1958-07-14

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Friday, July 18, 1958, and on every Friday and Saturday thereafter until the end of this session, the hours of sitting shall be as follows:
Fridays
11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and 2:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., and 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.;
Saturdays
11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and 2:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.;
That the order of business and procedure on Saturdays shall be as for Thursday (government day); and that the provisions of standing orders 2(1) and 6(3) be suspended in relation thereto.


Mr. Argue:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister is going to make a statement in introducing his motion?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the statement I intend to make will be quite short. I know from long personal experience that the lengthening of the sittings to a six-day week makes it a trying experience for all members of the house, and I did realize that situation when I introduced this motion. Each year, however, it becomes necessary, as we begin to arrive at a point when we can look forward with some hope to the end of the session, to introduce a motion similar to this.
I think I should say a word or two with regard to the industry and the application of members generally in the discharge of their responsibilities as members of this house. Like the weather, the shortcomings of politicians provide a never-ending subject for discussion, and we receive selective treatment from time to time in that many feel there is not that degree of application which there should be with respect to the responsibilities of our official positions. With that viewpoint I entirely disagree. I know there are exceptions to every rule, but I know of no other group of public servants or people generally who more diligently and honestly devote themselves to the discharge of the work that is theirs in the interests of the public welfare. In saying this I believe, however difficult and trying it is for those who devote themselves with earnest application to the problems which come before the house and in committees, that the time has now come to make this motion.
57071-3-138
The legislative program as forecast in the speech from the throne has not been entirely carried out. In addition to those matters which are already on the order paper there are a number of matters which are in process of being made ready for placement on the order paper. There are therefore quite a number of matters which still require to be considered. I would be the last to in any way endeavour to unduly activate members into getting on with the business, but I feel that the committees to which assignments of estimates have been made should make a special effort to report on their examination of such estimates at the earliest possible date, so those estimates may receive the further consideration of the committee of the whole house.
It has been suggested by a number that it might be a good idea to adjourn until the fall. I feel that generally speaking hon. members would like to see the business concluded before adjournment. That is the objective and the purpose of the government and, I trust, of members in general. The matters that are still to come up are of singular importance, but I feel that with the extension of the hours of sitting of the house to the degree set out in the motion, a first step will have been taken to ensure the completion of the agenda with the greatest dispatch without-and I emphasize this-in any way doing anything that will savour of pressure being applied to bring about an early end to the session.
I do believe that if this motion is passed- and I commend it to all members in all parts of the house-it will be the first step along the road to the termination of the session after the completion of the business in hand.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we of the official opposition do not intend to oppose this motion, which in its terms does not go quite as far as some of us had been led to believe it might.
We are as anxious-perhaps not as anxious as the members of the government with the additional responsibilities they have to bear- but we are as anxious as other hon. members of the house to conclude the business of the session with the least possible delay. It is true, of course, that with the number of committees now sitting, together with the work that has to be done in the house itself, a very considerable burden is imposed on all members of the house and particularly on members of the opposition groups, but I should

Business of the House
like to reassure the leader of the house that we are not complaining about that.
One way in which the business of the house could be facilitated and, I think, expedited, would be to have it more effectively organized in advance so that we might know in advance what we are going to deal with. I recall, and I am sure hon. gentlemen opposite recall, the words of the former leader of the Conservative party when he sat on this side of the house as leader of the opposition, when he was accustomed to reproach the government in season and out of season, two or three times a week, because, he said, we had not organized our work properly. I commend his words to hon. gentlemen opposite at this time. If they would give us a little more advance notice of what is coming up perhaps we would be able to play an even more effective part than we do now toward expediting and facilitating the work of the House of Commons.


Hazen Robert Argue: We in this group intend to oppose the motion, because we feel that we have not yet begun to arrive at a point when, as the Prime Minister said, we can look toward the end of the session.
I think the job of members of parliament is to come here and to arrange the business of the house and perform their duties in such a way as to give each item the consideration that it warrants. I feel that this being the first full session of parliament since 1956, the time has not arrived when we should endeavour to speed up the session as is contemplated by this motion.
I have examined the motions that have been presented in sessions gone by which provided for an extension of the hours of sitting of this house, and I believe I am correct when I say that since the end of the war-and that is as far back as I have gone- such a motion has never been brought in during any full session of the house at as early a date as that at which the present motion is being put forward.
In 1946 almost five months of the session had gone by before a motion was brought in to extend the hours of sitting. In 1947 over five months had elapsed before such action was taken. In 1948 over seven months had gone by before such a motion was brought in. The present session is barely two months old, yet a motion to extend the hours of sitting has already been presented. In 1951 the session was almost five months old before a similar motion was presented. In 1952 four months had elapsed, in 1954 seven months had elapsed, in 1955 six months had elapsed, and in 1956 approximately six and a half months had elapsed before the motion extending the hours of sitting was brought down.

As a matter of fact I think we are a long way from the point where we can really say we see the end of the session as far as business being dealt with by the house is concerned. Almost all the estimates have still to be brought before the house. Only the estimates of the Department of Public Works have been dealt with at any length, and I do not believe that consideration of even that department's estimates is yet completed. As far as the work outlined in the speech from the throne is concerned we have barely scratched the surface. Among other things the throne speech referred to a bill of rights. I do not know if the government intends to go forward with its bill of rights, but that certainly has not been brought before us.
The throne speech forecast further amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act to be introduced at a later stage of the session. Such items as the construction of a railway to Great Slave lake, the provision of roads for development in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, the South Saskatchewan river project and the proposal respecting the establishment of a new agency to regulate broadcasting in Canada and to ensure that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and privately owned broadcasting stations work effectively together have not been introduced. The new National Capital Act, the act to provide for cash advances, amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, the Canadian Farm Loan Act, the Ticket of Leave Act and a number of other pieces of legislation forecast in the speech from the throne and to which I have not referred in detail have not been brought before us.
There are a great many committees of the house now sitting. Today a meeting has been called of the committee on railways, air lines and shipping to sit at 9.30 a.m., 3.30 p.m. and 8.00 p.m. A meeting of the committee on mines, forests and waters has been called for 10.30 a.m. The estimates committee is meeting at 11.00 a.m. At the very time when hon. members of this house are exceedingly busy with a great many committees that are meeting we have brought before us a motion of this kind, and still the estimates must be dealt with during this session.
I am quite prepared to work as many hours as I am able to during a given week, and I believe that is true as far as all hon. members are concerned; but I also feel that we should be given a chance to work as efficiently, and effectively as possible. It would seem to me as far as the deliberations, of the house and meetings of committees are concerned that five full days, starting in the morning and going through to evening sessions on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, makes a very full week.

As far as week ends are concerned, as far as Friday evening and Saturday are concerned, most hon. members spend that part of their time in preparing and briefing themselves for the work of the week ahead.
I do not think hon. members can give the estimates proper scrutiny, I do not think they can deal with legislation as carefully as it should be dealt with, if they are to be put under the kind of pressure that comes from sitting six days and four evenings a week, along with morning sittings of a great many committees of this house.
I do not understand the government putting this kind of pressure on members of the House of Commons so early in the session. Because not since 1956 have we had a full session of parliament, I think this kind of motion should have been delayed until the session had been going on for four or five months, as was the case when other similar motions have been presented during similar sessions in the past.
For many years members of parliament were paid a sessional indemnity. At that time it was assumed that a session would be short. For a short period of time members would leave their normal occupations, come to Ottawa and deal with, public business. But after sessions had become much longer the whole basis of pay of members of parliament was changed. We all agreed that it was an improvement. Today members of parliament are paid each and every month of the year. I believe that step was taken to pay members on a yearly basis because it was recognized that being a member of the House of Commons is really no longer a part time job; it is a full time job, and it is the kind of job that takes between five and six and close to seven months of the year in Ottawa during a session properly to discharge the work that is put before the House of Commons.
We are opposed to this motion, Mr. Speaker, as I said, not because we expect it will mean any more work for our group- I do not see how it could-but because we feel that members of parliament generally are now working to maximum capacity, and it is the kind of pressure that makes it impossible for members to do the work of the house as they should. If after another week or two the government should bring in another motion to extend further the sittings of this house it would make a mockery of parliament itself, because how is it possible for members to do the work on committees and carry on the sittings of the house on an extended basis and still be able to say in good conscience that the work has been dispatched carefully and with consideration?
57071-3-1384
Business of the House
The government, along with the Leader of the Opposition, should be doing a better job of planning the work of the session itself. When this motion is dealt with and after the orders of the day are called we shall be considering a fifth supply motion. The rules in the rule book provide for six supply motions during the session. When a few years ago the number of supply motions was limited to six, it was then understood that those supply motions would be brought in periodically so that periodically throughout the session members would have the right to raise grievances before supply was granted. There will only be one further supply motion left after the one set for today has been dealt with. The whole purpose of supply motions has been abrogated and sidestepped. The rights of members to raise grievances before going into supply will be removed. That is one way in which planning has not been adequate or even within the spirit of the rules.
The rules also provide for six private members' Mondays. If we are in sight of the end of the session, as the Prime Minister says, I wonder whether it is the intention or hope that the session will end some time before all private members' Mondays have been called and that by cramming the session into a short period of time private members' days will not be proceeded with. I for one believe that these rules were placed in the rule book only after careful consideration, and I believe they should be complied with in spirit as well as in letter.
It would seem to me that the government is showing undue haste by presenting this motion for extended sittings now, by speeding up the calling of supply motions and by leaving the whole question of private members' days very much up in the air. Because we believe in a more careful and diligent study of public business, Mr. Speaker, we in this group intend to oppose the motion.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, in looking up the discussions that have taken place from time to time when motions such as this have been brought forward by the government of the day I find it has been the usual practice for the prime minister to give a detailed statement of the legislation expected from then until the end of the session. I note particularly that the Prime Minister, in his former capacity as leader of the opposition, did ask similar questions from time to time of the then prime minister.
Before the motion is put on this occasion, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would not give the house some indication of what legislation is likely to be introduced from now until the end of the session. There is no way of stating at this time how long the

Business of the House
session is likely to last, but in view of this motion this is the beginning of the end, I think the house is entitled and will want to know what is in the mind of the government with reference to future legislation.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is arranging to get the details to reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Laurier. I intend to take but a few moments on the motion to deal with some of the points raised by the hon. member for Assin-iboia. The weakness of his argument is apparent when he says that this is the type of session which should last for six or seven months. That would mean until November or December. I suggest that any such plan would be not only unwise but also unreasonable.
Let us turn our minds back to what has happened within the last 18 months. A session was held in the spring of 1957 when the former government was still in office, and a portion of the business for 1957 was completed at that time. I believe the whole 10 days were allowed for the debate on the speech from the throne. Other time was allowed for supply motions and a certain amount of time for private members' days. I do not remember the exact number of days, but all the preliminary work involved in a regular six-month session was done at that time.
Then there was the election in June and the new parliament met in October. At that time again there was a 10-day debate on the speech from the throne. We had a certain number of supply motions. We had a number of private members' days. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, this provision for six two-day supply motions and for six Mondays plus two Thursdays for private members was designed for an ordinary session of the duration of six or seven months. But we have not been in that position at all, and we are not in that position today.

This impossibility of arriving at an agreement on any short-cuts is the responsibility of members of the C.C.F. Today we would have been debating external affairs had the government and the official opposition been able to carry out what they wished to do, but the eight members of the C.C.F. in the corner would not agree. They would not

agree to waive one of the private members' Mondays in order that we could discuss external affairs.


Mr. Marlin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Murdo William Martin: Will the minister permit a question?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Murdo William Martin: Will the minister inform the house how often the Conservative opposition used to pass up the privileges of the opposition when they sat on the other side of the house?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, on many occasions we made arrangements with the government on what seemed to be a reasonable basis, just as the official opposition have been willing to do with us in this session. Here we have the situation that eight members are insisting on having far more time than that to which their numbers would entitle them, and are being absolutely unfair to the other 257 members in the house. It really amounts to obstructionist tactics.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not according to Beauchesne.


Howard Charles Green: Here we have the proposal made today that this session should go on for six or seven months. I believe the vast majority of members of this House of Commons believe that their duties as members are not confined to being in Ottawa for 12 months of the year. They have an equal responsibility to be out in their constituencies meeting the people they represent and finding out what are the problems which face their people.
This procedure would be absolutely impossible if the plan put forward today by the leader of the C.C.F. were followed. This house would continue in session. There would be no adjournment for the summertime. He did not provide for any adjournment; oh, no, he said six or seven months. That takes us right into December. Then the government has the duty of calling a 1959 session probably in January, and certainly not later than early February, in order that next year's business may be done. Incidentally I may say that we hope to be able then to get the business of parliament back on the regular basis whereby work would be finished within a period of six or seven months, all the provisions for full supply motions and private members' days could be carried out and the business of the house completed in the ordinary manner.
Mr. Speaker, I have never yet known it to be possible to conclude the business of this

house without sitting extra hours. That certainly was the case when we were in opposition. We did not like having to sit extra hours any more than the hon. member for Assiniboia likes it, but how many hours has the house been sitting thus far? It has been sitting 25J hours a week. Nobody is being overworked by sitting for those hours. This proposal which the government brings forward today is to add 7J hours, so that even if the motion is carried we will be sitting only 33 hours a week, certainly nothing about which there should be a great deal of moaning and groaning.


Mr. Winch:: How about the rest of the work?


Howard Charles Green: I am coming to that matter.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Would the minister permit a question there?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


George James McIlraith: I am sure the minister did not intend to leave the impression that members work only the number of hours indicated by him as the sitting hours of the house.


Howard Charles Green: If hon. members will read this motion carefully they will find that we have not interfered in any way with the work of committees. We have not touched any time when committees have been sitting. The only time we are taking is Friday evening and Saturday, so there is not the slightest interference.


George James McIlraith: I think I did not make my question clear.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, yes.


George James McIlraith: I gathered the impression that the minister was inadvertently doing something he did not intend to do, namely that he was creating the impression that the members work only the number of hours during which the house is in session. I am quite sure that was not his intention.


Howard Charles Green: I have been here a long time and I know, just as well as everybody else, that some members work hard and some members do not. That is the way things will be no matter whether we sit 24 hours a day seven days a week or whether we sit one day in seven. It is largely a matter of the conscience of the members. Some will work and some will not. This statement applies to all parties. No party has a corner or a monopoly on the workers or on the people who do not believe in working quite so hard.


Harold Edward Winch: So you give favours to those who do not work.
Business of the House


Howard Charles Green: If the motion should be carried and the house should sit Friday evenings and Saturdays, that time, in so far as it is possible, will be devoted to considering estimates. Until 1955 we always sat Friday evening, we always considered estimates and we always made good progress.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: I mean the former government made good progress.


Mr. Pickersgill:: The minister's memory is failing him.


Howard Charles Green: This rule was changed because the majority of the members of the House of Commons lived within a short distance of Ottawa and they wanted to go home for the week ends. Let us have no misunderstanding about that matter. I do not blame them. I would probably be the same if I lived near Ottawa. The rule was changed so that we sat from 11 o'clock to one o'clock on Friday morning, thereby taking away one day for committee sittings, and we did not sit on Friday evening. As a result members from the far west and those from the far east had to sit around here all week end, unable to do any business, because the majority of the members wished to go home.
The result, of course, was that the sessions lasted that much longer and the arrangement was unfair to those who lived a long way from Ottawa.
The government today is only asking members to sit to consider estimates on Friday nights and Saturdays; nobody is going to be hurt. If a lot of members want to go away for the week end, let them go; but I do not believe very many will do so. I believe that the sense of responsibility among the members of this house is so great that a comparatively small number would not be here to do the business of the house on Friday nights and on Saturdays in the same way they would be here on any other week day. We are not infringing on the rights of parliament. We have great respect for the rights of parliament. We have experienced in the flesh what it means to have those rights interfered with.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is the conciliatory approach needed to get the business through quickly.


Howard Charles Green: This proposal brought forward by the government today is, I submit, a reasonable one, which I hope will be supported by the majority of the members of the house.

Business of the House


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arlhur):: The Prime Minister in his introductory remarks was kind enough to say some good words about members of parliament as a group. When I heard this buttering-up, Mr. Speaker, I knew the blow was going to fall later on but I would like to do a little buttering-up myself in relation to the performance of Conservative members.
This is a new House of Commons and we have a tremendous number of new members who are receiving their initiation. There are a great many committees now meeting. One of the epithets which the Prime Minister hurled at the Liberals a few years ago was they were a collection of trained seals; in fact, I believe this term acquired the dignity of no longer being considered unparliamentary. I think with respect to the untrained seals we have at the present time, we have pretty good evidence that the performance of Conservative backbenchers both in the house and with respect to their fairly active part in committees is an improvement upon the performance of the Liberal backbenchers when the Liberals were in office.
This indicates that there has been a real interest on the part of Conservative backbenchers during this session, and I would suggest that those members are going to suffer just as much as are the members of the smaller opposition groups by the introduction of these extended hours.
I would like to raise another point, which I think is important, and that is that in my opinion the members from the far west and far east of Canada have been carrying the burden and will be doing so even more under these new hours of sitting. The Minister of Public Works can say that the members from these areas do not like to lie around here on the week ends doing nothing, but from my own observations of these members they have been the ones who to a great extent have carried the load in this House of Commons, especially on Fridays and Mondays. They look forward to a break at the week end as much as anyone else in order to do their office work, and it is always remarkable to me to find so many western and eastern members around the house on Saturdays and Sundays catching up on their work and their studying. I would say that the present motion would make their difficulties even greater.
I am particularly interested in the official opposition's attitude toward this motion. This seems to stem from the fact that in recent months there has been a good deal of castigation with respect to the Liberals by the press. They have been criticized for their poor attendance during the last session and previous sessions. This is the only explanation of which

I can think for the stand announced by the Leader of the Opposition.
I would like to point out that the factors which make us object to this measure-which make us obstructionists, if you will-should be just as important to the official opposition, because it is much easier for the members on the government benches to carry on the work in committees than it is for opposition members. It has been particularly difficult for members of this group to cover all the committee work. I think the Liberals' conduct with respect to this particular motion, in consenting to go along with it rather than vote against it, can only be explained by the fact that their consciences must be bothering them and they are afraid of a renewal of comments in the press on their performance in parliament during the recent past and the amount of work carried out by them.
We have just had two election campaigns and recently a high pressure session. These provide further reasons for taking a fairly slow pace at the present time, in my opinion, because I can think of nothing more exhausting for members of parliament than election campaigns. Why increase the pressure now by means of extra hours at the end of the week?
In closing my remarks I would like to refer to some remarks of Hon. George Drew when he was a member of the opposition in this house with respect to this particular point. The Minister of Finance discovered last year, when he mentioned to the house the tremendous number of hours he was working, that he got scant sympathy from the house and from the country. We get very little sympathy by telling people how hard we work. I do not want to express either personally or on behalf of this group or on behalf of members of the house any similar complaint, but these are the words of Mr. Drew which I would like to leave with hon. members for their consideration. On January 2, 1955, as quoted at page 4344 of Hansard, Mr. Drew said on a motion to extend the hours of the house the following:
I do not think it is in the interests of parliament to convey to the public the idea that we are prepared to accept hours which will deny appropriate attention to public business merely in an effort to get out of here by the end of June.
If I might interject, it seems that this is what the Minister of Public Works implies; that we could not possibly stay here until the end of November or December but that we must get out of here as quickly as possible.
If the public business demands that we stay longer, let us stay longer.
And this is the point I wanted to emphasize:
Let us make sure, however, that we follow a course that is within both the physical and mental capacity of hon. members, having regard to the

immense amount of work still before us. Let us also be sure that we do not disregard the impression that would be conveyed by a very sparse attendance while billions of dollars of public funds are being voted.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has built quite a reputation over the past couple of years as the champion of the rights of parliament. In fact I believe he has built up for himself the reputation of being the very symbol of the rights of parliament in this country. We therefore find it very difficult to reconcile that picture with the motion now before us. He has for long maintained that the most important thing in parliament is that the opposition should have the opportunity and privilege of functioning properly, in fact that parliament must always be ensured of such an opportunity.
While on this side of the house the Prime Minister on many occasions pointed out that the proper functioning of parliament depended just as much upon Her Majesty's loyal opposition as it did on the government itself, if not more. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, though he did hedge round the question as to just how many times the Conservative opposition passed up their rights, would find, if he took the trouble to look through Hansard, that it is not very often that members of the Conservative party when they sat on this side of the house left any stone unturned to ensure that their opposition was a vigorous one and was going to do a job. Actually the duty of the opposition is not only a privilege; it is a duty. The opposition is duty bound, by the form of government we have, to study, examine and criticize proposed legislation and to suggest any alternatives to government legislation which is introduced in the house.
We have at the present time the smallest opposition we have ever had and certainly this is a time, if ever there was a time, when the privileges of the opposition should be protected with great care. I have noticed several occasions during this very session when this house has been divided on a question and when there were more than enough government members missing on a vote to have outvoted the combined opposition if we were all present. And this is only in the short period during which we have been sitting so far. What will happen from now on if we are going to have to sit Friday nights and Saturdays is anyone's guess, but the fact remains that half or three-quarters of those on the government's side can take their week ends off, but not so the members of the opposition. If we are going to do the job which it is within our power to do and which we are in duty bound to do, we are going to have to attend in the future, as we have attended in the past.
Business of the House
As was pointed out by the hon. member for Assiniboia, this is the earliest time in any session on record, I believe, that such a motion has been introduced into the house.
I wonder if it is only pure coincidence that the earliest record of such a motion coincides with the greatest government majority that has ever been seen in the parliament of Canada. We feel there is no need of this motion at the present time. There may be need of it in the future, and if a time comes when it is needed, that will be another matter. But we feel that at the present time it constitutes an imposition on the opposition which they are physically incapable of meeting. I note that at the present time we have to try to go 30 hours a day in order to try to get 24 hours in, and with this in mind, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskam-ing (Mr. Peters), I should like to move the following motion:
That the resolution be amended by eliminating the words "and Saturday", and by eliminating all the words after "10.00 p.m." up to and including the words "Thursday (government day); and", and also by eliminating the words "2(1) and".


