents. Am I to be prevented-


Leon David Crestohl: No, go on.


An hon. Member:: Are you the Chairman?


Hubert Badanai: I would like to ask the minister to tell the house who is responsible for some of the atrocious productions-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hubert Badanai: -such as the one which appeared on Saturday, August 16, and which inspired the editor of the Fort William Times Journal to write an editorial which I sincerely trust you will allow me to read:
Last week the world president of Rotary visited Fort William. He is an American from Milwaukee, an idealist who heads an international organization devoted to the cause of building goodwill between peoples of all nations. Warmly received here, the distinguished gentleman radiated friendship.
At the same time he was being welcomed In the city, labourers in the vineyard of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at Toronto were putting the finishing touches on a production which was waved into the living rooms of Canadians from coast to coast on Saturday evening.
In the name of comedy-

Broadcasting


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hubert Badanai: I continue:
-Duffy and his supporting actors staged a scene in which a cigar-smoking "smart" American from Milwaukee browbeats an innocent Canadian. The latter comes out of a supermarket, arms loaded with parcels, to discover that the Milwaukee man has crashed into his parked car. The American, abetted by a brassy wife, is shown-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Charles Edward Rea: I would like to know how the hon. member intends to relate this to the bill. He is talking about the context of programs and I do not think I can allow him to continue along these lines.


Hubert Badanai: I thank the Chairman and I shall abide by his ruling. In any event, the editorial says that the standard of some programs, though not all of them, is very low indeed. Surely the responsible minister should take effective measures without delay to ensure that such objectionable programs are not forced on the people of the country who are paying the bills, because such presentations should not be tolerated.
If this, even though it may be rare, is a sample of what the C.B.C. is going to approve in the name of art and entertainment, then I say that the advent of television, instead of being a blessing to humanity has turned out to be a monster. If we are to tame this monster for the benefit of Canadians then it appears reasonable to suggest that we should give serious and deep study to the programming of this powerful medium of communication, entertainment and education.
With respect to present radio and television programs serving my constituency, I find that they are adequate and meet the needs of our people. As far as I am concerned, I am quite satisfied with the one channel available at the lakehead, and with its management who are always ready and willing to co-operate with organizations in the promotion of worthy causes which are beneficial to the people of the lakehead district. However, we are concerned about certain types of programs, and I think it is the duty and responsibility of the minister who is answerable for this corporation to see that a certain standard is maintained.
That is the point I wanted to bring to the attention of the committee and I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having been given the opportunity to make it.


Mr. Benidickson:: I refrained from speaking on second reading for a very deliberate reason. In some of the remote areas of Canada we are particularly interested in the future of television. I felt that the minister would at this stage have some of his advisers before him, as is customary; I do not expect
IMr. Badanai.]
that the minister, with his study of the broad questions which are involved will be able to answer in a specific way questions about Kenora-Rainy River.
However, this is a typical section of Canada which is very concerned about television. The Prime Minister spoke in Kenora during the election campaign and I think he used Kenora as a platform for an address which received national attention. At that time he indicated his interest in new stations in areas not now served by television but which yet had populations that deserved attention. I wonder whether the minister, in the absence of his officials, could indicate to this committee and to myself whether or not there is a program intended for Kenora-Rainy River in the near future with respect to television, largely on the satellite basis and largely on the basis of the report of the royal commission with which I think he is well acquainted, the page reference being 221 of the report?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not want this to be taken as a precedent, because I am not prepared to answer too many specific questions, but I happen to know something of this case because I was interested in the satellite expansion program, and I can tell the hon. member that this is included in the C.B.C. budget for this year. I am not sure whether the work will be completed during the year or not, but at least the hon. member has the satisfaction of knowing that the Kenora-Rainy River area is one in which there is to be immediate construction of a satellite television station.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to follow up the point made by the hon. member for Ottawa West. I am not quite satisfied with the explanation which the minister has given concerning the dropping of the word "Canadian" before "Broadcasting Corporation" and I want to appeal to him to give this matter consideration. I am almost inclined to think it has been forgotten in the act. After all, if one looks at the old act, the act of 1936, one sees that it is entitled "The Canadian Broadcasting Act" and there are, in the pages that contain the act, a large number of references to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as well as to the act, using the word "Canadian". I am almost tempted to move an amendment to clause 1, but I do not want to divide the committee; I do not want at this time to delay the proceedings and the discussion of this bill. I simply put it to the minister in this way: will he not give consderation to implementing the suggestion made by my hon. friend from Ottawa West by inserting the word "Canadian" before the words "Broadcasting Act" and

adding the year, 1958, so that the citation would read: "This act may be cited as the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1958"?
It seems to me that this would not affect the terms of the act at all but on the contrary it would simply carry on the name which this corporation has had for many, many years.


George Clyde Nowlan: I must say that the suggestion is one which, naturally, would appeal to anyone, the inclusion of the word "Canadian". Of course, all acts are Canadian. The reason for its omission is the fact that we have now two corporations under this statute. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is carried on as heretofore; in other words, there is no change in that. The name is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. But there is also a board of broadcast governors, and this bill deals with both. There was one thing which I was anxious to show, and it is something which the committee will, I am sure, appreciate. I wanted to show that this board of broadcast governors was independent, and not merely a part of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Therefore we kept the name "Canadian Broadcasting Corporation" but we did omit the word "Canadian" from the title, and it was done for that reason. This is an act respecting broadcasting. Had we done otherwise we might have had the same confusion as there has been in the past and we want to avoid that.
I am certainly prepared to give this point consideration and it may be, after this thing has developed, and after the practice has grown up, that we can have the word reincorporated, but I do think that at the moment, because of the separation of the two boards, it would be unfortunate if we called this a Canadian broadcasting act; it would simply be assumed that it dealt with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On this point, the minister will not have forgotten that the Fowler royal commission, in appendix 11 of its report, did draft an act respecting broadcasting and that this act was based on the recommendations of the report. Those recommendations dealt not only with the C.B.C. but with the proposed board of broadcast governors, and in this draft the Fowler commission chose as title for the bill "The Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1957".


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, just one comment arising out of the minister's remarks. As I understood him he said this is what the Fowler commission recommended.


George Clyde Nowlan: No, Mr. Chairman, if I stated that I certainly did not intend to do so. I
Broadcasting
believe I said the Fowler commission recommended that the board be separate from the C.B.C.


George James McIlraith: Yes. I just wanted to draw to the minister's attention the quotation he used in his closing remarks on second reading as found at page 91 of the Fowler commission report. That was preceded by a sentence and I think I should read it while we are dealing with this point:
The existing Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, with minor changes in its statutory powers and organization, can be this agency.
And then he went on with other remarks.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I simply rise to obtain an explanation as to the proper procedure in discussing this bill. I have several matters to bring to the attention of the minister concerning relay stations, television, licensing and other matters. I have endless questions waiting for him. I understood we were discussing the principle of this bill and the matters within the compass of this bill. If we are going to have a general discussion on matters such as I mentioned and as commenced by the hon. member for Fort William, we will all have a go at it. But I am restraining myself with great difficulty in the hope I will have an opportunity of bringing these matters before the minister when his estimates come up.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is what I would prefer because when my estimates come up I will have the officials of the corporation here and it will then be easier to deal with questions concerning such things as the licensing of relay stations. If we get through this bill I hope my estimates will be up by Wednesday or Thursday of this week and I shall gladly deal with those questions at that time.


Charles Edward Rea: Hon. members
will realize that when the estimates are before us they will have an opportunity to bring up these matters and receive an explanation from the minister. That would be the proper occasion on which to raise such questions.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Definitions.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, would the minister inform me about a point in connection with this clause. I am not a lawyer and I trust he will appreciate my difficulty in this respect. The word "licensee" is defined to mean a person licensed under the Radio Act to establish a broadcasting station. Under the terms of this act would the definition of "licensee" include the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?

Broadcasting


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes. Speaking offhand, Mr. Chairman, I would say so. I would think the C.B.C. has had to receive a licence from the board of governors. I am not sure what the practice was in the early days when stations were licensed but I presume the corporation would be a licensee according to the terms of the act and that the licence was granted, as it still is, under the Radio Act.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the part of the bill having to do with the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport, there is a clause covering it but I see nothing in the definition to indicate that the minister with reference to the rest of the act is the Minister of National Revenue. Is it the intention of the government that television and broadcasting, save and except that part having to do with radio, will be under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Revenue?