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to alter the motion by eliminating the provision for Saturday sittings. I listened to the Minister of Public Works with great interest, and I was somewhat dismayed at the attitude he seemed to take. I can remember the Minister of Public Works of old when he fought very tenaciously to protect every right enjoyed by hon. members under the rules. This attitude seems to have changed and, speaking in the house today, and referring to the 10 days taken in discussing the speech from the throne in 1946, 1956 and 1957 and in the session earlier this year, he said that 10 days were allowed, as though the government were in charge of the time provided for discussion of the speech from the throne. The minister went on to say that he had found in talking with the C.C.F. that there was no possibility of arriving at a short-cut. I do not think it is our job to arrive at short-cuts. I do not think that is the duty we have in this house. And the minister said, after we had failed to agree with the requests which would remove on a temporary basis our rights as provided under the rules, that members of the C.C.F. group wanted more time than our numbers entitled us to have.


Some hon. Members:: Isn't that true?


Hazen Robert Argue: The rule book of this house applies to every hon. member with equal effect, and all we have been asking the government to do-


Mr. Cardiff:: Do you feel that all members of this house are not getting an equal opportunity?
2192	HOUSE OF
Business of the House


Hazen Robert Argue: All members of this house
have an equal opportunity until the government starts using its majority and cracking the whip in order to take away those rights. As a matter of fact, in asking that private members' Mondays be maintained members of this group are asking that the rights of the Conservative backbenchers, who have most of the motions, should be protected.


An hon. Member:: We will look after ourselves.


Hazen Robert Argue: We have rights under the rules, as have all members of this house, and I do not feel that the Minister of Public Works should talk about hon. members being allowed 10 days for the debate on the address.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member a question? Surely he realizes that in making a statement of that kind he is being very unfair. All I pointed out was that there have been three debates on the address within the last 18 months, each involving 10 days- allowed by the rules.


Hazen Robert Argue: All right, we have got it
amended now, it is allowed by the rules. But in each case where there was a debate on the address there was a different government in power. Since when does a debate on the address during one session have any bearing at all on the number of days used in a debate on the speech from the throne in another session? The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) contends that because in the last couple of years there have been three debates of this kind, that constitutes something of a background statement which would entitle the government to consider that this session is something of an extraordinary session. I repeat the statement I made earlier that this is a regular session of parliament, that we have before us the whole of the estimates, and that, as the first session in a new parliament, it should be the attitude of the government to co-operate in every way possible to allow full discussion and to allow the full time provided under the rules for both private members' Mondays and for motions on going into supply, and with regard to all the other rights of the House of Commons.
I can tell the Minister of Public Works that we intend to resist at every stage-certainly during what we consider to be the early part of the session-any move that would make it more difficult for hon. members to accomplish all their duties.
We do not agree that this is an extraordinary type of session, that it should be a short session or one which should be wrapped up quickly, nor do we agree that only two months after the session has started this kind


of move for the extension of sittings should be brought in. We say that the rule book is clear on the subject. It provides for a certain number of supply motions, a certain number of private members' Mondays and certain hours of sitting of this house. On the basis of the practice in the past we believe that the provisions in the rule book are such that they should be upheld and changes should not be forced on the house at this very early stage.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to say that we do not feel we can support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin). The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) expressed certain surprise that the official opposition did not take the same line he was taking in his speech. I suggest that perhaps the reason the official opposition did not take the same line as the hon. member for Port Arthur is that the official opposition has had the experience and the responsibility of carrying on the government of this country and expects to have it again, and that one's attitude to the deliberations of this house and to the work of parliament is unquestionably affected by considerations of that kind.
If the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) had carried out the intention that we understood the government originally had to take away the time in the mornings on ordinary sitting days and thereby interfere with the deliberations of committees-and I think with my leader that there are too many committees trying to sit at once at the present time for the efficient operation of parliament -we would have joined with our friends to my right and to your left, Mr. Speaker, in resisting this motion but I do not think they have made out a case for refusing to sit on Saturdays.
I agree with the leader of the house-and this is about the only respect in which I do agree with what he said-that we should spend some time in our constituencies if we hope to represent our constituents properly in this parliament. I feel that if by sitting on Saturdays we can dispose of some of the estimates of some of the departments we are justified in doing this. But I do not feel it is any reflection on parliament if every one of the 265 members is not present when the estimates of each of the departments-for instance, the Department of Fisheries-are being considered. I simply give that as an illustration and I consider that as important a department of government as there is.
If we are going to do our duty in this parliament that does not mean all of us have to be in our places in committee of supply when the estimates of every department are

under consideration. There has to be some division of labour, and I use the term in the classical sense. It seems to me perfectly proper for the house to sit on Saturdays, at this stage of the session, in order to consider estimates. I would hope that the government would not attempt to do anything else but take up estimates on Saturdays, because to attempt to proceed with legislation on Saturdays would be an abuse of what the government is asking us to do. For the purpose of taking up the estimates it does not seem to me that a case has been made against the proposal of the government.
I must say there was one other thing with which I agree in what the leader of the house said and that was his indirect and implicit commendation of the way in which Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Harris conducted the business of this house when they had charge of the leadership of the house. If the hon. member will look at the comments he made regarding the first session of 1957 he will see that he paid them a high compliment, but I am afraid I cannot reciprocate. It seems to me that the leader of the house is still, in spirit, on this side of the house. He is far too provocative. He does everything possible to obstruct the business of the government. As a very young member to a very old member I would suggest to him that he try to get through his head that he has won two elections and that he now sits on the government side of the house and is the leader of the house and therefore he should attempt to be conciliatory if he wants to get the arrangements of the house made in a fashion to expedite business-


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have the floor, sir.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? Does he mean I should give him some of the public works projects he listed recently?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, sir, my mind does not move in the same way in which the hon. gentleman's mind moves. I was merely talking about the arrangements of the business of the house. I would not feel that there need to be any mixing up of the consideration of the matters before the house and the business of the house. It does seem to me we would be a lot better off in this house if we had a little more conciliation, a trifle more planning and order and somewhat more forethought about the arrangements of business for the house than has been the case. I say again-somewhat reluctantly because while I admit I am new in opposition I would like to oppose the government-it does seem to me that, on this particular occasion, there 57071-3-139
Business of the House
is sound justification for asking the house to sit on Saturdays.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I too, would like to be able to return to my constituency. I too, would like the opportunity of seeing my wife, my three children and my five grandchildren. I stood as a candidate for election as a member of the House of Commons of Canada to deal with policies, revenue, expenditure and law. I rather anticipate, if I know my constituents at all-and I think I do-that those who sent me down here expect me, when I rise to my feet in this house or when I speak in committees, to have some knowledge of what is before the committee or before the house for discussion.


Mr. Palleil:: You had better get to work, then.


Harold Edward Winch: It has already been pointed out by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) the number of hours the House of Commons sits. Although it has not been elaborated upon it has also been indicated that many hon. members of the house spend a considerable length of time each week attending committee meetings, too. It is possible, of course, to speak on issues that are before the house or committees without research, study or consideration but that is not the practice of hon. members in this group nor will it ever be. In addition, and especially if you happen to be like many of us, hon. members representing constituencies 3,000 miles from Ottawa, there is a great deal of correspondence all of which must be dealt with. Also, there is a great deal of research that must be undertaken when the government brings in a bill or a motion. As far as we in this group are concerned, we want to study the proposals, analyse them, do research on them and come prepared either to the House of Commons or to one of the committees knowing what we are talking about. I think we have a pretty darn good record in that regard, too. However, all of this requires time.
I know that this past week end the work, memoranda, correspondence and reports were so piled up in my office that I got up at five o'clock on Saturday morning in order to clear my desk.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Edward Winch: I know that many of you were at home but in order to catch up with my work I had to get up very early and work very late.

Business of the House
I think it is only reasonable and logical, as was pointed out by a member of the official opposition a few moments ago, to say that there is a great deal of work to be done outside of the House of Commons, if we are to accept our responsibility, but we have not the time to do it. There is a limit to what members can do; but even beyond that there is something that should never be forgotten by an elected member and that is this. We are making laws, changing laws or rescinding laws. Because we deal with questions that mean so much in the way of taxation and the expenditure of money-and do not forget it is going to be around $6 billion this year-we should be in a position where we can do that work not only expeditiously but efficiently and with cool, calm deliberation and with a full knowledge of exactly what it is we are doing.
It is for that primary purpose that I oppose the motion which we are now discussing and which was introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). In addition, Mr. Speaker, I cannot take my seat without adding a comment on the remarks made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green). The amazing change which has come over my hon. friend-and he has been my friend for 25 years-passes my comprehension.


Howard Charles Green: For the better, I hope.


Harold Edward Winch: No; I am afraid, sir, you have come down the ladder of my estimation. We all know-we do not have to repeat it -the stand he and his colleagues took in opposition and how different it is now. I just want to comment on one phase of his argument, namely his presentation regarding the rights that private members have enjoyed, and the fact that he does not think the government is asking too much now to have a change made in the standing orders. Through you, Mr. Speaker, because you were also here, I want to remind him of the hours, the days and the weeks, and I think I can say the months, that a select standing committee of this house spent on the revision of the standing orders. The committee was finally able to come to conclusions and bring in recommendations at a session of a previous parliament. The changes made in the standing orders were of such a nature as to expedite government business and to guarantee the time and rights of private members. I was here, Mr. Speaker, when that report was brought in and I heard all the debate. I recall how often it was pointed out that although some of the previous rights of private members were to be given over to government business for the expedition of government business, that in the 
standing orders there was the protection of the rights of private members.
My hon. friend, the Minister of Public Works, was one of the strongest advocates of, and always insisted on, the rights of private members and the fact that they were spelled out in the standing orders. Yet, now that he and others have crossed the floor they have forgotten a great deal about the protection of the rights of private members through the medium of the standing orders and exactly why the standing orders read the way they do. It was pointed out by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) that no matter how small a group may be the rights and privileges of private members are the rights and privileges of all members except those of the cabinet. If we look over the order paper, as was pointed out, I repeat, by the hon. member for Assiniboia, we see that the majority of the items that appear under private members' names appear under the names of private members from the government side of the house.
I think they are honest, as I hope they know I am honest. They did not place their motions or their bills on the order paper just for fun. They really were interested in what they had in mind; they really wanted something done so they put their motions on the order paper intending that they should be discussed.
We in this group go over every resolution and every bill to study it and to reach a decision and we believe that we-it may seem strange-are rising in our places this afternoon and fighting on behalf of the rights of private members on the government side so that they may have an opportunity to discuss the things that they thought important enough from their point of view and their constituencies' points of view to place on the order paper of the House of Commons.


Mr. Flynn:: You don't give us a chance;
you take up all the time.


Harold Edward Winch: I am speaking now on the
comment of the Minister of Public Works. That is why we say in the first instance he should not expect any group or any member in this house to agree to a further curtailment of the time allotted to private members in a regular session of the House of Commons. And also-and I am quite certain of it because I know of the hours the Minister of Public Works puts in in the preparation of any statement that he makes-all members should have the time and the opportunity completely to study anything which is on the order paper of the House of Commons.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, looking at it from every conceivable angle, if we as members of the House of Commons are to fulfil the

responsibilities which are ours as members of the House of Commons in a logical and a reasonable manner, then at this time the sittings of the House of Commons itself should not be further extended. I am certain that after what I have said the Minister of Public Works will revert to his former sanity and withdraw the motion.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Repetition.


Murdo William Martin: Don't be impatient.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, in view of the
concern the Prime Minister showed a few weeks ago when he mentioned the fact that the opposition was small-and frankly I did not know until today how small it was. We evidently have lost what we considered to be the official opposition. They have deserted us; they have deserted the position that traditionally they are supposed to fill. I would not be surprised today to see again an amendment similar to the one which was moved in the last session asking the government to trade seats with them and they will run the government because the government is running the country the same way that they would. The Prime Minister did mention the fact that there was a small group in the opposition and wherever possible he was going to facilitate the operations of that small minority, he was going to give the opposition rights and he was going to protect those rights because obviously steamroller tactics could be used any time the government wished the steamroller to go into operation. We do not need closure motions. These are the same type of motions.
I am perfectly well aware of the physical capabilities of members of parliament. If the other members are doing the same amount of work that the C.C.F. group are doing-and I am quite sure they are-then they are going to be hard-pressed to do anything outside of the House of Commons in the way of handling the work that the Minister of Public Works thinks is necessary in their own ridings because they are going to be here doing all their homework on Sundays and burning the midnight oil at night as well.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


William Arnold Peters: I have no intention of sitting down until I finish what I wish to say and I think a little courtesy would do a lot of people a great deal of good. Parliament has only been in session for two months. It is true that the opposition as a whole may be inefficient but that is because some members of the opposition do not want to function 57071-3-139i
Business of the House
as they should. None the less, this group intends to do so and I am certain that government members in their committee work are doing a good job of criticizing, examining and giving consideration to things about which they do not know much because this is their first session. There are many of us who do not know too much about these things but I have been very pleased with the interest, taken in government by the government backbenchers and those of other parties.
The government is going to be in power for a number of years. This session should not be short like the last session when there was some justification for getting out on the hustings and having another election. We have not got that excuse this year and if we are going to draw a yearly salary we should at least do the work we are supposed to do and give it the consideration it deserves.
Something has been said about the matter of going home and that some members are now doing that. It is quite true that some will still be able to do so. The man who is representing me in Russell where I am living at the present time will be able to go home every night if he wishes to do so. But a great number of members who were able to go home on week ends will not be able to now if they only have Sunday off. I might point out that there has not been a vote in this session when there were not more Conservatives absent than the total opposition combined, and that will probably be the case today.
Mr. Pallet!: That statement is completely inaccurate.


William Arnold Peters: Therefore it appears to me that we who have the job of criticizing and examining are now doing as much work as we are capable of doing and by adding another day the government is just adding the straw that will break the back of the camel. In my opinion the additional day will only create an additional burden for the opposition because if opposition members continue to do the work they must do they will be incapable of bearing the load.
I think the government should take a look at what one of their former leaders said about this matter. I understand he was much more interested in the sessions of the house than some other people. As found at page 1712 of Hansard for December 10, 1951, the Hon. George Drew had this to say with respect to a similar motion:
I believe that it is immensely important that the time of our sitting remain as it is so that hon. members who attend committees may also have an opportunity to sit in the house.
There is no motion yet to sit in the mornings but the Prime Minister did not say it

Business of the House
was not going to happen next week. Mr. Drew went on to say:
A number of the committees are still sitting and these are all important committees. There is the committee on defence expenditures; there is the committee on radio; there are committees on other matters, and I think hon. members should still attach some importance to public accounts, which committee is still sitting.
We are in the same position today with the exception that the public accounts committee has not even started to sit. This is a little bit like a convention where if you have a whole lot of important business left over at the end you pass the necessary motions on the last day and start off on the next year. Mr. Drew went on to say:
There cannot be that attention to the work of these committees and also attention to the business of the house that the nature of the work of the house justifies if this motion is adopted. I urge strongly that it should not be adopted and that we continue to meet at the hours that have been set. There is another reason. I think members of this house should be given an opportunity to digest the reports in order to be able to present their views thereon. It is perfectly clear at the moment that they will not have the slightest chance to examine these reports and express their opinion if this course is followed. Therefore I oppose the motion and I hope that it will not pass.
Frankly I would not object if he were here to make the same speech again today. I think he would probably agree with the position that we have taken.
I suggest that possibly one of the reasons the motion is being introduced is because of the rumblings on the part of many government backbenchers who object to the fact that the members of the C.C.F. group have the opportunity to speak when they wish. I suggest that the backbenchers of all parties have a contribution to make as great as or at least equal to that of some of the government frontbenchers and that there is an obligation upon them to do so. If this motion, as it appears to be, is just a method of giving some members a holiday in the middle of the summer, then rather than this motion being moved there should have been a motion for a recess of six weeks in the hot part of the summer. We could then come back here and do the work we were elected to do no matter how long it took.


Mr. D. J. Walker (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, as one of the private members on the government side I want to thank the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) for purporting to speak for us, but may I assure you, sir, that no one has less conception of what is in our minds at the present time, as evidenced by the thoughts he so eloquently expressed. The private members on the government side of the house have one thought which has been uppermost in their minds.


An hon. Member:: To get back to your law practice.


David James Walker: That thought is, how long, oh Lord, how long, can one tolerate this repetitious guff we hear from the members of the C.C.F. group?


Hazen Robert Argue: You sound like C. D. Howe.


David James Walker: The hon. member purports to speak for us, but what have the members of that group said and what have they done?


An hon. Member:: Ask the voters.


David James Walker: We will tell the voters. I suggest to you, sir, that they should realize that work does not mean talk. They mistake talk for work. Unfortunately that is about all they have been capable of doing so far. Their contributions to the debates of the house, if you examine them, Mr. Speaker, are practically negative, devoid of any ideas, devoid of any assistance, devoid of any original thoughts, devoid of any constructive criticism.


Harold Edward Winch: How jealous can you get?


David James Walker: I speak now of all the
members of the C.C.F. group. I wish to assure the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) that he is the last person in the world of whom I would be jealous. May I say further that the hon. member for Assiniboia, who has that high sounding title, leader of the C.C.F. group, although it is really no longer a group but a very small rump, should realize-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


David James Walker: I suggest that you go back to the boiler room instead of interrupting me. May I suggest that this group of eight represents the vanished pomp of yesterday and that all the indulgence they are getting from the government is because of the insistence of the government that it will never be said of them that everybody did not have a fair chance. Even in this debate today four members of the C.C.F. group, or 50 per cent, have already spoken without interruption. Should the private members on the government side have the same chance, 104 of us would have the opportunity to speak and we would not be through at the end of August. We would be here a year from now.


Harold Edward Winch: Why don't they get up?


David James Walker: Because you do not give us an opportunity, because you talk all the time.


Harold Edward Winch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the insult to Your Honour be withdrawn because it is you who recognizes speakers in the house.


David James Walker: My friend is quite right. I am speaking of the members of the C.C.F. group, and not yourself, Mr. Speaker, because no one knows better than I the contribution you have made to the house. When are we going to have an end of such conduct on the part of this group? We want them to have full scope. I have not said anything in the hope that they would soon desist. All we hear from them is whining, complaining, tearing apart, talk and more talk. We would not mind, Mr. Speaker, if this group represented something but they are neither socialists nor capitalists nor free traders nor protectionists. They do not represent anything. They represent, as I said, the vanished pomp of yesterday. The reason their numbers diminished in the last election from 25 to 8 is that they represent nothing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is getting a little away from the amendment.


David James Walker: Speaking to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully suggest that the eight of them should take a little "think" to themselves and ask themselves whether 257 others can be wrong and only this group of eight can be in step. Mr. Speaker, it is a travesty of the rules of this house that this group, many of them speaking without knowledge and without background, should continue to block the efforts of this house to clean up the business of Canada in the conscientious manner which it so greatly deserves.


Mr. J. O. Gour (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention to participate in this debate and would not have done so but for the reference made on my behalf by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) who is one of my constituents during the session. I am sure that he is a good and intelligent member, and I am sure that if he lives in Russell for the next four years he will become a Liberal. I am not so satisfied with some of my colleagues from the west and from the east who say that members from around Ottawa are sitting less than are other members who are far away. I defy anyone from the C.C.F. party or anyone from the other party to say that he has done more work and has spent more time for his people, in this house and out of the house, than I have during the 13 years that I have been here.
I have 96,000 people in my riding. We have every kind of organization meeting, on an average of one a day, and I contribute to most of them. I contribute as a member should, to fulfil my duty. I am very pleased to do it, but it takes half of my indemnity for that purpose. Hon. members who are far away have only to answer a few letters, and
Business of the House
tell their constituents that they cannot be in their ridings. This is about all that it costs you, and many of you ask for free airplane transportation. Many of you are lucky that you cannot go home to your riding. Do not try to fool us. I do not go home every night, my good friend. I have lived in Ottawa since I became a member. I go home once in a while, sometimes every two weeks. I have never lost more than two or three days during a session, and I have received and seen over 1,500 of my electors yearly.
I do not care how long we sit. When I first came here, we were sitting up until 11 o'clock or until 12 o'clock. I do not care how long we sit as long as the business is well done. I understand that we are a small group in the opposition-something which is too bad. The people misunderstood us the last time. I hope that they will understand us better the next time. I will sit here from any hour of the morning until any hour at night, and I am glad to do so in order to do our job properly. But let us not have committees sitting when the house is sitting in the morning because we cannot be here and attend the committees at the same time, as we are a small group in the opposition. I say to the C.C.F. that we do not need them to make an intelligent opposition. We have done it up to now and we are able to do it any time. We will do it in a constructive way in order to protect the Canadian people against too much bad administration by the government. Let us keep on working.


William Arnold Peters: I rise on a question of privilege. I only made reference to the hon. gentleman as his riding is right on the edge of Ottawa and I am living there. If he does not live in that area, I owe him an apology.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the Prime
Minister if he is able to tell the house now what the legislative program is from now until the end of the session?


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the Prime Minister speaks he will close the debate.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I did not originally intend to take part in this discussion-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: Relax. Take it easy. All that moaning and groaning reminds me of the braying of a herd of asses.


An hon. Member:: You should know.


Frank Howard: I should like to make a comment or two very briefly and to express my gratitude to the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Walker) for being kind and gracious enough to tolerate us in this place and to express my appreciation at the indulgence of the government in even allowing us to be here. We appreciate the fact that the hon. member does let us come into this chamber occasionally and participate in these debates. I do not know whether he is familiar with the fact that the rules of parliament as they apply to every private member are the same; parliamentary rights are set out in the rules developed over many years of parliamentary government in Great Britain and in this country, and if the hon. member is not familiar with them I suggest he should consult with the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) who will bring him up to date regarding the rules and procedure. I should also like to remind the hon. member that the road to dictatorship is paved with intolerance.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena will recall that I interrupted the hon. member for Rosedale when I thought he was going in the wrong direction. I hope I will not have to interrupt the hon. member.


Frank Howard: I, too, hope you will not have to interrupt me, Mr. Speaker, but I was merely trying to get the same distance along that road as had the hon. member for Rosedale. The hon. member for Rosedale may know-and this is on a little path not actually irrelevant to the motion-that in British Columbia in 1941 we saw a direct coalition entered into between the Liberal and Conservative parties which lasted for some years. Here, of course, we have a different situation existing, a situation in which we have an indirect coalition, and as a member of the unofficial and effective opposition I should like to express also my thanks to the Prime Minister for mentioning in his introductory

remarks the number of items indicated in the speech from the throne which have not yet been presented in the house. This has been discussed in detail by other hon. members, but I would point out that the items mentioned in the speech from the throne with regard to which no details have been given are the ones which will probably be the most important to come before this parliament during this particular session, and there appears to be no need for rushing, hurrying and scurrying into consideration of these items. Haste makes waste, as you know, Mr. Speaker, and in my opinion this is nothing more than an attempt to legislate by exhaustion by holding back the main pieces of legislation until the end of the session when adequate and proper consideration cannot be given to them. By taking such action the government will not get good legislation.
The obvious conclusion we reach, regardless of the smoke screen which was spread over this issue by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green)-and he is quite adept at doing this on any and every occasion-is that we have to rush into this legislative program not because we have a special situation arising out of two elections in a year, or arising out of an incomplete session prior to the election last year, or in minority government and so on, but because of the obvious frustration and restlessness that exists among the government's backbenchers. I know many of these private members personally, and have spoken with them, and they have indicated that they are frustrated-that they are restless-that they do not like being here because there is relatively little for them to do. So they want to get it over and go back to their law practices, or whatever it is, or rush back, as is right, to their constituencies to spend all the time possible at home, which we would all like to do. Obviously the Prime Minister is giving in now to this pressure from his backbenchers. I wish he had not done it so early in the session.


Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to oppose the motion proposed by the Prime Minister and I should like to state several reasons why. The leader of the house has accused us of being unfair to other members of this house. I feel that when the leader of the house placed on record the fact that this house was sitting presently for only 25J hours a week that he, unintentionally, was most unfair to all members of this house, because the minister, on reflection, will concede that the newspapers would love to headline the fact that some members of parliament object to working for more than what he calls a 25J hour-week. I ieel that if there was any unfairness this
Business of the House
afternoon it was this calling to public attention the records of Hansard and the fact that this house sits for 25J hours a week, when the minister himself is quite aware, from his many years of experience, that there is no such thing as a 40-hour week, a 50-hour week or even a 60-hour week for conscientious members of parliament who must work even longer hours than that.
Mr. Speaker, we in this group attempt to be fair to ourselves, to our responsibilities and to the problems that confront this parliament and the government of Canada.
I have in mind at this time especially the very serious problem to which practically no attention has yet been given during this session and that is the problem of heavy unemployment in the middle of the summer. I realize that not all hon. members find it necessary to spend an equal number of hours in their work as members of this house and it may well be that the hon. gentlemen in that party which has an overwhelming majority in the house may And it difficult indeed to work 60 hours a week. They may find that they like to-in the minister's words-go home for the week end.
I feel that the minister was further slightly unkind when he indicated that hon. members did not-to use his words again-like to sit around here. I presume he meant on week ends. I can assure him that there is not very much sitting around here on week ends; instead, there is a great deal of working around here on week ends and if the minister's memory is that short it might do him some good for him to be in the house on a week end and observe the many hon. members who are working.
This afternoon we have had a perfect example of the old policy between the government and the official opposition of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". The desire to get out of the house and have done with the session seems to be shared by members of both the larger parties.
At this time I wish to enter a plea on behalf of a group other than ourselves. We all know what the regulations are and when the house sits on Saturdays the employees of the house must also work on that day. If this resolution receives the endorsation of the house-and I hope it will not-I trust some arrangement will be made whereby the employees will be assured of the continuation of the five-day week which they have enjoyed for the past several months. I feel that it is most unfair to expect these employees to work a six-day week merely to please our convenience so that we can have done with the session at as early a date as possible.

Business of the House The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) outlined a little of the history of the last several sessions of parliament. However, I should like to remind him that almost for the past two years this house has been largely engaged in political squabbles laying the groundwork for the election battles and not too much attention has been paid to the business of parliament. To illustrate what I mean one has only to think back and realize that this parliament did not complete the estimates for the year 1957-58. Indications are that we may have a difficult time indeed, if the wishes of many hon. members should prevail, finishing a consideration of the estimates of 1958-59. One of the most ancient rights and privileges of a people's parliament is for political purposes and now apparently for the sake of expediency to be shortened.
The public accounts committee has been constituted and as a member of it I have yet to receive notice of its first meeting. If the Liberals and Conservatives cannot agree as to who ought to be chairman I suggest that the government approach my leader with a view to inquiring if our group would consider appointing a chairman for the committee in order that we could get on with the business of the country. Some reality might be given to the much publicized role the public accounts committee would play under a Conservative regime. The select committee on broadcasting about which we heard so much in the speech from the throne has not yet been appointed to my knowledge.
The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) listed many pieces of legislation which were forecast in the speech from the throne but he omitted many of them which I intend to enumerate at this time. It was indicated in the throne speech that the government would attend the commonwealth trade and economic conference. Surely the parliament of Canada should be given an opportunity to express its views in this regard before that conference is held. The throne speech forecast an acceleration of useful public works projects designed to sustain employment but we have yet to hear of this accelerated public works program. It also forecast a public investment program but outside of the South Saskatchewan river dam nothing more has been heard. We in British Columbia were particularly awaiting some announcement of legislation by which means our province could participate in this program and I refer particularly to the Columbia river project but nothing more has been heard.
Forecasts were made of the extension of airports and air bases but we have heard nothing more of this. Mention was made in 
the budget as well as in the speech from the throne of amendments to the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act but we have yet to see that legislation introduced. We were assured that amendments to the Financial Administration Act would be brought in but nothing has been done in this respect. We were assured by both the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) that the House of Commons would be given an ample opportunity to discuss the government's use of warrants but no time has been allowed for such a discussion.
In conclusion I wish to offer the proposition that there is nothing so horrible in the thought of the House of Commons sitting, as the Minister of Public Works said, until November or even December. I believe that the people of Canada have the right to expect that we sit for as long as it is necessary to attend to the affairs of the greatest and hugest enterprise in Canada, the government and the business of the parliament of Canada.


Mr. Hayden Sianton (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) made a statement to the effect that backbenchers in the Conservative party were frustrated. This is absolutely untrue and there is no frustration in our midst. We are quite prepared to sit here for five or even six days a week or as long as is necessary in order to carry on the business of this house. But what we are not content to do is to sit here and listen to the yak, yak, yak of the C.C.F. members in the far corner of this house. Hon. members of the C.C.F. would do well to remember that 17 of their members talked themselves out of this house in the last election and if they keep on the way they are going at the present time they will be completely annihilated in the next election, so let us hear no more from them in this respect.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to add to the festival that has taken place here this afternoon. Certain hon. gentlemen have reviewed the needs of parliament, the democratic system, the preservation of parliamentary rights and the necessity of having the legislative program passed by parliament. It is because we want to accomplish this that we have asked for the extension of the time within which this house will sit to the end that we may deal efficiently and effectively with the very large portion of the legislative program that still remains. There

are, however, some hon. gentlemen who believe that instead of having the division of labour which was referred to by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), their contribution to the solution of the problems that confront parliament is best determined by each of them saying the same thing over and over again. They choose to do this instead of having one or another of their members efficiently organized to the end that a full and proper discussion will take place.
Repetitious utterances, sir, do not solve problems or assist in their solution. I suggest to certain gentlemen who have spoken that possibly if they were better organized and those extra hours that they work had been devoted to allocating among members of their group responsibility to speak in respect of those subjects which they have studied more carefully than others, the business of parliament would be expedited and a considerable step taken toward making this house a place in which the determination of problems is on the basis of contributions rather than on measurement of the length of time taken by any of them on discussion and repetition.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) asked me to outline in general what will be brought before the house. I can do no better than refer to the speech from the throne. In it is contained the legislative program that we intend to bring before the house. It is because of the fact that so far the debates have been mainly on the speech from the throne and the budget, and not wishing to transgress the rights of private members to express themselves, the time has come, unless the House of Commons is to become the place in which the definition of eternity will be found, when we must act to the end that longer days, longer periods of sitting, will have to take place if we are to discharge our responsibility. That is why this preliminary motion is moved. It is not the complete picture, but at the moment committees are meeting. Because committees are meeting, and in an endeavour not to prevent those committees from completing their responsibilities, the extension is within the limited scope of this motion.
In so far as the legislative program is concerned, in addition to those things that appear in the speech from the throne, I might say that having regard to agricultural conditions on the prairies some further action is being considered by the government which, if determined in the affirmative, will require further legislation. So far as the Saskatchewan dam is concerned, the last word I have this afternoon is that the difficulties arising out of discussions by both sides have all but been resolved and my hope is that an agreement
Business of the House
will be signed by this government and the government of Saskatchewan which will, of course, necessitate legislation at this session of parliament to implement it.
Farther than that I do not intend to go. I do believe in the rights of parliament. Those rights shall be undiminished. That is the attitude of this government and that is the stand I outlined in the first speech I made in this house. But, sir, the legislative program must come before the house. If the normal hours at this period, in the passage of time since the speech from the throne, are insufficient, then there is only one way to proceed and that is the way we are following, the preliminary step, the minimum extension but not morning sittings, to the end that we shall be able to bring about a solution of our problems through the necessary legislative action.
Some speak about the rights of parliament. All I say is that these rights will be maintained. But at the rate the discussions are taking place here, where a few members believe that in order to show that they are making a contribution each says the same thing over and over again, the only way in which that can be met is to extend the time so that hon. members will have an opportunity to consider the matters that are of particular importance, as set out in the speech from the throne. Our objective is not to prevent members from talking; it is to extend the opportunity for that purpose. Instead of in any way interfering with members having the right to express themselves, I feel that the extension of time will enlarge those rights and I hope that ultimately in the process of time we will be able to have the legislative enactments on the order paper, not only placed before parliament but also passed by the house in its wisdom.
The program that we have is an important one. It has not been considered as yet with that degree of application on the part of all of us that I want to see, and I hope that when this motion is passed, if the house passes it, as I hope it will, we shall be able to make much progress because the work has been organized by the government. We are ready. Our legislative program is set out. The legislation is ready. We are now asking the House of Commons to proceed to consider that legislation and, I hope, to pass it.
My hon. friends talk about the house sitting until November or December. It is all very interesting. They speak disparagingly of others who have some responsibility. I hope the time never comes when we elect to the House of Commons only those who desire to spend 12 months a year here. I hope that we shall continue in the tradition of good parliamentary government and not prevent those who

Canada Conversion Loan can serve this country from serving because through unnecessary repetition we make it impossible to command and mobilize the candidature of those who can be induced to sit in the House of Commons, as many now sit, who, if they found that it was a 12-months job, would be unable to make their contribution to the building of a better Canada and the attainment of a better legislative program.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the main motion. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division.



FINANCE


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have an important announcement to make relating to our public debt operations. Today we are embarking upon the largest and I believe the most constructive financial operation in the history of Canada, of the successful outcome of which I am fully confident.
Hon. members are aware of the general background. In my budget speech four weeks ago I informed the house and the country in some detail of our financial requirements during the coming year. I stated then that in order to carry out our approved program in the fields of both economic capital development and social welfare we would require some $1,400 million of new money during this fiscal year, in addition to providing for the refunding of nearly $2,000 million of maturing bonds. This, as I said at that time, is a formidable task.
We must also look beyond the immediate needs of this fiscal year. During the next few years there will mature in quick succession the whole of the remaining wartime victory loans. The total amount of the five victory loans falling due between now and 1966 is over $6,400 million. This is a very large sum and it constitutes more than 60 per cent of our outstanding funded debt, excluding the special categories of Canada savings bonds and treasury bills.
This large volume of early maturities overhanging the market has made it very difficult
(Mr. Diefenbaker.l

to plan an orderly program of debt management and has contributed greatly to the general feeling of uncertainty which has prevailed in our bond markets for the past few years. This uncertainty in the market for prime Canadian bonds has had inevitable effects on the market for provincial, municipal and good corporate bonds.
We have therefore decided to clear away this heavy congestion of early maturities and to lay the foundations of an orderly and sensible program of public debt management. Today we are launching the Canada conversion loan of 1958. The details of this offer are being made public concurrently with this announcement. Holders of all unmatured victory bonds are being offered new and longer term bonds in exchange for their present holdings. The holders of the eighth and ninth victory loans maturing in 1963 and 1966 are offered a choice of new 4J per cent 25-year bonds maturing in 1983 or new 4|- per cent 14-year bonds maturing in 1972. Holders of the seventh victory loan which matures in 1962 may convert at their option into either of the two new bonds already mentioned or into a 3f per cent 7-year bond maturing in 1965. Finally, the holders of the fifth and sixth victory bonds due in 1959 and 1960 may convert into new 3 per cent 3|-year bonds maturing on December 1, 1961 or into any of the other new bonds mentioned.
In brief, the holders of all these victory loan bonds may convert into a choice of four issues, 25 years at 4J per cent, 14 years at 4i per cent, 7 years at 3f per cent or 3| years at 3 per cent, provided, however, that they must elect a bond which lengthens out to that extent their present term.
In addition, in order to adjust equitably the current market prices and yields of the old bonds to the new offerings we will make appropriate cash adjustments on conversion. Since we are making this offer to the two million individual private citizens who own these victory bonds, we are combining accrued interest and the cash adjustment into a single figure. The actual cash adjustment, exclusive of accrued interest, in favour of the person converting will depend upon the issue he is turning in and the new bond he is taking in return, but ranges from nil on the 1966 maturity being converted into the 14-year or 25-year bond to $1.99 per $100 par value on the 1959's which are converted into new bonds of 7-year maturity or longer.
This is not, of course, the first conversion loan in Canada's history. There have been a number of previous conversion loans relating to the victory loans of the first world war and of the second world war. But none of the earlier conversion loans has been on as