George Clyde Nowlan: There was no decision made with respect to that whatsoever, Mr. Chairman. The Radio Act has not been amended, as the hon. member will notice. The draftsmen felt if they started to amend the Radio Act there might be many consequential amendments and so the Radio Act has been left intact. It may be that as time goes on and perhaps at some future session amendments will be made to the Radio Act. Under the Radio Act, as the hon. member for Laurier well knows, it is the Minister of Transport who recommends an applicant for a licence and that is why the Minister of Transport is specifically named in so far as the granting of a licence is concerned, because there has been no amendment to that act. There may be at the next session, I am not too sure about that. The minister in charge of part I of the bill, that is the board of broadcast governors, and the minister responsible for the C.BiC., are ministers designated by the governor in council.


Lionel Chevrier: Is it so indicated in the bill?


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, it is set out specifically in each clause. You will find a clause to that effect in each part of the bill.


George James McIlraith: Does the C.B.C. now require a licence for each station it opens?


George Clyde Nowlan: Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I cannot answer that question. I will have to obtain the information. I assume it does. It will have to get a licence for new stations under the board of broadcast governors.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I wonder why it was necessary to repeat in clause 21 some of the interpretations found in clause 2? Why is there not just one interpretation clause incorporating all definitions?
[Mr. Pearson.1


George Clyde Nowlan: As hon. members know, Mr. Chairman, lawyers are a very cautious race of people and particularly those who have spent many years in drafting legislation. As a matter of fact, there are two distinct parts to the bill. If one wanted to do so he could cut the bill in two and have two separate acts. The draftsmen thought it was better to have absolute repetition of the definitions in both parts of the bill and that is how it was drafted.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Board established.
Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, would the minister be good enough to explain the reasons behind the fact that the permanent members will be appointed for seven years and the other members will be appointed for lesser periods without the precise term being stipulated? Although five years is mentioned, further on in this clause it is indicated that the appointment may be for a term of less than five years.


George Clyde Nowlan: The purpose of having the term of less than five years is to provide for the original, initial appointments so that you could stagger them and not have all the members retiring at the same time. A member could be appointed for two, three, four or five years. You will notice there is a provision that a member may be appointed for an additional term. It would then enable them to be appointed for a full term. This provides a continuity of officers. If all members had to be appointed for a period of five years you would have them all retiring on the one date. As the hon. member will appreciate the practice has grown up of staggering or rotating appointments and retirements.
As to the term of seven years, I suppose you could put your hand in a hat and draw out some other number. We wanted something to go on. We felt it should be more than five years. Men in the prime of life, or in middle life, coming here and giving up their occupations whatever they might be and accepting a position in Ottawa for a five-year term with one repeat and having to retire at age 70-they have to retire then anyway-might not be attracted by such a proposal. We thought it might not be too inviting and so it was decided to make a little longer term for the permanent officers with the thought and hope that it would perhaps assist in providing the type of personnel you might not get on the basis of a five-year term.


Leon David Crestohl: Would the minister explain why the non-permanent members are not eligible for re-appointment? I wondered if

it was merely to make it possible to distribute the kudos a little more widely?


George Clyde Nowlan: That is another of the recommendations of the Fowler commission which we have adopted. I believe it is simply to provide that there will not be too much permanence on the board, that members will not continue forever, as it were. In this way we will be able to reach out and bring in Canadians from across Canada. That is why the appointments are staggered and why they will not all be retired at the same time.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask two questions. In the first place, it is easy to understand that two of the full-time members will have positions, but what is in mind for the third full-time person who will not have a position? We will have to imagine him or her in some kind of administrative set-up. We would assume that either the chairman or the vice-chairman would be a French Canadian, and the other an English-speaking Canadian. What about the third person? Why was an extra one selected?
The other question I want to ask relates to subclause 9 of clause 3. Does this rule out the possibility of any members of the present C.B.C. board of governors becoming members of the board of broadcast governors under the act?


George Clyde Nowlan: Subclause 9?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Subclause 9.