large or as comprehensive a scale as the one we are offering today. Detailed prospectuses will be in the hands of all branches of chartered banks and of all investment dealers either this afternoon or tomorrow morning.
This is a tremendous operation requiring the enthusiastic co-operation of everybody concerned. We spent long hours with officials and other experienced advisers under the leadership of the governor of the Bank of Canada perfecting our campaign plans and organizing committees. I am happy to report that I have received from all quarters pledges of enthusiastic and vigorous support in carrying this enterprise to a successful conclusion.
In the campaign I am now announcing the period between today and August 5 will be largely taken up with organization, but it will be open to any holder to deposit his old bonds and take his cash adjustment starting today. Our offer to convert will remain open up to and including September 15, 1958. All the new bonds will be dated September 1 and will bear interest from that date.
Apart from corporations and financial institutions it is estimated that there are two million private individual holders of the victory loan issues to which 1 have been referring. To make sure that each and every holder, in so far as it is humanly possible, is made aware of this opportunity we are arranging for a widespread publicity campaign using all appropriate media.
This conversion offer will perform the major and essential task of clearing the way for an orderly program of debt management over the years ahead. It will not, however, provide us with any new cash. To cover our cash requirements over the next few months we have arranged to sell an issue of $400 million of five-month bonds bearing interest at the rate of 2J per cent per annum to the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks. These very short-term bonds will fall due on December 15 next, a date which will coincide with our known cash receipts from this year's Canada savings bond campaign.
In conclusion may I say two things. The first is that we are convinced, and so are those with whom we have consulted, that this great conversion loan will lay the foundations for a new, healthy and confident tone to our whole bond market, and that the beneficial results of this will extend well beyond the market for Canada bonds and into the market for provincial, municipal and corporate bonds.
The second point I wish to emphasize is that this government attaches great importance and a high priority to the preservation
Canada Conversion Loan of a sound currency and stability in the purchasing power of our dollar. On behalf of the government I wish to reiterate that we intend to follow policies designed to maintain the soundness of the Canadian dollar.
Mr. Speaker, this is a great national undertaking. It is the concluding phase of the victory loan campaigns of the war years which, as we all remember well, enlisted the enthusiastic support of all Canadians. I confidently bespeak the support of all Canadians today in carrying through to a completely successful conclusion the Canada conversion loan of 1958.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the minister has indeed made a very important statement, a statement of an operation which was forecast in this morning's press and which, indeed, in its detail is in the afternoon press. As the minister has said, the Canada conversion loan, 1958, will be the largest operation of its kind in our history, even in our wartime history. He has emphasized quite rightly that for it to be successful it will require the enthusiastic co-operation of everybody concerned, and as I said in my contribution to the budget debate, Mr. Speaker, all Canadians will hope that he will get that co-operation and all Canadians must hope that this operation will be a success.
We in this country are entering upon some very difficult and complicated financing and refinancing moves which the minister has outlined to the house previously, and this is the first and a very important stage in what he himself has called a major financial operation. I repeat that we as Canadians must all hope that this operation will be a success and that, above all, the stability of our currency will be maintained throughout the operation. Of course, while all of us hope that, we cannot help but feel anxious about the effect on monetary policy and on inflationary pressures of the operation which is now beginning. We hope that effect will not be harmful, and we hope these inflationary pressures will be held in check. We will all be following with great interest the progress of this very important refinancing campaign.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the announcement just made by the Minister of Finance is certainly one of the most important that has been made by a minister of finance since the end of the war. We hope with him that the objective of a sound money policy may be achieved and that the soundness of the Canadian dollar may be maintained. We hope also that the issues will be in smaller denominations so that ordinary
2204	HOUSE OF
Canada Conversion Loan Canadians will have a chance to participate and that the terms of payment will be such that ordinary income earners will be able to acquire the bonds that are being issued. We hope that the result of this issue will be to ease the financing problems of provinces and municipalities.
I am certain that one of the reasons the total amount of financing is in such a large figure is the deficit in the current budget. We hope that future budgetary deficits will not have to be so large, and that we shall get back to a balanced budget and a more balanced economy so the country will not have to add to its long-term debt.
The exact terms of the proposals-the interest rates, the length of time and so on- will be studied very carefully by this group. We shall have further comments to make at a later time, but we hope the issue which the minister is now making will receive general public support.

On the orders of the day:


John Whitney Pickersgill: 
Donald Methuen Fleming: 
John Whitney Pickersgill: As a supplementary question, may I ask the minister if he really thinks that answers my question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Speaker,
I think I have given my hon. friend in my answer a lot of credit, perhaps, in relation to the question he asked.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: On
Friday last, Mr. Speaker, I informed the house, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Kootenay West that I was not in a position to make any statement in connection with the Doukhobor situation as I had not received from the government of British Columbia any reply to my letter.
I regret to say that I was in error. I now find that a letter from Premier Bennett had been received in my office several days previously which, due to an oversight, was not brought to my attention. I apologize for the error. I also wish to remove any impression that a letter from the British Columbia government was overdue.
While it appears from the letter I have now received that the two governments are not in agreement as to where the constitutional responsibility for handling the general situation lies, nevertheless there seems a possibility that a mutually acceptable basis for co-operation in respect of one possible solution may be worked out. Premier Bennett's letter indicates that we shall be hearing from him further in this regard in due course.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: May
I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that William Munavish of Vancouver has been returned to the British Columbia penitentiary following the issuance of a new warrant cancelling his ticket of leave, without any indication as to how he was alleged to have broken parole conditions, will the minister in the name of justice and decency have this man or his lawyers informed as to the charges and will the minister arrange for a hearing so the man may be given an opportunity to defend himself?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, I am afraid, entirely misconceives the nature of procedure under the Ticket of Leave Act. There is no charge laid against a person whose ticket of leave is cancelled or suspended.
The whole subject, as I explained in answer to an earlier question, will be dealt with when the new national parole bill is up for debate. At that time I hope to have an opportunity, at greater length than is possible on orders of the day, of explaining the basic concept of the ticket of leave or parole, as it will then be known, and the reasons why in the case

of a cancellation or suspension in the interests of society as well as in the man's own interests it is necessary to have a man recommitted immediately and, subsequent to his recommittal, to have a full investigation of the reasons therefor.
There is, however, no charge and there is no imposition of a new sentence because the former sentence was never cancelled. The situation is simply that the man has been out on licence and his sentence continues. When there is evidence that a man has broken the conditions of his licence, and it is decided, in the interests of society, or for whatever the reason be, that he should be returned, it is necessary that the return be made immediately.


Harold Edward Winch: I understand all that the minister has said, and he has told us this before, but may I ask him, in view of the fact that the man has been returned to penitentiary without any knowledge as to the reasons therefor, can he or his lawyers, in the name of common decency, not be told these reasons?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall be glad to look into this question. It is my impression that the man in question knows full well the reasons for his return. In view of the circumstances, this is one of those cases where I do not think, at the present time at any rate, it would be proper to inform the house of the reasons because a man's character and reputation are at stake.


Harold Edward Winch: I am not asking that the house be informed; I am asking that the man or his lawyer be informed. I received this morning an affidavit from him to the effect that he has not the faintest idea as to how he broke his parole.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will have this matter looked into. I shall be very surprised if he does not know, but if he does not I will ensure that he be advised.


Harold Edward Winch: That is exactly what I asked.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MANITOBA  TABLING OP CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING TAX RENTAL AGREEMENTS

John George Diefenbaker: On June 23 and June 26 the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River asked whether I would table the correspondence between the government and the premier of Manitoba. He referred to an item in the press with regard to the tax rental agreements. I now table that correspondance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the absence of the hon.
member for Kenora-Rainy River, may I ask the Prime Minister if this correspondence could be printed in the usual way as an
Inquiries of the Ministry appendix to Hansard, or if he would ask that this be done?


John George Diefenbaker: It is very lengthy, Mr. Speaker. I was wondering whether or not the same result would not be achieved by printing it in Votes and Proceedings rather than in Hansard. It is a very lengthy correspondence.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would hope that the usual practice could be followed. There are a great many people who never see Votes and Proceedings but who are greatly interested in these federal-provincial matters. I would hope that the Prime Minister would reconsider the matter and request that the correspondence be printed in Hansard.


John George Diefenbaker: I have no objection, Mr. Speaker. It is simply the fact that Hansard will be a large document today.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent that the documents tabled now by the Prime Minister be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For text of correspondence referred to above, see appendix, pages 2231-35.]



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: By leave of the house I move:
That the revised budget for 1958 of the Canadian National Railways and the operating budget of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, tabled this day. be referred to the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping owned and controlled by the government.
The revised Canadian National Railways budget replaces the budget tabled on June 2.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. J. Martel (Chapleau):: May I ask
the Minister of Transport if he has received representations from the chambers of commerce of Senneterre, Amos, Rouyn-Noranda and other towns located throughout the northwestern part of Quebec about the proposed suspension by C.N.R. authorities of the only fast train connection between these districts and the rest of the province of Quebec, particularly with respect to direct trips to Montreal, the Canadian metropolis, and Quebec city, our provincial capital?
If so, would the minister inform the house-although we quite agree with him

Inquiries of the Ministry that these matters are questions of administration and internal decision by the Canadian National Railways authorities-what are the over-all revenues of the different railroad systems in northwestern Quebec covering the two federal ridings of Ville-neuve and Chapleau, which serve a population of 150,000 people, and also what are the main reasons motivating this decision?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have received representations from the centres mentioned by the hon. member and I will be glad to draw these representations to the attention of the management of Canadian National Railways.


Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: May I
ask the minister as a supplementary question, in view of the urgency of this matter, if he would immediately discuss this question with the officers of the Canadian National Railways while they are here in Ottawa?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, when the Department of Transport says it will take up a question with management that means immediately.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: In view of the desirability of members on the other side of the house being available to speak for ministers in their unavoidable absence from the house, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is considering appointing parliamentary assistants soon; perhaps I can repeat the words my friend the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Walker) uttered earlier this afternoon in another connection, namely "How long, O Lord, how long".


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think the anxiety of my hon. friend in this connection will be satisfied very shortly.



THE SENATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to ask the Prime Minister a question of much greater importance. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has had over a year to meditate upon the chilly nature of the swirling waters of Senate reform that face any government considering this problem, and in view of the continuing and recently much


stimulated interest in this matter, to put it as politely as possible, would the Prime Minister inform the house when he intends to take the plunge?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with characteristic imagery my hon. friend refers to "the plunge". I really could not call it that. I can understand the interest of a brother British Columbian in this problem at this time. All I can say is that when the matter receives attention it will be communicated to the house, not in the nature of a plunge but of a course of action.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate directed a question to the Minister of Labour regarding the reported lay-off of employees at Ferguson Industries Limited at Pictou because of a lack of shipbuilding orders. I may say that on several occasions the hon. member for Pictou has made representations with regard to work for this shipyard, and as far as my department is concerned we are continually keeping in mind and reviewing the situation in regard to employment for our shipyards, but I cannot be specific in regard to this particular yard at this time.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver Souih):: In
view of the earlier comments of the Minister of Transport regarding competition between scheduled air line services, I wonder if he has also given any thought to possible modification of government regulation of non-scheduled services, particularly in the light aircraft field?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for advising me of his intention to ask this question. The answer to the hon. member's question is yes. The government, after study of this matter, has come to the conclusion that there should be an easing in the treatment of applications for licences for non-scheduled commercial air services which involve only the use of small light aircraft and helicopters.
The concept of regulated competition in the field of public utilities is already well

accepted as applying to public services which are of great importance to the population as a whole, or to major segments thereof. However, I can find no evidence to indicate that services provided by small, single-engine light aircraft and helicopters fall as a general rule within this category.
Services of this type can only offer transportation at a relatively high unit cost compared with larger aircraft. In total they provide only a small percentage of the air transportation picture in Canada. Nor is there any indication that the public interest would, as a whole, suffer if this type of air service was permitted to operate more freely. In fact all the indications are that the reverse would be the case, and the government has accordingly decided that it would be in the public interest that licences for air services using only this small type of aircraft be granted freely on request. This I consider to be properly in accord with the spirit of free enterprise.
I recognize that there may be a few instances, for example in remote northern areas, where the importance of services provided by this type of aircraft to a community is so great that, unlike in the settled areas of Canada, small aircraft service has to be classed as essential, and that in these cases the air transport board may vary the general policy I have indicated by bringing such cases to me for special consideration. I have informed the board, however, that I would expect instances of this sort to be very much the exception rather than the rule.
I have also informed the board that generally speaking this policy should apply to what is known as group C aircraft, that is small single-engine aircraft having a gross disposable load of less than 1,100 pounds and to small single-engine helicopters such as the Bell-47 and Sikorsky-51 types, but not to larger units.



QUEBECAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport if an investigation will be made into the fire which destroyed a large portion of the air facilities of Quebecair recently, and whether his department will give consideration to assisting that efficient air line in re-establishing its facilities?


George Harris Hees: I wish to thank the hon. member for having advised me of his intention to ask this question. We will investigate this fire and the situation resulting from it, and we
Inquiries of the Ministry will give consideration to the possibility of giving financial assistance in this case.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Romuald Bourque (Outremont-St.
Jean): I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General, notice of which I sent him a few moments ago. Has the minister taken cognizance of an item in Fitz's column in today's Montreal Gazette, stating that the citizens of Westmount were up in arms with respect to the fact that the once a day mail delivery reaches them only during the afternoon, and could the minister tell the house if it is the intention of his department to remedy this situation?
Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: I received notice of the question a moment ago, and I did not read the item referred to. I regret that I missed that interesting column, but to the best of my knowledge there has been no general change in the mail service to this section of Montreal. It is necessary, with a man covering two routes a day, that one delivery be made in the morning and the other in the afternoon. That applies generally with respect to all our post offices.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government received a copy of the resolution passed unanimously at a recent meeting of Timmins town council, and if so, is it giving any consideration to the request contained therein that the gas pipe line between the Manitoba boundary and Kapuskasing, Ontario, be retained under government ownership and control?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the
first question is yes, and the answer to the second question is no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee of supply.



RADIO AND TELEVISION


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is the fifth of the six supply motions we shall have this session, and I must confess that it is

Radio and Television
unfortunate that five of them will have been exhausted after today or tomorrow, because it looks as if we will now be here for some weeks, and I think it was the intention when standing orders were changed dealing with this matter that these supply motions would be spread as evenly as possible over the session.
I am not blaming anybody at the moment for this situation, but it does mean that after this supply motion has been exhausted we will have one only during the rest of the session. There may be very important developments during that time which would normally be raised by the opposition by moving amendments on going into supply, when such questions could be raised or grievances could be aired.
The subject I wish to raise today and on which in due course I will move an amendment is the question of national radio and television, which I think all members of the house will agree is an important aspect of national development, an aspect which leads us into the realm of the communication of ideas so important in welding together our sections and our people, in strengthening their unity and stimulating their pride in their country.
It is my view and the view of the official opposition that government policy should by now have been laid down with regard to this matter; that doubts and hesitations which have been created in recent weeks should be resolved, and that the house and indeed the country should know where we stand in this matter especially in view of the Fowler report on broadcasting and of the assurances given by the Prime Minister in the election campaign of 1957 and repeated in 1958 that the recommendations contained in that report would receive attention, as he put it, "at a very early date". Nothing has been done to remove this uncertainty, though I must add at once that we had a very interesting and very helpful statement by the minister concerned a few weeks ago.
Nothing, however, has been done to remove the uncertainty with regard to policy, an uncertainty which is bound to be felt in view of the strong position taken by the Prime Minister and by members of the government with regard to radio and television matters when they were in opposition. If we on this side of the house complain now of delay and uncertainty with regard to policy we should, I think, in all fairness, put forward our own views on this question and that is what I am proposing to do before I move the amendment.
In doing this I do not think I need stress at any great length the importance of radio and television in our national life, in the

development of Canadian culture, and in the development of a Canadian identity. They are two of our most powerful media for better or for worse in the pursuit of these essential goals. These days we hear a great deal about the special need at this stage of our history for a strong and healthy Canadianism. This is a matter of understandable concern to all Canadians. Therefore we are bound to be concerned with the performance of any agency for the communication of ideas such as radio or television, and with the contribution that such agencies are making toward the development of this strong and healthy Canadianism.
This is especially the case with broadcasting, because if we do not exploit this medium for right Canadian purposes and direct it in the public interest it will be used by others for purposes which may be good or which may be not so good, but which cannot be expected to be wholly Canadian. The national interest and a national purpose should be and have been, then, a responsibility for radio and television in this country, and this has been recognized by governments for many years. That interest is superior, and must remain superior, to any private advantage.
I suggest there must be no weakening of this principle in any policy that may be adopted in this house with regard to this matter. Control of our own air must help us to determine, in so far as any nation can so determine in this interdependent age, our national destiny, and help us develop our distinct national personality and our own Canadian culture.
Too much emphasis cannot, I think, be placed on the part that radio and television can play in building up on the northern half of this continent a distinct, cohesive, selfreliant national personality proud of its achievements and confident about its future without being smug or arrogant about it. Maintaining Canadian unity and building the Canadian nation has never been and perhaps never will be an easy task in the face of the geographic, economic and other factors that tend to separate us or pull us south rather than east and west. Canadian governments in the past of both parties have accepted the responsibility of countering these factors in the interests of national unity. They have accepted this duty in radio and television as they have in other forms of transportation and communications.
That has cost and will continue to cost us a great deal of money and I will have something to say about that a little later. We should not permit that cost to be one dollar higher than is absolutely necessary but I believe that what is determined to be

necessary by parliament should be given. That, in my view, would be a small price to pay for the results achieved in national or individual reward or satisfaction in the application of a good national television and radio policy.
Recently fears have been widely expressed and, I think, often deeply and genuinely felt that our own control over our economic life is being disturbingly and unduly weakened by our increasingly close integration with the economy of the United States, a process that has been going on in this country since the beginning of this century. There certainly is a basis for this fear although the fear itself can be exaggerated. It requires us to do what we can to remove that fear through wise and carefully considered policies based on long range considerations of true national interest rather than short range considerations of prejudice or perhaps even immediate advantage, or what may seem to be immediate advantage. I suggest that the dangers to which our cultural and non-material life are being exposed today are as great if not greater than those facing control of our economic development. Indeed, the two fears and the two results are closely connected.
This situation has been very well and reasonably described in the report of the royal commission on the arts, letters and sciences which the Liberal government appointed in 1949. I should like to quote from page 18, paragraph 26, of that report on this particular point. It reads:
American influences on Canadian life to say the least are impressive. There should be no thought of interfering with the liberty of all Canadians to enjoy them. Cultural exchanges are excellent in themselves. They widen the choice of the consumer and provide stimulating competition for the producer. It cannot be denied, however, that a vast and disproportionate amount of material coming from a single alien source may stifle rather than stimulate our own creative effort; and, passively accepted without any standard of comparison, this may weaken critical faculties. We are now spending millions to maintain a national independence which would be nothing but an empty shell without a vigorous and distinctive cultural life. We have seen that we have its elements in our traditions and in our history; we have made important progress, often aided by American generosity. We must not be blind, however, to the very present danger of permanent dependence.
That consideration should, I think, be a major preoccupation on the part of the government and all of us in respect of any change that may be recommended in Canadian radio and television policy. We have been led to believe from reports outside this house that some such change is shortly to be recommended. Indeed, it is perhaps true that it is in the field of broadcasting that the possibilities mentioned in the report which I
Radio and Television
have just read of United States influence becoming too powerful and too dominant are greatest. The existence-indeed, the very fortunate existence-of two main language groups; our great area combined with our small and scattered population makes the effective discharge by government of its national responsibilities in this field both difficult and expensive as my hon. friend, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) pointed out two or three weeks ago in what I referred to as a very interesting and, I thought, sensible statement.
The easy way out of this responsibility -just as the easy way out of our transportation responsibilities in this country 80 or so years ago-would have been to have relied on the United States or on policies that would have brought us under United States control in this important field. I wish to read what the Massey report said on this point at page 23, paragraph 3:
The easy and obvious answer soon appeared.
That refers to the answer to our problem of radio and television. Radio was the main concern in early days and the television problem was just emerging at the time of this commission. I continue:
In the United States the new industry of radio was growing phenomenally. Men of enterprise quickly mastered the early techniques and enlisted and adapted an astonishing amount and variety of talent for the new medium. Commercial returns justified their investment. Here, it seemed, was the solution to Canada's problem. With easy access to the south, American programs could be channelled in to Canada inexpensively through stations along the border. Canadians could again feast heartily and cheaply on American bounty, this time without even an obligation to return thanks. It was then that some Canadians began to think that history was about to repeat itself in a new and alarming form.
I suggest that we in this house and indeed in Canada can be grateful to those leaders in both parties who refused to take this easy way out at that time and who, as Canadians had done before them in other spheres of national development, chose the harder but the better course in this great work of nation building by following perhaps a more difficult, but a Canadian way.
I should like to briefly trace for a few minutes the development of Canadian broadcasting policy in the search for this the Canadian way, the Canadian answer to the problems that are inherent in this matter. National policy in this field of broadcasting began, as hon. members know, with the appointment of the Aird commission in 1928 and the principle which that commission adopted as its guide, on which subsequent policy was based and which, I suggest, must still be followed, was expressed by the commission