George Clyde Nowlan: I will have to look into that before giving a definite answer. As to the reason for the three, it was felt that this national board representing, as the hon. member says, the nation as a whole, groups and various divisions, should consist of three fulltime members here to sit on that board. Although it is true that one can be chairman and the other vice-chairman, the third would simply be a permanent member representing some of the areas of Canada. Also, of course, on the executive committee there are the three permanent and four part-time members.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, this particular provision which has been referred to by the hon. member for Port Arthur has caused some of us a good deal of worry. The minister will recall, of course, that the Fowler commission did recommend that there should be 15 part-time members for periods of five years. All members of the board under that commission recommendation would be part-time members. I am not quarrelling with the decision of the government to depart in principle from that recommendation, but I am worried about the way in which that departure has been made. If this bill becomes law we will have on this board of broadcast
Broadcasting
governors 12 part-time and three full-time members. They will also differ in their tenure of office, as has been pointed out. The fulltime members are appointed for seven years and the part-time members for five. There is another difference. The part-time members may serve only two consecutive terms, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Cartier, and then may not be re-appointed before a lapse of 12 months, while the three full-time members may serve as many terms as the government wishes. There is no requirement as I read the bill for a period of time to elapse before re-appointment.
What worries us in regard to this particular matter is the development inside this board of a-and I say this without offence-hierarchy of full-time members who will in fact be the dominating influence inside the board and who have been distinguished from the other members of the board in the ways which I have mentioned. This worry of ours is increased by the fact-and the minister mentioned that these three full-time members will serve on the executive committee which will be the day to day governing body for broadcasting in Canada, and the quorum of the executive committee is fixed at five.


George Clyde Nowlan: Not the board of broadcast governors.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The executive committee.


George Clyde Nowlan: Of the C.B.C.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of the board of broadcast governors. If the minister will look up his bill I think he will find that is so.


George Clyde Nowlan: Clause 9?


George James McIlraith: It is at the top of page 4.


George Clyde Nowlan: I beg your pardon; that refers to the quorum.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The quorum of the executive committee is five, and since there are three full-time members of the board they could constitute a majority of the executive committee.
I can understand the chairman being appointed as a full-time member but I am worried about the appointment of three as full-time members. You might even make a case for the vice-chairman because he would have definite functions to perform as vice-chairman of the board, but this third member of which my hon. friend has spoken does seem to me to be in an anomalous position. He is one of this group of three who will have very great influence in directing this board but he seems to have no particular duties to perform. I suppose he is the third force among the permanent members of the board.

Broadcasting
We feel that if there is to be this distinction between part-time and full-time members-I can see the desirability of the distinction, perhaps, for the chairman,-it should not be brought any farther than is necessary. That is why we regret very much these other provisions which seem to emphasize and broaden the distinction between the full-time and part-time members. It does underline the danger which was mentioned this afternoon of this trio, the chairman, vice-chairman and the third member, becoming in fact a kind of hierarchy inside the board. I wonder whether the minister can reassure us on that point.


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not know just how much my assurances will reassure the Leader of the Opposition. I can understand that he would have some concern over that clause. It is an obvious one and one which I think quite justifies his raising the question which he has. He will notice to start with that the executive committee consists of seven. That was inserted deliberately so that the three- if there was to be any suspicion of them- would not have a majority on the executive committee. I misunderstood him a few moments ago because I thought he had referred to the executive committee. He is perfectly right in saying that the quorum can be five.
Now that is the situation. I think the only answer there, Mr. Chairman, is that if we select the people who should be selected for this executive committee-and I am assuming, although this does not necessarily follow; it is not limited in the legislation-they will be selected from this area, Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa; in other words, adjacent to Ottawa, and I would think that they should and usually would be in attendance at all meetings of the executive committee. That provision for seven was put in there deliberately so that there would be a majority of parttime men and women, if they came to the meeting.
The Leader of the Opposition says that these people will become a hierarchy. I hope not. I do not think they will if the right personnel are appointed. But I ask him, what is the alternative? If we had accepted in full the Fowler recommendations and had all part-time people on the board, I ask him, what would have been the result? I think it is a fair estimate-one can only assume things-that the secretariat, the permanent officials of the board, would have been the hierarchy and would have run the board and the part-time people coming in and going out would have been more or less, we will not say under the control but very strongly influenced by the permanent secretariat, the bureaucrats, to use perhaps an unfortunate phrase, of the board. That we want to avoid at all costs.

With all due respect to the secretariat, we think that the board should be run by Canadians who are selected for the purpose, rather than by officials who happen to be passed by the civil service commission and come to that board. As between the two, the secretariat which might even become the hierarchy and the three members of the board, I think the Leader of the Opposition will agree that perhaps this was the better alternative, although here again it depends on your personnel. It depends on experience, and there can be no guarantee of perfection whatever system is chosen.


George James McIlraith: Will the minister at some time clear up the point as to whether or not the existing members of the board of governors of the C.B.C. are eligible for appointment to the board of broadcast governors under this bill?


George Clyde Nowlan: I would have to get the advice of the Department of Justice on that. I will do that.


George James McIlraith: It is a fairly important point which should not be left hanging in the air. I appreciate the fact that the minister may not be able to answer it at the moment.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, in connection with the point I brought up before, it was subclause 6 I wanted the minister to look at rather than subclause 9. It seems to me that the second part of that subclause may rule out a member of the C.B.C. board of governors from becoming a member of the board of broadcast governors. I refer to the words "partner or otherwise". Take the case of a member of the staff of a university which owns a radio station. If you wanted to take a very narrow interpretation you could rule out such a person from becoming a member of the board of broadcast governors. I can think of several people who might be ideally suited and who would be ruled out on that ground. Could that not be made more specific?


George Clyde Nowlan: On that score I am quite sure that a university professor who was associated with a university which operated a broadcasting station would not come within the definition "engaged in the business of broadcasting or has any pecuniary or proprietary interest". Therefore I do not think you need to worry at all about the university professor. The question raised about the broadcast governors is exactly the same question as was raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West. I have my own opinion on it but it is not my opinion that will govern and, as I said, I will get a ruling from justice with respect to that point and give it either on the bill or on the estimates, depending on the progress we make with the bill.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Does the minister mean he has his own legal opinion on it or simply his own opinion as to the rightness of it?


George Clyde Nowlan: My own legal opinion but you are not interested in that.


George James McIlraith: There is one other question I want to raise. I take it it is quite clear that a member of the board of broadcast governors could not also be a director of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, or is that clear?


George Clyde Nowlan: I would hope so. If it is not, I can assure the hon. member that it will never happen as long as I am minister. I assume it is clear because there has to be an absolute divorce of the two.


George James McIlraith: I hope the minister will not misunderstand me if I tell him that in reading the bill before us I find some difficulty in understanding it in relation to his remarks. It seems to me that the bill is much broader than anything he indicated in his remarks, and that is what is bothering me.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, may I tell the minister at once that while not convinced I was impressed by his observation a few minutes ago on the composition of the board. He asked what we would have done. If I had had any authority in the matter I think I would have preferred to have a full-time chairman and the others all part-time. He suggests that if there were no full-time members or perhaps only one there would be a danger of the board falling into the hands of a secretariat of bureaucrats, as he called them without offence. But I suggest to him that when people are appointed for seven years and given a salary they are bureaucrats or will perhaps soon become bureaucrats in the best sense of the word.
I would also point out to the minister that in this clause all members of the board are appointed to hold office during good behaviour and that under subclause 7 no member of the board can be removed except on address of the Senate and House of Commons. That seems to me to be a very desirable provision in the legislation and is one reason why we are worried about the non-application of these two provisions-we will come to that later- to the board of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
While I am on my feet may I ask one further question about subclause 6 which has already been touched on by other hon. members. Under this provision a person who owns shares in a film company, perhaps a Canadian subsidiary of a United States film company, which happens to own a broadcasting station in Canada would, I take it, be disqualified from serving on this board. Would
Broadcasting
anybody who owned shares in a press association or chain of newspapers also be disqualified by ownership of shares in that press chain from sitting on this board if that press chain or corporation also ran a broadcasting station?


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not prepared to give a legal opinion on such a set of facts. As my hon. friend knows, every set of facts varies slightly one from another. All lawyers know that. I think a person would be very reckless to attempt to give a legal opinion today which would be of no avail anyway because if this matter were dealt with administratively it would have to be dealt with by justice and if it went further it would have to be dealt with by the courts. But I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that the words "directly or indirectly, as owner, shareholder, director, officer, partner or otherwise"-


George James McIlraith: It is the "otherwise".