Radio and Television
in these words which may be found in the report of that body:
In a country of the vast geographical dimensions of Canada, broadcasting will undoubtedly become a great force in fostering a national spirit and interpreting national citizenship.
In due time the report of the Aird commission appeared and it was implemented in part in 1932, but in the main in 1936, through the Canadian Broadcasting Act, which is the legislative basis for a national broadcasting policy in this country. However, one important recommendation of the Aird commission was not implemented. Private broadcasting stations were not absorbed by the government corporation, as the Aird commission had recommended, but rather were integrated into the national system, experience having shown that the private stations could perform important services as part of that national system but not if separate from or aloof from it.
Then the next stage in the development of Canadian policy in this field, at least the next stage which I venture to mention, is the report of the Massey commission, 1951, from which I have already quoted. That commission, as hon. members probably know, reviewed what was being done in this field in the United Kingdom, France, United States and in our own country. It examined complaints received from private broadcasters and it analysed very carefully-and I think myself very fairly-the public interest aspect of broadcasting policy. It restated and it reconfirmed the basic principles and practices of radio policy that had already been laid down in Canada. As we contemplate at this time possible changes in broadcasting policy I think, Mr. Speaker, it is worth recalling what the Massey report had to say in this regard because these are principles on which I think we should base our policy at this time. They are principles which are certainly accepted as the basis for policy by the official opposition. On page 283 of the report we find this, and I read these passages in hearty and complete agreement:
Broadcasting in Canada, in our view, is a public service directed and controlled in the public interest by a body responsible to parliament. Private citizens are permitted to engage their capital and their energies in this service, subject to the regulations of this body. That these citizens should be assured of just and equal treatment, that they should enjoy adequate security or compensation for the actual monetary investments they are permitted to make, is apparent. But that they enjoy any vested right to engage in broadcasting as an industry, or that they have any status except as part of the national broadcasting system, is to us inadmissible.
Then, on page 284 of the report we find this:
The only status of private broadcasters is as part of the national broadcasting system.

Then, paragraph 32 reads:
We wish to recognize fully the private stations as important elements within the framework of our national system. But we are resolutely opposed to any compromise of the principle on which the system rests and should rest. Radio has been the greatest single factor in creating and in fostering a sense of national unity. It has enormous powers to debase and to elevate public understanding and public taste. Believing as we do that it is an essential instrument for the promotion of unity and of general education in the nation, we cannot accept any suggestions which would impair the principles on which our present national system is based.
Mr. Speaker, the Massey commission in short recognized and confirmed that the responsibility of government in this field should be along the lines followed in the United Kingdom and in France but rejected in the United States. We think those principles, as laid down in that report, were sound and wise.
Then we come to the report of the Fowler commission on broadcasting set up, I think, in 1955. That was the next and the last investigation of radio and television in this country, perhaps not the last but the latest, and it was concerned primarily with the television aspects of broadcasting which had made very great strides in Canada since the Massey report. The Fowler report was presented to this house in March, 1957, shortly before parliament dissolved for a general election. That report, the latest report we have on the subject, expressed in strong and clear terms the same fear of undue and damaging United States influences in the television field, as the Massey commission, in its report had previously expressed. It pointed out that the Canadian situation visa-vis the United States in this field makes our position and our problem a unique one in the world, as indeed the Minister of National Revenue has already indicated to the house. It underlined that there was a very real danger in the development of television in this country of Canadian stations becoming what I might call branch plants of United States networks. Perhaps the house will permit me to read from the Fowler report one or two excerpts that deal with this point. On page 7 the Fowler report has this to say:
One of the special factors affecting Canadian broadcasting-
And I have already mentioned this. I continue:
-is the sheer size of the country in relation to its population. We have today in Canada more than 2 million television receivers, each of which is within range of one of the 38 Canadian television stations. In New York-
That is New York city, I take it.
-there are seven television stations whose signals can reach nearly 41 million receiving sets.

Page 8 of the report has this to say:
No other country is similarly helped and embarrassed by the close proximity of the United States. Much that is good and valuable can come from this closeness; there is an increasingly rich fare of programs on both radio and television available at relatively low cost from the United States. Much of this we cannot hope to duplicate and we would be poorer if we did not have it available as part of our total program supply.
But as a nation we cannot accept, in these powerful and persuasive media, the natural and complete flow of another nation's culture without danger to our national identity.
Then, on pages 10 and 11 there are these extracts:
We cannot choose between a Canadian broadcasting system controlled by the state and a Canadian competitive system in private hands. The choice is between a Canadian state-controlled program with some flow of programs east and west across Canada, with some Canadian content and the development of a Canadian sense of identity, at a substantial public cost, and a privately-owned system which the forces of economics will necessarily make predominantly dependent on imported American radio and television programs.
On page 11 we find the following:
If we are unwilling or unable to provide quite substantial amounts from public funds-
And we know they are substantial.
-for such a broadcasting system there is little point in having any public agency engaged in the broadcasting and distribution of radio and television programs, and individual private stations will necessarily become outlets for American networks and programs. This would result not because the private broadcasters are unpatriotic citizens or because they lack a sense of Canadian consciousness or responsibility; it would result from economic pressures on the private operator which make it easy and inexpensive to import American programs and difficult and costly to produce any substantial volume of Canadian programs.
Mr. Speaker, there is the dilemma, and the principles which should underly government policy in resolving that dilemma have been laid down now by more than one commission, as I have stated, and have been followed by governments.
We on this side at this time, wholeheartedly subscribe to these principles and we suggest that there must be no weakening in regard to them. Moreover, the Fowler commission does make certain recommendations which in the opinion of the commission do not violate or weaken the essential principles that have been stated but which will in its opinion improve broadcasting, remove certain grievances and strengthen certain weaknesses in the present system.
For a few moments, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention some of these recommendations of the Fowler commission, some of the views they expressed in their report concerning them and give you my own reaction to those recommendations and views. The first,
Radio and Television
of course, is that public control and regulation of broadcasting is an essential and proper function of parliament exercised not directly but through a state agency or regulatory body. We agree with that. We feel, as commissions that have investigated this matter in the past have felt, that broadcasting is not and in the nature of things cannot be safely considered to be an ordinary business undertaking similar to the publication of a newspaper, a magazine, a popular song or a play. Therefore it does indeed come within the public domain and must be considered in any governmental approach to it, in any parliamentary approach to it, as such.
The Fowler report points out, and rightly I think, that no one has ever argued, at least before any of the commission and I do not think before any of the parliamentary committees, against technical control, against regulations for the allocation of channels and frequencies, against measures to prevent the unauthorized use of airwaves and all that kind of thing. The argument, and it certainly has been an argument and perhaps continues to be, is over the extent to which there should be regulation and control and how that regulation and control should be exercised.
Freedom, of course, in this as in other fields of human activity is very important but the Fowler commission on page 36 of its report states that the most important freedom in this particular medium is "the freedom of the public to enjoy a broadcasting system which provides the largest possible outlet for the widest possible range of information, entertainment and ideas." We agree with that.


Mr. Nowlan:: What page is that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is page 36 of the report where it deals with the question of freedom in its application to broadcasting and television.
The report also states that there must be a single radio and television broadcasting system of which all stations in the country are a part and which will be controlled, regulated and supervised, not directly by government but through a delegated authority responsible to parliament and that in this national system three elements must be considered. The first is the private stations. The second is the publicly operated and controlled Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the third element is a board, however constituted, responsible to parliament and directing and supervising the whole national system.
I should like for a moment to look at these three elements in turn with special reference again to the recommendations and views of the Fowler commission in respect of them. The first element is the private stations. The

Radio and Television
Fowler report emphasizes, and I agree with the emphasis, the importance of the private stations in the national system. Indeed, as members who have read the report will know, and I am sure most members have, the commission was especially preoccupied with the position of the private stations with regard to television.
The report points out in this connection, and quite rightly, that a television licence today in a large Canadian city is, to use the expression of the report itself, a rich plum, and a grant of such a licence imposes a difficult responsibility on government. Furthermore, as I suppose I have already indicated in some of the excerpts I have read from the reports of previous commissions, once that licence is granted there will be a heavy economic pressure on such a private television station to become an outlet for a United States network, especially as such a station would not, I suppose, be likely to join a C.B.C. station in the same city as an outlet of the Canadian national system.
Nevertheless, the Fowler commission does recommend and makes a strong case for abandoning the single channel, as it has been called, or monopoly policy which has been followed in the past by granting in appropriate circumstances, and I emphasize those words, a licence for a private television station in cities where the C.B.C. now operates a television station. The Fowler report agrees that it was deisrable to have one station for as many areas as possible before there should be two stations in any one area but now, the commission thinks, enough progress to this end has been made to justify a change of policy.
But the commission does not stop there. It emphasizes that this change should be brought about gradually and with very great care indeed so as to avoid, for instance, the mistakes that were made in the early days of radio of duplication between private and C.B.C. stations. The necessity for care is underlined not only by the factor I have just mentioned but also by the fact that in Canada today, as hon. members know, there are only 12 very high frequency channels that are assigned to our country. Only 12 are available and that makes them, as I have already indicated, assets of very great value and very great national importance. Therefore the Fowler commission because of these considerations not only advocates care in implementing this change of policy but emphasizes that private competing stations when licensed should be subject to previously determined regulations which would require a minimum standard of Canadian program performance and which would bring them

under some control in respect of such things as advertising. The commission has some very interesting sentences on this particular matter and perhaps before I quote them, Mr. Speaker, I may be permitted to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Lester Bowles Pearson: At six o'clock I had been discussing the Fowler report and the recommendations and views in that report concerning the three elements which should constitute the national broadcasting system and the power to regulate and control broadcasting, I had indicated that the Fowler report, while agreeing that there should be modification of the single station policy with regard to television, also emphasized that this change should be brought about very carefully. Its views in that regard are, I think, both interesting and important so far as the private broadcasting element in the system is concerned. I venture to put one or two of these views on the record. For instance, at page 230 of this report, the commission had this to say:
It has been said that available television channels not now in use are rare and precious natural resources that should be preserved for some use in the future. Because the number of unused channels allocated to Canada and practically usable at the present stage of television development is limited, we agree that great care should be exercised in granting licences for these scarce resources. But we think they should not be left idle if they can be used effectively for the benefit of the Canadian people. As with other scarce natural resources, they should not be wasted but neither should they be hoarded.
Then again, in counselling care in granting competing television licences where C.B.C. stations are now operating, at page 235 of its report the commission had this to say:
If the level of performance practically possible under today's conditions is substantially lower than the level determined by the board of broadcast governors to be desirable, Canada would do better to wait for alternative television service.
In short, Mr. Speaker, while the commission recommended-and I have no quarrel with the recommendation-that the policy with regard to the single station for television in any one Canadian city should be modified, it also emphasized that the implementation of this modification should be made with great care.
I now want to say a few words about the second, the public element in the national broadcasting system, which is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and which has, as

we all know, special responsibilities for operating its own stations in the national interest and at present for controlling the whole broadcasting system in this country. This latter function is, of course, a more controversial one. In its report the Fowler commission confirms the good record of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation without suggesting that it is perfect or has been perfect or has not made mistakes or indeed that it cannot be improved. At page 127 of its report the commission has this to say:
Despite a good deal of propaganda directed against the C.B.C. and the Canadian broadcasting system, the results of all past inquiries have been remarkably consistent in giving general approval to Canada's performance and achievements in this field, and it will be seen that the present commission is no exception to this trend.
We on this side of the house also feel that the record of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation over the years has been good, that it has made a distinguished contribution to national development and has operated in the national interest. If that is the case-and I think it is the case-then I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to the chairman of the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr. Davidson Dunton, who has recently resigned, for the work he has done over the years and for the tact, wisdom, patience and intelligence he has shown in a job which, it seems to me, in complexity and difficulty is second to none in our country. I should like to pay my tribute to the work he has done in this capacity since he was chosen for this position a good many years ago. I am sure he will be missed by the corporation.
It seems to me that the corporation, by its record, stands up well in comparison with broadcasting companies or corporations, public or private, in any other country. It certainly has had to face some terrific problems. Some of these are inherent in the nature of broadcasting. Some of them are peculiar to broadcasting in this country where there are, as I tried to point out this afternoon, some special difficulties. Some of them arise out of the almost furious pace of growth and development in Canada to meet the desires or indeed-and I do not think it is an exaggeration to say this-the demands of the Canadian people.
I suppose it is true to say that growth in the field of television has been faster in Canada than in any other country in the world until today we have reached a position where, so the Fowler report tells us, 97 per cent of the Canadian population are covered by radio and in the space of a very few years 80 per cent of the people are covered by television. Indeed, in four years, I think it is, the number of television sets in this
Radio and Television
country has increased from a few hundred to 2.3 million. No wonder there were, and still are, headaches and growing pains in broadcasting in Canada. I suppose these are increased or are to be increased by the desirability of raising the figure of radio coverage to approximately 100 per cent and television to the objective laid down in the Fowler commission report of at least 90 per cent.
Attaining that latter figure of 90 per cent of our people to be covered by television will be a difficult and expensive proposition under present conditions; and, as the report points out, it will require the establishment of a number of Canadian low-power repeater stations in areas which are not now reached by television but which should be reached by television. The Fowler commission also makes the point, and it is one surely which we can all support.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation . . . should have its task clearly defined,-
I quote from the report at page 160:
-should know the limits beyond which it is not expected to go, and should have the means and the power to discharge that task within those limits.
That brings us to the very core of the problem, as I see it, namely the responsibilities and the resources of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. At present it certainly has definite and very large responsibilities for the provision of national programs and for ensuring that the whole system, public and private, shall be truly national and be guided in its operation in all sectors by national considerations.
For that purpose the corporation has been given certain general powers of regulation and control of the whole system, with which I will try to deal when I come to the third element of the system. For that purpose, even if changes are made in the present system with respect to responsibility for control the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation requires and will continue to require not only large funds with which to meet its obligations but surely it should also have some assurance of the receipt of what it will require over several years, certainly over a longer period than one year. The reconciliation of this requirement and this assurance with considerations of strict economy and parliamentary control is a very difficult problem indeed and one which, I assume, is before the government at the present moment.
I am always very happy indeed to help in the search for any solution of any problem and perhaps what I have to say about this may be of some assistance to the minister in this regard.

Radio and Television
There is no doubt in anyone's mind about the mounting cost to the treasury of the discharge of the responsibilities I have mentioned; there is no doubt about our desire as members of parliament to keep these costs down to the minimum required for the effective discharge of the policies we have laid down. In last year's estimates we voted approximately $27 million for broadcasting and another $16 million for statutory expenditures -approximately $42 million in all

and in this year's estimates the government is providing for $491 million and $12 million statutory expenditures which are provided by the excise tax of 15 per cent on television sets and parts. That is a very large sum of money; something over $61 million in our estimates for broadcasting in Canada.
Some time ago the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation estimated-and this perhaps puts the figures in proper perspective in terms of the services performed-that the cost of television was about $15 per television home per year and that it had been running pretty close to that, though I suspect it will soon be above that figure. However, I venture to say that perhaps no expenditure of $15 per home could bring so much in the way of information, enlightenment and entertainment. I personally felt last night, when watching television for one hour, from ten o'clock to eleven o'clock, that I got back a good proportion of that $15 in that one hour. Therefore we should not begrudge the corporation the necessary amount of money to enable it to do its job, provided that that job is well effectively and economically done. That of course is the question.
It seems pretty clear that if broadcasting services-radio or television-increase, the cost is of course going to increase also. Indeed I have suggested one respect in which these services may perhaps have to increase in extending the television coverage to a greater part of this country. It is also clear that if these extensions are made the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation cannot do its job without some assured and firm basis for its operational and its capital financing.
The Fowler report gives its own estimate of the amount of money which will be required over the period of years up to 1962 and those figures are very, very large. I believe they include the extension of television hours, which may not be as essential as some other changes; the introduction of colour television, which may not be too essential at this time, and the extension of television coverage to 90 per cent, which perhaps is more important than the other two changes.
I come now to the third and last element of this national broadcasting system, that of control and regulation which is now vested

in the chairman and board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Strong exception has in fact been taken in this house to one operating agency, namely the C.B.C., having too much power over other operating and competing agencies, namely the private stations. In other words, that the corporation in these matters of regulation and control is taking the position-and it has been put this way in this house-of both judge and jury.
In my view, from the study I have been able to give to this question, the present system has not worked too badly in practice. I do not think the C.B.C. has abused its powers but I am inclined to agree that the principle, as a principle, is open to some objection. The Fowler commission presumably came to the same conclusion because they recommend a change in this regard without however-and I think this is important-compromising the essential principle that one national system should be ensured. To reconcile that principle with the change which it thinks desirable the commission recommended in its report a separate board, of what it called broadcasting governors, to consist of fifteen members appointed for five-year terms, at least one of whom would be from each of the five major regions of Canada. It is not, in this recommendation, to be a board like the board of transport commissioners, which is a fulltime official board. It is to be a part-time board and even the chairman is to be a part-time appointee. Naturally he and the other members of the executive committee would have to spend more time in Ottawa than would the remainder of the board.
The report emphasizes that the membership is to be highly qualified and is to be independent of the government in the same way as, say, the board of directors of the Bank of Canada are independent of the government. I certainly agree with the commission in this respect. Independence is stressed as being essential in the recommendation made both with regard to public and private elements of the system would be responsible to this board of broadcasting governors which would in its constitution, its functions and in its authority be quite apart from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; it would, as I understand it, itself have no operating: responsibility but it would have control over the national system and over broadcasting policy. It would be responsible for making and enforcing regulations. In exercising this control, in its supervisory functions and, in enforcing minimum standards of performance, the board-the report says-should not be rigid or unduly interfering or attempt to interpret the public interest in too limiting and narrow a manner. I think that is a very

wise safeguard, as are those safeguards recommended against an unfair exercise of regulatory functions. In my own view, and I think in the view of a good many people who have studied this matter, it would be a mistake if we changed our broadcasting policy so that we had two boards, one the kind of board I have been mentioning and another board for the C.B.C. itself; in other words, one as at present, which would be concerned with programs and performance of the C.B.C. alone and a second board which would be a small full-time board concerned mainly with licensing new radio and television stations, increases of power for stations and such things, but without the authority to control standards of current performance or excessive commercialism in the whole system.
I am suggesting we should be making a mistake if we left the C.B.C. under its own board and then attempted to set up a full time board concerning mainly with licensing problems and only in a secondary way with the control and regulation of the whole system. It seems to me two such boards of that kind would be wasteful and overlapping. On the other hand, one small full-time board-I will compare it with the board of transport commissioners though the analogy is by no means perfect-with all the power to regulate and control might, in my opinion, prejudice the national system, based as it is on the special responsibilities of the C.B.C. and the prior position of the C.B.C., because of those responsibilities, in that system, which in my view should be maintained.
On the other hand, the role of a part-time independent board of broadcast governors would not be primarily administrative or technical but, within existing legislation, would keep broadcast policy in line generally with public opinion and protect the public interest in this vital matter. That is the kind of board we on this side of the house would prefer.
In conclusion, may I say that we approve in general the recommendations of the Fowler commission and we feel they might well form the basis of any new legislation on the subject, and I say that without accepting them in all their detail. The attitude of the official opposition on this most important problem can be summed up by the following broad principles of policy. In the first place, we feel that private radio and television stations have an important role to play in the field of broadcasting in Canada, not as an independent network but as a part of a single and integrated national system operating under the control and supervision of a public regulatory body to make sure-and I am quoting now from
Radio and Television
the Fowler report-that programs are responsive to Canadian needs and adapted to Canadian conditions and that the public rather than any private interest should prevail.
In the second place, the C.B.C. must continue to play a dominant role in our national system of broadcasting. In order to be in a position to perform that function effectively it must be completely free of government interference and be ultimately responsible only to parliament; it must also receive adequate funds, not merely on a year-to-year basis but, subject always to parliament control, in such a way as to be able to plan in advance the development of its services.
The proper operation and development of such a national system of broadcasting will be costly and will involve increased public expenditures in the future. It is imperative that we should be prepared to meet this responsibility if we want to grow and develop as a distinct nation. I should like in this respect to quote the very sound and serious warning given to us all in this house by Michael Barkway in a C.B.C. capital report on June 29, 1958:
Nationwide television will probably involve costs proportionate to the unique contribution it can make towards developing and informing a Canadian point of view. If ever we decide it is not worth the price-that we could get along just as well with free American programs-then it will be high time to put your money elsewhere and prepare to abandon ship. There are quicker ways to destroy Canada, but none more decisive: because this would mean declaring that we don't really care any more.
It is important that the position of the government on these matters and particular in regard to the recommendations of the Fowler commission should be stated clearly, and stated soon. Delay and doubt about this matter is creating difficulties and uncertainties in this field. The Fowler report has been in the hands of government for well over a year. Where does the government stand on it? Is, for instance, the board of governors of the C.B.C. being abolished by default? The announcement in the speech from the throne has only added to this uncertainty, especially in the light of past statement, because it says merely this:
There will be placed before you a proposal to establish a new agency to regulate broadcasting in Canada and to ensure that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the privately owned broadcasting stations work effectively together to constitute a national system to provide satisfactory television and radio services to all Canadians within reach. Related amendments to the Radio Act will also be proposed.
We think that this parliament, many weeks after that speech from the throne was

Radio and Television
delivered, is now entitled to a clear statement of government policy with regard to the implications of that paragraph. By moving this amendment we hope to get that statement from the government, and therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) the following:
That all the words after the word "That" be deleted and the following be substituted therefor: "this house regrets the government has not yet presented its proposals for the regulation and financing of radio and television broadcasting and thereby removing the uncertainty as to the future of public and private broadcasting in Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, we in this group listened with a great deal of interest to the excellent hour and twenty minutes speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) on this most important question.
I must say that one frequently has the experience, listening to a person making a good speech, of realizing that he is in effect stealing your thunder and some of your lightning, if it can be termed as such. Therefore during the dinner recess, I have had to reorganize my remarks to some extent, and one can readily understand that in this humid atmosphere one is not inclined to labour very vigorously in the vineyard of material and notes and things of that sort for material to replace material one intended to use earlier in the day.
We were very pleased at the explanation made by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to the history, the purpose, the achievements and the record of the C.B.C. I thought personally that he made a very good job of his outline of those subjects and also of his exposition of the value of the C.B.C. in promoting Canadian culture, in promoting Canadian identity, Canadian unity and, in the right sense a Canadian national consciousness.
I am sure that in that part of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition we in the C.C.F. can heartily concur. We agree also with his references to the value of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to, as it were, weld together the various races in Canada and to bring together Canadians from east to west.
I also noticed, on keeping a very close eye on the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), that the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition did not seem to cause him any undue pain. I would assume that if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) had been here the best he could have done would have been to have given us one of his pallid smiles from time to time.
As we in this group do not believe in repetition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: - I shall not reiterate the points in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition with which we in the C.C.F. agree-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That statement was worthy of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -and I am sure that the members of the C.C.F. realize that I always speak with a certain penury of language.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On a number of occasions hon. members in the C.C.F. have made reference to notes and readings. I wonder if the hon. gentleman could dispense with reading?


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the hon. member come right over here and see whether or not the hon. gentleman is reading.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman by his question clearly indicates that he is a novitiate in this house. The notes and readings to which I refer are in my office and were prepared after a very hurriedly eaten dinner in order to try and have something worth while to say following the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the point of order which was raised by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) has been satisfied by the assurance of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) that he is not reading.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman could see my notes he would think a chicken with wet, muddy feet had tracked across the page. Before proceeding further I think I should join with the Leader of the Opposition in expressing our admiration for the valuable services rendered to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation over a period of 12 or 13 years if I remember correctly and also to the Canadian people by Mr. Dunton. It was not an easy task to be at the head of that organization and I am convinced that it was not made any less easy at times by the vigorous criticisms of some of the hon. gentlemen who now sit on the government side of the house. We wish Mr. Dunton every success in his new undertaking as president of Carleton University.
Throughout the years the question of the C.B.C. is one that has drawn a great deal of attention in this house and provoked much interest and comment in the country. That has been indicated by the fact, if I remember correctly, that there have been 13 parliamentary committees over the years studying the administration of the C.B.C and some

three royal commissions. The Aird commission was the first in 1928. The Massey commission also made a study of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the latest, the Fowler commission, reported on the subject in 1957. I am not going to repeat what the Leader of the Opposition had to say with respect to the Aird commission. We in this group agree with most of his comments in connection with that commission. However, I do wish to refer briefly to some of what we consider were the inadequacies of the Massey commission with respect to its report in so far as it referred to radio broadcasting and we must all realize that the situation has changed a great deal since the time of that report.
While it was an excellent report and covered the field quite comprehensively under the circumstances that prevailed at the time there were three major omissions in the Massey commission report from the point of view of this group. The first was that it failed to suggest that higher standards should be required by private stations. We in this group think that is a question that should be given very serious consideration by this parliament and those that are charged with the responsibility of administering radio in Canada. We also do not believe that newspapers should be given radio or television licences and the Massey report failed to mention that.
The third suggestion omitted from the report which in our view would have been worth while and necessary was that the board of governors be more qualified. I am not making any undue criticisms of the board of governors and their services in the past. The experience of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in radio and television throughout the years has been evolutionary. We feel that the board of governors should be more qualified to analyse and understand programs, administrative procedures and to understand to a greater degree than was possible in the past the very complex technical difficulties that are related to making decisions in respect to radio broadcasting and television.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Would the hon. gentleman tell the house what he contemplates when he postulates this high degree of technical knowledge and so on?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We would not suggest that all the board of governors should be qualified technicians but we do think that those who have charge of the administration of radio and television in this country and who make the policy decisions should have included among their numbers some people who because of their technical knowledge and 57071-3-140
Radio and Television
ability, divorced from the direct administration of the organization, have some degree of technical competence to pass on some of these very complicated and difficult problems particularly when it comes to the question of applications for two stations in one city or the necessary things that are required to give radio coverage in certain areas and questions of that nature.
With respect to the report of the Fowler commission I-or rather, we in this group- think it is most comprehensive. I am not very much given to saying "I" but one slips into the habit and when speaking on a subject like this I want it understood that I am speaking for the members of this group. We are not given to putting ourselves forward as individuals. We submerge our personalities to the common good, you know.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member is becoming more like the Prime Minister all the time.


Harold Edward Winch: He will be there some day.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This report indicates that the commission made a very thorough and exhaustive study of the subject. The report also indicates the very widespread support for the C.B.C. that exists in this country. In that connection I wish to refer to a bulletin that was sent to my office by the Canadian broadcasting league which has lately been revived, as I understand it. The bulletin contains a paragraph which refers to national support for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and which reads as follows:
The report of the royal commission on broadcasting 1957, signed by R. M. Fowler, president, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association; Edmond Turcotte, ambassador; and James Stewart, president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, states (page 11):
"The overwhelming weight of evidence submitted to us-compelled us to report that Canadians wish to have a Canadian broadcasting system . . . want to keep some part of their broadcasting fare Canadian, and are willing within reason, to pay for it."
My comment in this connection would be that there is clear evidence of the value of the work that has been done throughout the years by those who have been charged with the administration of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The second point in this bulletin reads:
Some 245 organizations representing over six million Canadians submitted briefs of many points of view; but:
"there was virtual unanimity in favour of a Canadian broadcasting system, supported by moneys from the federal treasury."
Then, this report goes on to list a number of organizations that made representations to the commission and I find eight national religious organizations, and then some 10

Radio and Television
French-Canadian organizations, universities and various well known French-Canadian societies, and some 10 labour organizations, headed by the Canadian labour congress; some 9 women's organizations, such as the national council of women of Canada, the Canadian federation of university women, the I.O.D.E., women's institutes, and so on. I am very pleased to see that because I think it is a good omen that the women of Canada should commence to take a great interest in a subject such as this.
Then, I come to agricultural organizations; I see 12 are noted, several of them of national scope, the Canadian federation of agriculture, the co-operative union of Canada and so on. Then, we come to organizations representative of music, drama and the arts, and here we find nine organizations, including the Canadian arts council, the national ballet guild, the Canadian council of authors and artists, the dominion drama festival, the Canadian league of composers, and so on.
Then, interestingly enough, we have eight private radio broadcasting stations, apparently making representations in support of the C.B.C. as the publicly owned body representing the people of Canada to carry on radio, and then some 16 educational organizations such as the Canadian home and school and parent-teachers federation, Canadian association for adult education, national advisory council on school broadcasting and so on, and several of the universities across Canada including this list.
I think, this indicates very clearly that while as the Leader of the Opposition said, there is no organization or group that does not make mistakes under very difficult conditions where we have had this development of television, a very expensive medium of communication in recent years, changed technical conditions, procedures and things of that sort, the C.B.C. has done a wonderful job in this country, which is recognized by the Canadian people as a whole.
I am going to speak very briefly, Mr. Speaker, because as I said before I do not want to repeat what was said by the Leader of the Opposition. This report does make some very concrete recommendations, the first of which on page 13 is as follows:
That the mixed Canadian system of public and private ownership is here to stay.
One would almost think that that was taken out of the C.C.F. program, Mr. Speaker. Here is a demonstration of the workability, the efficiency and the public accord given to a mixed economy, the first step in that direction on a national scale. Recommendation No. 2 reads:
That the state agency may grow, as Canada grows, but its functions are not to be extended to
[Mr. Herridge.l
do the whole job of providing radio and television services to Canadians.
Quite rightly so. We have found this mixture of public and private enterprise in Canada on the basis of the C.C.F. proposals in this direction throughout the years very suitable indeed. We suggest the necessary direction and control of major policy, but still leaving flexibility for local initiative, local control, and things of that sort.
The third recommendation reads:
That private stations should individually be required to justify the continued grant of a valuable public franchise and that some may lose their licences because of a shabby performance, but private operators should stop worrying about the bogey of nationalization that has filled them with suspicion and fear in the past.
We in this group do not see much to object to in this paragraph. The fourth recommendation reads:
That, for the foreseeable future, we will continue to have a single broadcasting system in which all Canadian radio and television stations, public and private, present and future, will be integral parts, regulated and controlled by an agency representing the public interest and responsible to parliament.
One would almost think that this paragraph was written at the C.C.F. national convention. You know, Mr. Speaker, it is strange when somebody else says these things and writes these words. Then, such words as "control" and "regulate" are perfectly respectable, but if we should include such words in a portion of our program or of our manifesto, or things of that sort, the challenge of dictatorship, tyranny and all the rest of it is immediately hurled at us. Therefore, you can see that once again, Mr. Speaker, the members of the other parties in this house and even distinguished people employed by the government in this country on behalf of Canadians are infected by the language, the philosophy and the outlook of the C.C.F.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Infected?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: "Inoculated" would be a better word, yes, but against the diseases of decadent capitalism.
I have dealt with these four recommendations but I am having some difficulty deciphering the scratches on my paper. I now want to deal briefly with government policy as it has been foreshadowed to a limited extent by the remarks of the Minister of National Revenue. The speech from the throne dealt with a proposal to establish a new agency to regulate broadcasting in Canada and to ensure that the C.B.C. and privately owned stations worked effectively together to constitute a national system to provide satisfactory television and radio services to all Canadians within reach and to set up a select committee on broadcasting.

I have a memo here on points from the address of the Minister of National Revenue, who is responsible for the C.B.C., delivered on June 3, 1958, at page 812 of Hansard. This is one that really butters it up. Honestly, Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of National Revenue has the somewhat exterior appearance of a Conservative, I am of the opinion that if you penetrated, shall I say, his political hide to a slight extent you would find the warmness of heart and the forwardlooking view of many C.C.F. members.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It takes only one bad apple.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: 
John Whitney Pickersgill: Or of the rest of the speech.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I continue:
8.	There has been some suggestion that the C.B.C. has failed to do something; that is simply arrant nonsence. The C.B.C. has not failed or refused to do anything. The C.B.C. has been spending the money which this parliament has made available to it and spending it to the very best effect possible.
We in this group say that that is the best speech made by a Conservative member of the House of Commons on radio broadcasting and television for a good many years.


George Clyde Nowlan: Why qualify it?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before I conclude with my more or less general remarks-


David James Walker: Let us have your speech. We have heard the minister's.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wanted the minister's
because I thought it was worth repeating. I think all good things are worth hearing twice. May I say that I think the hon. gentleman is a bit too touchy. I might tell him right now that during the dinner recess a number of his colleagues spoke to me and said that he was rather rude to us in this group earlier in the day.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, may I reply that it is about time the hon. member's group knew the truth about themselves. They are getting it now and they are going to get it from now on.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely that is not a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point or order?


David James Walker: I have made my point, Mr. Speaker, yes. I am very fond of the hon. gentleman opposite-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member might show his fondness by letting the hon. member for Kootenay West finish his speech.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, you often come to our rescue in the house with words of wisdom. I want to refer briefly now, and I must lay a foundation of fact, to a memorandum submitted to the Minister of National

Radio and Television
Revenue by the council of broadcasting unions, C.L.C., which I understand represents about 30,000 employees directly related or employed in broadcasting and television. I am not going to read the whole memorandum but I do want to read one paragraph because I think it puts very clearly and well certain attitudes which we in this group support. On page 2 of the memorandum we find the following:
For we find that the report upholds the validity of the basic policies of our national broadcasting system as developed and defended over the years by responsible Canadians of all parties and of all walks of life. And we believe that a new government, enjoying as it does a very general mandate for the advancement of things Canadian, will not fail to see the wisdom of maintaining and strengthening that single system, for the sake of the greater development of national unity, understanding and culture in the broadest sense of that word.
We are aware that broadcasting is a complex field, and that its complexities have been deliberately exploited to mislead the well-meaning. Even without the shrill voice of a small and well publicized pressure group, it would be no surprise if many members of the new house were misled by a surface knowledge of apparent facts. Not every Canadian can be privileged to sit on a royal commission on broadcasting. But three royal commissions and thirteen parliamentary committees have reviewed the facts with care over the years. Their findings as to the fundamental facts of Canadian broadcasting have been essentially the same.
I was very interested to note that they made that point because anyone who reads the reports of the committees and the royal commissions will see that that point is very clearly demonstrated.
The latest royal commission reports that 245 organizations representing some six million Canadians addressed briefs to the latest royal commission. Their views were virtually unanimous and are accurately reflected in the report.
This memorandum is very well drafted and we have been very interested in getting the views of those persons who are directly employed in the industry. I suppose I must get along. I see the hon. member for Rose-dale fidgeting again. We in the C.C.F. look on the C.B.C. as a cultural dike, as it were, against United States monopoly of the air in Canada. We look upon it as a great force for the understanding and development of Canadianism in its true sense.
I want to make a comment or two about the private stations before I conclude, even to the discomfort of the hon. member for Rosedale. Many private stations have performed excellent community service but a very interesting thing about them is that there is a very great variation in the service performed by private stations in Canada. In one community you find a private station giving a lot of free time for community purposes, carrying the major C.B.C. news reports and taking a good number of C.B.C. programs.
[Mr. Herridge.l
In other places, particularly the smaller towns and cities, the private stations in our opinion are evading their responsibility to quite an extent.
As the Leader of the Opposition said, the radio and television field is a very lucrative one. It is a plum because franchises can only be given to a limited number of corporations or individuals. I and the other members of this group have repeatedly noticed that while the private stations are great exponents of free enterprise in its purest and should I say, therefore, its mythical form, they are very much opposed to competition coming into play when it is a question of another private station getting a licence in a particular city or town. I hope that the C.B.C. and the authorities who regulate the C.B.C. in the future will pay more attention to that aspect.
I also think that the private stations should be required to carry a minimum quantity of C.B.C. programs, that is, a minimum quantity of C.B.C. news and also provide a definite minimum quantity of community service. I know what happens with some small private stations in this country, as I am sure many other members do. I am speaking particularly of British Columbia because I rarely hear the news here since I am so occupied in the house, in my office and in other ways in Ottawa. I mean other Ottawa offices. I very seldom hear the news here but in British Columbia we will often get the C.B.C. eight o'clock news and then we will get Mulligan's Paint Shop news at noon and Tom Jones Sport Goods news at seven o'clock and so on. I think the private stations should be required to carry at least two or three of the daily national news summaries. I understand it is more profitable to carry a local news report but sometimes they are very poorly drafted. Generally speaking, no newscasters in Canada can excel the C.B.C. announcers for objectivity, enunciation and conciseness in reporting on world and national news. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, this mixed economy of radio and television has worked very well indeed and can be improved.
While I have spoken briefly about national policy and the national aspects of the situation, I want to deal for a moment or two with local needs. The minister knows what I am getting at. I never speak on this question without thinking of the miners, lumbermen, prospectors, trappers, the people who live in the backwoods in numbers of constituencies in Canada and who to date because of certain circumstances have been denied the opportunity to listen to Canadian radio programs on any satisfactory basis. In that connection the Fowler report mentions the

necessity for some 74 low power relay stations across Canada, if I remember the number correctly. I do urge the government to give early consideration to the needs of these people and their requests by the establishment of low power relay stations.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker,-and I see a smile coming over the face of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Walker)-while we in the C.C.F. admit that we cannot see into the future in all directions, although we have been proved to be correct many times in this house, there are changing conditions and circumstances that will require change in administration and changes in procedures and things of that sort. We recognize the good work that has been done by the C.B.C. in the past and therefore fundamentally, while there may be changes in administration to meet changing conditions, the excellent work of the administration and the procedures used today. We want the C.B.C. in the future to be given every opportunity to meet the needs of all Canadians in Canada for satisfactory radio and satisfactory television. We want an effective and fair administration which will demonstrate, as I said before, the value of the mixed economy in radio and television and, shall I say, the basic soundness of C.C.F. principles in this direction.
I now come to the conclusion of my address. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That the amendment be further amended by adding thereto the following words:
And this house further regrets that the government has not declared itself in support of the maintenance and expansion of publicly owned facilities in the field of radio and television.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to support the amendment which was made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) earlier this afternoon and which in effect was critical of the government for the delay in bringing down its policy with reference to the operation, regulation and control of radio broadcasting and television in Canada, at the same time regretting the fact that there was no attempt by the government to remove the uncertainty in this field as to the future of radio and television broadcasting in Canada.
To those of us who sit on this side of the house it is surprising that the government has thus far not seen fit to announce its policy in that regard. As a matter of fact, in this important field of telecommunications, the government has been strangely silent. Still, Mr. Speaker, when they were on this side of the house, they were highly critical, not only of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation but more particularly of the
Radio and Television
government and its policies with reference to the manner in which this field of communications was handled. They were bitter and sometimes violent in their criticism. Now that they have the responsibility of office they are, as I said earlier, silent. They have been in office now for over a year and it seems to me that in that time it would have been possible for the government to bring down a policy which was tantamount to what had been recommended by the Fowler commission.
It is true, on the other hand, that this is a field which is highly technical in its nature. It is a field with which the average individual or-and I am sure I am not casting any reflection on members of the house when I say this-the average member of parliament is not too conversant unless he has had an opportunity of reading carefully the various reports. However that may be, the government has before it at the present time a very comprehensive and thorough report which was read in part by the Leader of the Opposition. I refer to the report of the Fowler commission on broadcasting. Some very timely recommendations were made by it. Therefore in my opinion there is no reason why up until this time there should not have been some positive statement from the other side of the house.
This afternoon we had the opportunity of debate on a motion to extend the sittings of the house and the Prime Minister (Mr. Dief-enbaker) at that time indicated that he intended to bring down legislation that was mentioned in the speech from the throne. It strikes me also that this extremely important legislation having to do with this field of telecommunications is legislation which should have been brought down earlier, that it is legislation which, because of its importance, should have been considered not in the dying days of the session but during the earlier part of the session.
The procedure in the application for radio and television licences in Canada is as follows. An application is made to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) by either an individual or a corporation seeking the establishment of one or other of these media. If the application is found to be in order from a technical standpoint; if the application, after it has been considered by the officers of the Department of Transport, is found to be in order; and if it is also approved from other telecommunications aspects, it is then sent to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for study and consideration. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at a public hearing considers the briefs that are from time to time made to it in public, then makes