George Clyde Nowlan: -are very broad and will preclude many people from taking a position on the board. There can be no question about that. I do not want to try to give a legal definition of the area as to who is going to be excluded and who is going to be included.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But either the minister or some other minister or the Prime Minister is going to have to recommend certain names to the governor in council and the governor in council is going to have to appoint these people. Therefore it does seem to me that since parliament is being asked to make this enactment we should know precisely what this provision is supposed to mean. Would, for example, a shareholder in Canadian General Electric, which probably makes and sells parts of radio apparatus, be excluded or would somebody owning shares in Canadian Investment Fund, which might happen in turn to own some shares in Canadian General Electric, be thereby excluded? It seems to me that this is very vague and very far-reaching indeed and that perhaps it would be worth while to take another look at it for it might turn out that about the only people who will be eligible in the country will be farmers, fishermen and the unemployed.


George James McIlraith: What about people engaged in the distribution of radio apparatus? Chain stores distribute radio apparatus. Would this apply to employees of chain stores? You can reduce this clause to an absurdity to illustrate the point I am seeking to make. It does not seem to be precisely or carefully worded. Perhaps the minister would give us what help he can. The clause causes me concern because taking certain illustrations one can see how easy it is to reduce it to an absurdity.

Broadcasting


Leon David Crestohl: I think the minister as a lawyer is very sound and wise when he says that he will submit this discussion to the Department of Justice for a legal opinion. That is indeed very desirable. May I also suggest that when he does so he point out that it would be desirable that members of the present C.B.C. board should not be excluded from becoming members of the new board in order to retain the continuity he spoke about a few moments ago.


Lionel Chevrier: May I bring clause 8 to the minister's attention? It seems to me to be so clear that I bring it to his attention in a particular way. The marginal note reads "duties of full-time members" and the clause reads as follows:
A full-time member shall devote the whole of his time to the performance of his duties under this part.
You might just as well have said that a full-time member shall work full-time. Is it necessary to include that clause? Does the minister not think that rather the duties of the members should be outlined and explained because there is not a word said about their duties other than that they are to work full time?


George Clyde Nowlan: The clause is put in there, of course, to make it plain that they shall not have any other occupation which is taking any of their time but shall devote their full time to the board. It can be expressed in various ways but the purpose is to make sure of that one salient fact. I think these men are going to be very busy at least for the first two or three years with meetings of the board, drafting regulations and dealing with licence applications, particularly if the government should determine as a matter of policy at some future time to restrict the present one channel outlets. I can see where there is going to be a great deal of business both for the full-time and the parttime members. You will notice somewhere else they are authorized to travel and hold meetings in other places. I certainly do not want them doing anything else, anyway.


Lionel Chevrier: Is there any definition other than that contained in this subclause 8 of the duties of the members of the board? I should like to say a word in connection with that.


George Clyde Nowlan: Clause 10, of course, relates to the general powers of the board. I have referred to that several times today. Then, clause 11 enumerates all the regulations

which the members of the board shall consider, debate, enact, promulgate and carry into effect.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to discuss these clauses before we come to them. Are the duties of the board going to be pretty much the same as they are now?


George Clyde Nowlan: So far as the C.B.C. board is concerned; that is the regulatory powers.


Lionel Chevrier: What I have in mind at the moment is an application for a radio station or a television broadcasting station. I presume the application will be made to the Minister of Transport in the usual course. It will be cleared by the Department of Transport in so far as the technical aspects are concerned, and then it will be forwarded to the board of broadcast governors who will consider this application and any others that may come before it at a public meeting?


George Clyde Nowlan: That is right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It has just occurred to me to wonder, since the hon. member for Laurier referred to this subsection providing that a full-time member shall be a full-time member, if I may abbreviate it, whether or not that would preclude these full-time members from being directors of any corporations. It does seem to me that is a point that ought to be made clear in this legislation one way or the other. Of course, some of the part-time members would be the kind of people who would be directors in other corporations. I would think there would be nothing improper in that. However, I wonder if any of them should be directors in advertising agencies. This might be just as serious a disqualification, perhaps more serious, than connection with a radio apparatus distribution firm such as Canadian General Electric or some other company that is rather remote from broadcasting.
In view of some of the debates we have had in previous sessions, it would be a good idea to determine whether or not these fulltime members can be directors of any company, especially any company from which they receive any remuneration and for which, I presume, they are expected to provide some service.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does this subclause 8, in effect, prohibit any form of moonlighting?