Radio and Television
a recommendation to the Minister of Transport who, under the statute, has authority to issue and grant the licence.
The main requirement for a station is, of course, a frequency or channel. These frequencies or channels, as they are called, belong not to any individual and not to any group. They are part of the public domain. They are the property of the Canadian people and as such they should be developed for the use of all Canadians, not just for the use of a small number of individuals and not just for the use of those who are anxious to make a profit or those who are anxious to make a killing at the expense of the public domain or at the expense of this natural resource.
I should like to say a few words also about the principles which I think are at the basis of a sound television policy. First, however, let me say that the development and growth of this nation has been the result of a partnership between private enterprise on the one hand and public ownership on the other. The outstanding examples of this, of course, are the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific railway. There was a time when the railway lines of what is today the Canadian National Railways were in an extremely unsound position financially or were in bankruptcy and parliament, because of the fact that it desired to save these lines established the crown company and granted to the Canadian National Railways the power to develop and operate the non-paying lines. It was because of the attitude of parliament at that time that it was possible to assist those lines by means of public ownership under the aegis and jurisdiction of the Canadian National Railways and at the same time to assist the privately-owned Canadian Pacific railway.
The same thing can be said in the field of aviation. There the parliament of this country decided that it would be well to have a national air line and to assist that national air line, in the form of Trans-Canada Air Lines, to operate essential services, not only across our country but to other parts of the world. While that was being done on the one hand aid was continuously being given to private enterprise to operate air lines in our country.
The same applies to the Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation, a crown corporation established by this house some years ago. It has been operating successfully in the field of telecommunications, submarine cables and of Marconi wireless, side by side with private enterprise. Rates for carrying goods and persons have been set by a public body to ensure the best possible service to the public and at the same time to ensure that the facilities themselves

could remain in existence in order to bind our nation together.
The history of our nation indicates that public ownership and private enterprise have succeeded side by side. There have of course been struggles but in the long run national interest has won out. The partnership of private and public enterprise has been successfully carried on though at times, not without some acrimony. However, if we are to continue to grow this partnership must be maintained in the field of telecommunications, and particularly in the field of radio and television. That is our view on this side of the house; we believe it is the only way in which we can have a Canadian nation.
In the early days of radio there were many patriotic Canadians who were fearful lest control of broadcasting should fall entirely into the hands of United States chains. This was not because of anti-United States sentiment or because we did not like United States broadcasting-there is much to commend United States stations-it was because we wanted the greater part of the Canadian broadcasting system to be of Canadian origin and content.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has contributed a great deal to the keeping of this country definitely and distinctively Canadian, and we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the corporation in that respect. Had it not been for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation monopolies in the field of radio from the United States would have moved in and, I am sure, would have taken control. Here we have a nation of 17 million people living alongside a nation of 170 million people, which speaks the language of our majority and is rich, inventive and has a highly developed broadcasting system of its own. No other country is similarly helped and embarrassed by the close proximity of the United States to use the words of the report of the Fowler commission on radio broadcasting. The natural flow of trade, as that report says, as well as of travel and of ideas, runs north and south. We have tried to make it run, in some part though of course not all of it, east and west. This we have tried to do at considerable cost, but we have been willing to do it because it has meant the maintenance of Canadian programs, the maintenance of our way of life and the maintenance of a Canadian nation. The result has been the retention of a Canadian identity, art and culture and, in essence, the maintenance of Canadian nationhood.
That is why I said earlier, and now repeat, that we are deeply indebted to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for its contribution in this field. It has succeeded in avoiding

a condition in the fields of radio and television which was feared by many citizens when this medium of telecommunication began; it has succeeded in avoiding a condition which was referred to in an editorial appearing on April 13, 1932 in the Winnipeg Free Press which I should now like to quote to the house:
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 dependant subordinate who obeys them.
If this is true with reference to radio, and the editorial to which I have referred dealt only with radio of course at that time how much more is it true with reference to television? What we are interested in is the Canadian content of our programs. We believe the Canadian people want programs of Canadian origination and not canned programs coming in from the United States. This policy is based upon the recommendations which were brought before parliament in the early years and among those who stated the principles on which radio should be operated -with which principles I and those on this side of the house are in full agreement-was none other than the late Lord Bennett. I should now like to quote his words, because I think they are replete with soundness and apply not only to radio of the day but also to television today. His words may be found at page 3035 of Hansard for May 18, 1932 as follows:
First of all, this country must be assured of complete Canadian control of broadcasting from Canadian sources, free from foreign interference or influence. Without such control radio broadcasting can never become a great agency for the communication of matters of national concern and for the diffusion of national thought and ideals, and without such control it can never be the agency by which national consciousness may be fostered and sustained and national unity still further strengthened. Other and alternative systems may meet requirements of other countries, and in any case it is not my purpose to comment unfavourably upon those systems. But it seems to me clear that in Canada the system we can most profitably employ is
Radio and Television
one which, in operation and control, responds most directly to the popular will and the national need. In this stage of our national development we have problems peculiar to ourselves and we must reach a solution of them through the employment of all available means. The radio has a place in the solution of all those problems. It becomes, then, the duty of parliament to safeguard it in such a way that its fullest benefits may be assured to the people as a whole.
And still a little further on, the late Lord Bennett continues:
No other scheme than that of public ownership can ensure to the people of this country, without regard to class or place, equal enjoyment of the benefits and pleasures of radio broadcasting.
And again:
The use of the air, or the air itself, whatever you may please to call it, that lies over the soil or the land of Canada is a natural resource over which we have complete jurisdiction under a recent decision of the Privy Council. In view of these circumstances and of the further fact that broadcasting is a science that is only yet in its infancy and about which we know little yet, I cannot think that any government would be warranted in leaving the air to private exploitation and not reserving it for development for the use of the people.
These are words which I think will commend themselves to all parts of this house. They are, it seems to me, a sound basis for not only a radio broadcasting policy but for a television policy as well. We believe that those same principles should continue to be applied in Canada. In fact, the late Lord Bennett's statement is more applicable today than it was then; we believe that his views are still appropriate today.
Now I would ask hon. members to contrast that statement with the words of a former leader of the opposition which can be found at page 410 of Hansard of December 8, 1952. They are the words of the Hon. Mr. Drew, and I quote:
If the concept of the C.B.C., in relation to this new medium of communicating thoughts, news and pictures of events as well, is to be carried forward consistently with the original idea, then surely it should be the purpose of the C.B.C. to provide television broadcasts in those areas where private broadcasting will not find it economically convenient to do so.
What is the meaning of those words? It is, to my way of thinking, that private interests are to operate where there is money to be made and that the C.B.C. is not to have a chance to gain revenue with which to improve and expand its system for the benefit of all Canadians. What is being defended in this statement is that this great Canadian resource which belongs to the people of Canada should be handed over in those parts which are "a sure thing", a profitable venture, to private individuals or corporations, and then let Canada put up money out of general taxation to provide television in those areas where it cannot pay. And here I

Radio and Television
go on to complete the idea expressed by the former leader of the opposition:
That was the intention of the C.B.C. in relation to radio broadcasting. If the same principle is carried forward, then surely the whole purpose of the C.B.C. in relation to television should be to let the private stations, without public expense, broadcast the television broadcasts in the great areas of concentrated population where that is financially possible, and for the C.B.C. to provide the television broadcasts in those areas where the ordinary financial returns will not justify private investment.
Is this to be the policy of the government? I think the house has a right to know, and to ask the government what its policy is, and that is what the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition seeks to do. Is the policy of the government to be based on the principles laid down by the late Lord Bennett? Is the policy of the government to be based upon the principles held by the former leader of the opposition which I have just quoted. Or are the recommendations of the Fowler commission to be carried out.
Now may I turn to another subject, and that is the matter of new stations in areas now being served. Thus far the so-called single channel policy has been applied to the development of television in Canada. Following the report of the Massey commission in 1952 the policy of granting one television licence in each of the main geographical areas of Canada was adopted. After television stations were established in Toronto and Montreal, the C.B.C. began the construction and operation of stations in Vancouver, Winnipeg, and Halifax. No two stations were to be licensed to serve the same area. And then, at page 226 of the royal commission report, the former minister of national revenue, who was responsible for the policy of television and for the C.B.C., is reported as saying:
The principle of one station to an area is to apply only until an adequate national television system is developed. At the rate that applications for stations are now being received it may not be long before there is a sufficient degree of national coverage to justify the government and the C.B.C. giving consideration to permitting two or perhaps in some cases more than two stations in certain areas. It is anticipated that, in due course, private stations will be permitted in areas covered by C.B.C. stations, and the C.B.C. may establish stations in some areas originally covered by private stations.
There is today, as the house knows, a strong public demand for the granting of licences for second stations, and I ask: what is the policy of the government with respect to that? The Fowler commission at page 233 asks three questions which, I am sure, the Minister of National Revenue has carefully studied and they are as follows:
(1)	When should the "single channel" policy be abandoned?
IMr. Chevrier.]
(2)	To whom should second licences be granted?
(3)	On what terms should second licences be granted?
The answers are discussed at some length and I think we on this side of the house are entitled to know what the policy will be in reference to those single channel stations.
Next I should like to say something about the French language stations in Canada. The report of the royal commission deals with that matter in a full chapter. I believe the report deals with it in an understanding and sympathetic manner, and I commend the reading of this chapter of the report which will be found at page 237 et sequentia. It is stated in that chapter that there are several principles governing the operation and control of French language stations in Canada. There have been demands by a number of inhabitants of Canada who are not in receipt of any broadcasting facilities whatsoever, or from those in areas where the programs, though available, are untimely or of inadequate quality. One of these groups is in the maritime provinces. In the centre of New Brunswick, in western Nova Scotia and on Cape Breton island there are important groups of French-speaking Canadians out of range of any service at all, whether of radio or television, in their own language. I submit that the C.B.C. should examine this question and see if it is not possible to bring its French language radio service to these groups in the maritime provinces. Consideration should be given to the establishment of a television station at Moncton, which is an important cultural and educational centre of that province. I am sure my colleagues from the maritime provinces on this side of the house, if they take part in this debate, will want to deal with that subject and probably will deal with it more effectively than I can.
There are four French language television stations in the prairie provinces, at St. Boniface, Edmonton, Saskatoon and Gravel-bourg. They are not commercial stations in any sense of the word. They are rendering a public service and have received assistance from the three prairie provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta as well as by substantial contributions from the province of Quebec. These four stations are operating under extremely difficult and trying circumstances. The question is how long will they be able to continue? They need assistance. I say respectfully that the government should not allow these stations to disappear. It should study in what manner it can best assist them.
And now I turn with great satisfaction to a statement which I find in the chapter referred to earlier, that section of the report

concerning French broadcasting stations in the province of Ontario. At page 240 we find these words:
In the province of Ontario, a new and rather gratifying phenomenon of Canadian life was discovered by the commission. It is the growing acceptance, at least by the more alert and reflective elements of the community, of the French language as a leaven of cultural growth for the whole of Canadian life. From several English speaking sources came the request that a way be found to bring the French radio network service to Toronto.
At this point let me quote a portion of the brief presented by the Ontario modern language teachers' association which reads in part as follows:
The French language occupies an important position on the curriculum of all secondary schools in the province of Ontario. Its prominent place on the high school program was likely due at one time to the proximity of this province to the province of Quebec. As time went on, however, the study of French proved itself as an effective academic discipline to the extent that it has all but taken over the position once held by Latin. An estimated 80 per cent of the students proceeding to university elect French as the language to be studied in their final year in the secondary school ....We do realize that so much of the teachers' time is required for the formal academic study of the French language that insufficient attention is often given to making certain that each of the 35 or 40 pupils in each class attains a satisfactory fluency in speaking French. Nevertheless, those students who, after completing the French courses in our high schools, find themselves in a French environment, develop very quickly a fluency equal to the needs of ordinary communication. An opportunity to hear French-language broadcasts of a popular nature which stimulate greatly the students' interest in the spoken language and would be only slightly less effective than an extended visit among French people... .The enthusiasm with which students speak of French programs which they have heard by radio or in the cinema seems to indicate that such broadcasts would enjoy a large and receptive audience particularly in the urban centres.
Having quoted this brief, I have no hesitation in saying that it does a great deal to weld and unite the various parts which go to make up our country. I should like to pause here for a moment and contrast that statement with another statement which was made by the grand master of the Orange Lodge in Montreal recently as reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail of June 27, 1958:
Leslie H. Saunders of Toronto, grand master of the Grand Orange Lodge of British America, says he is opposed to compulsory courses in French language for Ontario schools.
He said: "Canada is not a bilingual country. It is English-speaking with a bilingual province."
Addressing the annual conference of the lodge yesterday he said French and English language courses might be of value in Quebec, where most of the population was French Canadian. But even this province had 500,000 English-speaking persons.


Mr. Maloney:: Why do you not read the editorial they wrote about it, too?
57071-3-141
Radio and Television


Lionel Chevrier: Unfortunately I have not got it. I read the statement as I found it in this press clipping.


Mr. Deschaleleis:: Why does the hon. member for Parkdale not make his own speeches?


Lionel Chevrier: I was going to say that fortunately for this country the grand master represents a very small and not too important group in Canada.


Mr. Bigg:: Why quote him, then?


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure that the vast majority of the membership of this house does not approve of that kind of statement because have we not had a repeated example in this house on the part of various ministers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself of a desire to speak the French language? I was in Quebec not long ago and listened to the Prime Minister speak for some time in the French language and I believe he must really have imposed upon himself a strict course of study of the language in order for him to speak for the length of time he did on the important subject he discussed. The same may be said of my leader who not only is able to speak French correctly but who understands the language as does the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). I put those two attitudes in juxtaposition because I believe they dramatically illustrate two points of view, one of them fast disappearing in this country. I would even invite my hon. friend, the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Small) to some day rise in the house and regale the house in the French language. I am sure, if he wanted to, he could do so. In so doing he would be following along the lines of many prominent members of his own party.
Let me now ask this question, Mr. Speaker. What is the future of radio broadcasting in Canada? My leader dealt with that at some length and most efficiently. All I need say in that respect is that the Fowler report on broadcasting shows that conditions in Canada have changed very materially since 1936. At that time there were 75 radio stations in Canada, television had not yet appeared on the scene and the total cost for the public broadcasting system was approximately $2 million. Today there are 189 radio stations, 38 television stations and the annual public cost amounts to approximately $40 million. The task of regulating and supervising the Canadian broadcasting system, is, therefore, a different one from that envisaged in those years.
Now that a substantial Canadian system for both radio and television has been created, a different task lies ahead. Accordingly, it is

Radio and Television
suggested that the present Canadian Broadcasting Corporation be abolished and replaced by a new board of broadcast governors which would have responsibility for all public and private broadcasting in Canada. There would also be established a corporation to be known as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which would have powers and responsibilities similar to those of the present C.B.C.
Is this the best method of regulating and supervising broadcasting in this country? The Fowler royal commission thought so after 14 months of study and investigation. What does the government think?
We have a good broadcasting system in this country. The joining together in one system of public and private ownership suits Canada and serves Canadians well. The concept is a good one. We would be wise to keep it very much as it is but improve and strengthen it. So thought the commission, Mr. Speaker. What is the government going to do about it?
(Translation):


Mr, L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the C.B.C., I should like to refer to one particular point, that of programs. However, may I point out in passing that it is quite logical that Canada should not be entirely deprived of its national radio and television network. The government must continue to subsidize the C.B.C. as long as we expect the corporation to discharge those responsibilities that private enterprise is incapable of assuming,
i.e. serving the people of Canada in areas of the country where sources of revenue are clearly inadequate. On the other hand it would also be logical to put an end to this undesirable type of monopoly and, in so doing, give the private stations a chance to share in the creation of a Canadian radio and television service.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) to give strict orders to the proper authorities that close supervision be exercised on television programs of all types, and to censor them if required in the interest of morality. Certain programs are most distressing in their effects on the hearts and minds of people.
The influence of television on the subconscious cannot be exaggerated. It especially affects young people at the most impressionable stage of their development. It reaches into homes, thus affecting the family in a most intimate way. All this goes to show how necessary it is to provide strict control over television broadcasts so that they may not have permanent effects on hearts and minds.
There could be nothing more pernicious or destructive of the spiritual strength of the nation, than this repeated spectacle, in the very heart of the family circle, and before

so many innocent young eyes of impressive scenes of pleasure, of passion and of sin that can permanently upset and destroy all that had been done to make youngsters upstanding, good and well educated from an individual or social point of view. Television should be a medium of wholesome entertainment for people, while at the same time and in all circumstances contributing to their education and moral uplift.
Not only should television refrain from evil but it should be a positive means of education. Against the advocacy of sovereign art and of freedom of thought and expression must be invoked the superior and inalienable rights of conscience, of the soul exalted to supernatural life. I urge the Minister of National Revenue to bring pressure to bear on the authorities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in order that they apply severe censorship on their programs:
1.	To oppose objectionable programs by demanding the application of the law against licentiousness in literary and artistic productions.
2.	To foster the production of programs of high moral and aesthetic value.
I hope that programs dealing with murder, gangsters, firearms, and crime will disappear from our television screens. Those programs are damaging to our young people.
Let the C.B.C. do away with smutty stories, and with daring costumes worn by some performers. They too often forget that art by no means calls for scanty attire.
It is not Christian to picture a depraved, corrupt humanity, without hope or nobility of soul.
Mr. Pickersgilh On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could the hon. member read a bit more slowly?