George Clyde Nowlan: Absolutely.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.﻿AUGUST 25, 1958
On clause 5-Chairman chief executive officer.
Lester Bowles Pearson: On clause 5, I return to the question of the chairman, vice-chairman and third member of the board on this executive committee. This clause says:
The board may authorize one or more of its members to act as chairman for the time being in the event that the chairman and vice-chairman are absent or unable to act or the offices are vacant.
Surely it would be normal, and should have been included in the bill, to state that if the chairman or vice-chairman are away the third full-time member of the board would act as the chairman. Under this clause any other members of the board, even a parttime member, could be authorized to be chairman of the board for the time being, overlooking the third full-time member of the board.


George Clyde Nowlan: I think that is true; it could happen. I do not believe it would, but after all this board will know these people. They are sitting on the board and working together, not just today but for months and years. I think it is safe to leave it to the board to designate, in the expectional circumstances which are recognized here, the member who is to act as chairman. They may want to choose somebody else. It may be the third full-time man may be ill or away. This clause does not prohibit him from being chairman. I would think in almost any circumstances which we could reasonably foresee they would be apt to name the third man to act as chairman during the time the others were ill or away.


Leon David Crestohl: I understand the chairman is to be appointed by order in council, and it would seem this clause would mean that the order in council could only be passed once because you leave it to the board of governors to appoint a chairman after that. Am I correct in my reading of the section that you only appoint a chairman by order in council the first time and after that the board can appoint a chairman if the chairman should pass away?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the minister had better allow this clause to stand.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is another legal question we will let justice answer.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall the clause
carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. I do not want to make this observation in any critical sense, but it has been the custom in the past when legislation of this character is being discussed for the minister to be assisted by officers from
Business of the House the Department of Justice to enable him to clear up these points. We are being asked to legislate here and we are not getting answers to questions such as the one just asked by the hon. member for Cartier. It is a proper question and the answer should not be left in an ambiguous state if there is any way of resolving it. It does seem to me the minister could ask that this clause stand until he can get advice on it and make a reply.


Lester Bowles Pearson: All of this shows how much better it would have been if we had been able to send this bill to a committee.


George Clyde Nowlan: I thought the hon. member for Cartier was facetious, Mr. Chairman, and I am sure he was. The clause says "for the time being". Of course, you do not need a ruling from justice on that. Under these circumstances the board may authorize one or more of its members to act as chairman for the time being, in the event that the chairman and vice-chairman are absent or unable to act or the offices are vacant.


George James McIlraith: The minister dealt with subclause 3, but what about subclause 2 which says:
If the chairman is absent or is unable to act or the office is vacant, the vice-chairman has and may exercise all the powers and functions of the chairman.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is a normal provision, I would think, that the vice-chairman acts in the absence of the chairman or in case the office becomes vacant and, for the time being, exercises the duties and responsibilities of the chairman until such time as a chairman would be nominated to succeed him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business is for tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow, we shall continue with this debate, then take item No. 1 on today's order paper, the house in committee on the amendments to the Railway Act; then, order No. 7, second reading of the bill to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act; then, item No. 5, second reading of a bill to authorize the construction of a bridge across Lubec channel between the province of New Brunswick and the state of Maine; then we will take item No. 11, the resolution respecting the South Saskatchewan river project; and then item No. 3, second reading of a bill to amend the Customs Act.


Lionel Chevrier: And on Wednesday?

Business of the House Mr. Green: I am not yet in position to say what we will do on Wednesday; it depends on what progress we make tomorrow. The plan is that the first estimates to be considered this week will be those of the Department of National Revenue.


Lionel Chevrier: Will that be on Wednesday or Thursday?


Howard Charles Green: It may be on Wednesday or Thursday.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: Hon. members had better be prepared for both days.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, Augusl 26, 1958

[Stage Direction]
Fifteenth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. McCleave.