Mr. Pigeon:: I shall be pleased to comply with the hon. member's request.
Let people stand indicted who dare maintain that a certain form of broadcasting can be exploited, developed and exalted, even though grievously offensive to morals, as long as it can claim artistic or technical value.
I point out, sir, that I have some notes before me; I prefer consulting them to talking nonsense as some hon. members of the opposition are doing.
Mr. Speaker, television should be at the service of truth, honestly inform the public, without overlooking the moral aspect of any news broadcast to the public, provide culture as well as entertainment to viewers, and carefully train them not so much that they may authorize themselves to see immoral shows but so that they may judge what is presented to them and learn to profit from what they see and hear.

C.B.C. authorities should, more than ever, consider the moral aspect of radio and television broadcasts. The familial character of television should exclude any objectionable production ...


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must remind him that he is getting away from the text of the amendment which concerns the regulation and financing of the C.B.C. The question of the quality of programs does not come within the purview of the proposed amendment. I would ask the hon. member to stick closer to the text of the amendment.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the point of order, I am of the opinion that the quality of the programs comes within the purview of the amendment, since the production of programs is related to the financing of the C.B.C. In fact, some fees which are being paid to certain writers and performers form an important part of the financing of radio and television, and believe that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) should be allowed to carry on his remarks in this connection.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I thank the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) for siding with me.
The family character of television should exclude from the T.V. screen anything that would be objectionable in a respectable living room, such as the vulgarity of cabarets and nights clubs, scanty attire, lascivious or suggestive dancing, scenes of violence, robberies, plays that make a mockery of marital faithfulness and parental authority.
The C.B.C. should keep a closer supervision over the choice of television theater programs and feature films in which family and marriage are not always respected.
The C.B.C. should set strict standards in the matter of modesty in dress on the part of dancers and perfomers, as well as with respect to the choice of ballet themes.
The C.B.C. should also enlist the co-operation of qualified advisers, and authorities especially those familiar with the various fields of human endeavour.
Why not get them together in several advisory committees that would meet periodically, for instance once a month, to criticize the programs concerning their own specialty and to make suggestions to authorities and directors. Those committees would also be useful in stimulating opinion-* 57071-3-1414
Radio and Television


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! I am sorry to interrupt again the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm but, after considering more closely the amendment now before us and the comments made by the hon. member for Hull, I feel I should again remind the house that this amendment now under study deals precisely, as it is well said, with "regulation" and "financing", that is to say the regulation and financing of radio and television programs, but not with their moral quality.
If the hon. member wants to discuss the financing of these programs, I think he would be perfectly in order. But the moral quality of broadcasts can hardly be dealt with in relation to the amendment before me. I would ask hon. members to try to adhere as much as possible to the terms of the amendment during the discussion of this bill.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I make a remark to the point of order?
As a matter of fact we have been discussing the Massey report all evening, also the report of the Fowler Royal Commission and the Aird report. Now, the Fowler report, of which I have a copy before me now, deals in several chapters with the very matter the hon. member is now discussing. I therefore think that the amendment as well as the subamendment without specifically referring to the remarks just made by the hon. member, are germane to the present discussion. I submit this with all due deference and respect.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would like to point out to the hon. members that I did not say that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm was out of order; I just asked him to adhere as closely as possible to the terms of the amendment. Indeed, if you read the amendment and the sub-amendment thereto you will see that they more particularly concern the regulations and financing of the C.B.C. by the government.
It is now my duty under clause 2 of standing order 59 to ask hon. members to deviate as little as possible from matters concerning the amendment now under discussion by the house. I therefore once more ask the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm, and honourable representatives, to speak closely to the matter before the house.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your remarks. I intend to depart somewhat from the matter of C.B.C. financing and to say

Radio and Television
a word more especially about the programs which are given on television. In fact, I was saying that the C.B.C. should enlist competent advisers and various personalities specially versed in the various fields of human activity. Why not group those personalities into several advisory committees that would meet, for instance, once a month to criticize the programs in their particular field of interest and make suggestions to the authorities and to the producers? Those committees would serve also to stimulate public opinion, of which they would be the natural representatives.
They could also advise C.B.C. authorities in the assessment and selection of suggestions sent in by viewers. Members of those committees would receive a fee for their services, which should certainly not overburden too much the budget of the C.B.C.
Self-criticism and research bodies.
Within the framework of the C.B.C., I would be glad to see, if possible, the creation of self-criticism and research bodies. The first would make preliminary censorship of programs, in so far as interest, artistic and moral value are concerned. It would determine the rating of each program, taking into consideration their intrinsic value as well as their acceptable popularity.
To that self-criticism body, I would add a creative body.
No doubt the ideal would be to trust duly qualified producers, who would be reasonably paid and free from financial worries. But will we ever be able to reach such an ideal?
The body that I propose would concern itself with creative work in lieu and place of the producers. The latter would then be chiefly responsible for the production proper. Some of the policies of the C.B.C. in the past have been and still are, undemocratic. Some authorized programs are biased and prejudiced. Reforms are in order.
A cleanup job is necessary in the C.B.C. It is high time something was done.
Television and radio must be means for culture and education, and not a vehicle for biased propaganda. That is a very generally held opinion so why not, in so far as it is possible, do a cleanup job, eradicate all those who have neither conscience nor any wish of mending their ways?
This is not moralism, but morals. Nobody wants to persecute anybody else, but we should rid our television screens and our radio waves from a whole coterie of pseudoartists who have never understood the meaning of human dignity.

The C.B.C. should not allow leftists and socializers to enjoy the lion's share of the network.
At certain times the C.B.C. has become the preserve of socialists. They know that full well. This explains why they fear anything that might threaten to remove the C.B.C. from their control.
I would ask the Minister of National Revenue to give orders to the proper authorities, if possible, so that programs may become more Christian and more in line with moral standards. Let there be a little cleanup job in the C.B.C.; let us throw out these people with warped ideas, leftist ideas, who grab half the television programs, such as, for example-and I have no hesitation at all in naming them-Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Gerard Pelletier and Jean-Louis Gagnon who should be permanently kept away from the national network. To my mind these people spread warped ideas, ideas which are counter to the ideals of our people.
I ask the Minister of National Revenue to advise the proper authorities in the C.B.C. to put the brakes on these socialist-minded people, on these leftists who will not rest content until the whole nation is socialized. Let these gentlemen be replaced by people imbued with democratic and Christian ideas.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to avail myself of this opportunity to say a few words with regard to the C.B.C. and to television.
The people of Quebec are fed up with seeing and hearing all these whited sepulchres denouncing private enterprise, but who nevertheless fatten on income derived from taxation, i.e. from taxes on private enterprise. They are dangerous parasites. It is high time to put an end to the activity of these people who dilute their socialism-
(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the house leader what the business is for tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: We will continue with this debate tomorrow.


Lionel Chevrier: Could we find out what the business will be for Wednesday?


Howard Charles Green: If the debate finishes tomorrow we will then go on with the second reading of the bill to amend the Yukon Act; then second reading of the bill to amend the National Parks Act respecting the boundaries of Cape Breton Highlands national park; then the

resolution concerning the Canadian Farm Loan Act, the intention being to refer the bill when through second reading to the standing committee on agriculture; then second reading of the bill respecting the taxation of estates, this bill to go to the standing committee on banking and commerce; then second reading of two bills concerning conventions for the avoidance of double taxation, one
Business of the House
with Belgium and the other with the Belgian Congo and the territory of Ruanda-Urundi.


Lionel Chevrier: Will we go on with government business in this order on Wednesday?


Howard Charles Green: I am not quite sure of the order. We may take budget resolutions also.


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

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

Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Has the government received representations from any groups or association to review the decision to decrease the floor price of roller and spray skim milk powder?
2.	If so, what reply has the government made to these representations?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of
Agriculture):
1.	Yes.
2.	It was pointed out that during the past year milk powder production in Canada had increased by approximately 60 per cent over the previous year, which indicated that the price of 17 cents per pound was an incentive to production and that some downward adjustment was necessary to balance supply with possible disposal, and that despite the lower price support for dry skimmed milk the dairy farmers' position would be better than in the earlier part of 1957 due to the increase of 6 cents per pound from 58 cents to 64 cents in the price support on butter.


POTATOES
Mr. Martin (Essex East): Has the agricultural prices stabilization board received a request from the potato growers of Essex and Kent counties that their produce be put under the Agricultural Stabilization Act for purposes of having a floor price applied to potatoes?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):
An inquiry has been received from the Kent and Elgin potato co-operative asking if the early potato crop in southwestern Ontario was eligible for assistance under the stabilization act and also requesting information as to procedure to be followed to obtain price assistance.


POSTAL SERVICE
Mr. Benidickson: 1.	When did the cost ascertainment section of the post office make its last studies to determine the financial position respecting the handling of various classes of mail?
2.	What was the section's last estimate of profit or loss for handling each class of mail?
3.	Did the last cost ascertainment specially evaluate the probable profit or loss of handling second class mail printed in the United States of America?
4.	H so, what were the conclusions?
Answer by: Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):
1.	October 1955 and March 1956.
2.	See statement below marked "A".
3.	No.
4.	See answer to No. 3.
(A)


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
Cost ascertainment estimate of profit or loss for handling each class of mail-Fiscal year 1955-56
Volume pieces	Revenue cents per piece	Expenditure cents per piece	Profit cents per piece	Loss cents per pieceFirst class ordinary	
1,680,749,256	5.18	3.10	2.08	Air mail-domestic	
17,348,346	11.40	10.73	.67	-foreign	
28,937,646	19.81	19.45	.36	-parcel post	
143,019	113.01	238.44	125.43Second class-transient	
18,051,134	5.25	11.09	5.84-publishers	
537,610,208	1.12	4.32	3.20Third class-householders	
183,902,320	1.52	1.62	.10-addressed circulars	
693,805,254	2.07	1.90	.17	-other	
66,348,465	4.89	5.77	.88Fourth class-domestic	
77,289,706	23.50	22.61	.89	-foreign	
1,264,593	327.20	319.84	7.36	
Dominion-Provincial Relations

[Stage Direction]
Correspondence between Minister of Finance and Manitoba Provincial Treasurer
MINISTER OF FINANCE Canada
Ottawa, March 14th, 1958. The Honourable Charles E. Greenlay, Provincial Treasurer,
Province of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Dear Mr. Greenlay:
In reply to your letter of March 7, 1958, respecting the basic stabilization amount, I must substantially repeat what I said in the House of Commons on January 29, 1958.
The purpose of Section 5(4) (a) was to ensure that no province would receive less for the fiscal year ending in 1959 than 95 per cent of its total tax rental, equalization, and stabilization payments applicable for the fiscal year ending in 1958. The stabilization payment was to be related not to the payments for the current year but to the actual payments made in the preceding year or, when applicable, the average of the actual payments for the two preceding years. If it had been the intention of parliament to do what you suggest, the government of that day would have worded the subsection in a manner which would have related stabilization to the current rates of standard taxes and not to the actual payments received in preceding years.
There has been no reduction in the protection afforded your province by stabilization. Your province remains entitled to the same stabilization subsequent to the amendment as it did prior to the amendment. What change there was, is to the advantage of your province. The tax rental payment and tax equalization payment for 1958-59 will be larger by the amount of the 3 per cent increase in the standard individual income tax than they would have been had no such change been made.
Yours very truly,
Donald M. Fleming.
PROVINCE OF MANITOBA Department of Provincial Treasurer Office of The Minister Winnipeg
March 14, 1958.
Hon. Donald M. Fleming,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Fleming:
Thank you for your letter of March 6, 1958, in which you confirmed certain of our calculations respecting the possible yields to Manitoba in 1958-59 under the tax-sharing arrangements.
Your comments respecting the basic assumptions underlying those calculations have been noted, particularly those relating to the significance for the tax arrangement payments of any lag that might occur between a decline in profit levels and the reflection of that decline in corporate tax collections.
Yours very truly,
Chas. E. Greenlay, Provincial Treasurer.
PROVINCE OF MANITOBA Department of Provincial Treasurer Office of The Minister Winnipeg
March 7, 1958.
Hon. Donald M. Fleming,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa, Canada Dear Mr. Fleming:
In your letter of February 20, 1958, respecting the estimated tax arrangement payments to the provinces under the new 13-9-50 standard tax formula, you indicated to us that it was not the intention of the federal government to have the 13-9-50 formula apply in the determination of stabilization payments for the 1958-59 fiscal year, though it was to have effect in the determination of the rental and equalization payments for that year.
In our view, this differentiation between the stabilization payments on the one hand and the rental and equalization payments on the other seems rather inconsistent and, frankly, difficult to justify-particularly since as a result the "95 per cent of last year's revenue" guaranteed minimum has become practically meaningless. If the 13-9-50 formula is not employed in the determination of the stabilization payments, the so-called "95 per cent minimum" for Manitoba for 1958-59, on the basis of the data presently available to us, means a guaranteed revenue of $30,732,500, or only 85 per cent of what the province would have received in 1957-58 if the 13-9-50 formula had been in effect that year-effectively, then, an "85 per cent minimum".	-
You and your colleagues would not, we are sure, deliberately reduce in any way the relative measure of protection available to the provinces under the tax-sharing arrangements. Yet the "interim" amendments introduced to the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act last January have, unfortunately, resulted in such a reduction! It is
[Stage Direction]
Dominion-Provincial Relations our view that steps should be taken immediately to correct this situation, and we therefore strongly urge that the federal government at the first opportunity amend the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act to enable the 13-9-50 formula to apply in the determination of the stabilization payments for 1958-59 as well as in the determination of the rental and equalization payments for that year, so that the present inconsistency in the arrangements will be eliminated and the high relative measure of protection formerly enjoyed by the provinces under the arrangements will be restored to them.
Yours very truly,
Chas. E. Greenlay, Provincial Treasurer.
MINISTER OF FINANCE Canada
Ottawa, March 6, 1958.
The Honourable Charles S. Greenlay, Provincial Treasurer,
Province of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Dear Mr. Greenlay:
I have your letter of March 4 and while there is little of substance that I can add to my earlier remarks, I appreciate your dilemma and will do all in my power to assist you. You will appreciate, of course, that anything at this stage that deals with future levels of income is purely conjectural. This, as I said before, is one of the big difficulties with the use of current figures in determining payments under the existing fiscal arrangements.
You have asked me to confirm that if you make certain basic assumptions, the yield to Manitoba in 1958/59 will be $32,250,000. This is substantially correct. The question, however, could be asked whether or not the basic assumptions are supportable.
As far as standard individual income taxes are concerned, there does not seem any likelihood of any substantial change from present levels. Therefore your assumption may be assumed to be essentially correct. Standard succession duty estimates are on a three year average at the present time and I think some small increase might be anticipated, but this is of no great significance.
Your second assumption is that there would be no change in the population of any of the provinces from 1957 to 1958. Inasmuch as the equalization payments depend on per capita levels of standard taxes and as there has been a tendency for Manitoba's population to increase at a somewhat slower rate than Ontario's and British Columbia's, this
[Stage Direction]
assumption could lead to errors. As a reasonable estimate of population in 1958 could be made on the basis of the same rate of change as between the previous two years, I think this might be given consideration.
Your estimate on the level of corporate profits is that they would drop by 20 per cent from 1957 to 1958 and that the standard tax yields from this field would drop by the same percentage. A drop of 20 per cent would reflect a more serious curtailment of business activity than is now forecast. While estimates are very tentative at this stage, they do indicate a drop in profits but not of this size. Something in the neighbourhood of 5 per cent would currently seem more probable, although in view of the volatile nature of profits this could easily change either way during the year.
It is very difficult to give a concise answer to the question of the reflection of profit levels on collections. By the regulations, a seven months' lag is provided for in calculating payments under the Federal Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act and it would seem probable that this would adequately care for any lag of the nature to which you refer. In our preliminary payments, of course, this does not apply directly, but we attempt to give consideration to this factor in determining payments. I believe, therefore, that this lag factor could be largely ignored, in view of the tentative nature of the date with which we must work at the present time.
As to individual income tax in relation to personal income, I think collections are largely consistent with changes, both on account of the payroll deduction methods and due to the fact that a lag for collections from the taxation year has been provided here as well as for corporation taxes, in this case, of three months.
Again I regret my inability to give you more accurate information but in a taxsharing arrangement such as this, I am faced with the same difficulties as you are in forecasting revenue. I am glad, however, to provide what assistance I can.
Yours very truly,
Donald M. Fleming.
PROVINCE OF MANITOBA Department of Provincial Treasurer Office of The Minister Winnipeg
March 4, 1958.
Hon. Donald M. Fleming,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Fleming:
Thank you for your letter of February 20, 1958, confirming that the estimates that have

so far been available to Manitoba of its possible 1958-59 tax arrangement revenues have in fact been based on 1957 tax information, not on projected 1958 data, and that the actual payments to be made to the province next year, therefore, may well differ substantially from these estimated figures. We would have preferred to receive a more definite estimate, of the tax-sharing arrangement payments the province could expect next year, but can certainly appreciate your reluctance at this stage to take any particular forecasts or projections respecting these payments.
You indicated in your letter that for the purposes of your own estimates, you were using the figures for the tax-sharing arrangement payments that were tabled in the House of Commons-the figures based on 1957 tax information. At the same time, however, you have recognized, as we do, that "there very well may be substantial differences when these payments are finally determined". The possible magnitude of those differences is of course what we in the provinces must keep in mind in our planning for next year.
Therefore, while we do appreciate that perhaps in view of this uncertainty in the present situation it might not be well for the federal government to issue to the provinces any definite forecasts of their respective tax arrangement payments in the coming fiscal year, we are hopeful that you and your officials will be able to assist us in preparing our own forecast figures. You will recall that in our letter of February 17, 1958, we mentioned that we had estimated that if corporate profits were to drop by 20 per cent in 1958 the 13-9-50 formula in 1958-59 might produce for Manitoba not $35,755,000, but $32,250,000. In arriving at this estimate the following three basic assumptions were made:
(1)	that there would be no change in any of the provinces in the standard individual income tax yields and standard succession duty yields from 1957 to 1958, assuming, of course, that the standard tax rates will be adjusted in accordance with the provisions of the taxsharing arrangements to compensate for the tax changes introduced since 1956.
(2)	that there would be no change in the population of any of the provinces from June 1, 1957, to June 1, 1958. We realize that this assumption has no real foundation in fact, but are willing to use the 1957 figures in our computations for the time being, recognizing that the 1958 figures that will be available next summer will require certain changes to be made in our early estimates.
(3)	that the level of corporate profits would drop by 20 per cent from 1957 to 1958 and that the standard tax yields from this field would drop by the same percentage.
Dominion-Provincial Relations
On the basis of these assumptions and applying the 13-9-50 formula, we estimated a 1958-59 tax arrangement payment to Manitoba of $32,250,000.
While recognizing that our first and second assumptions may not be entirely accurate, we are prepared to go along with them in our calculations. The one very real area of doubt in our minds, however, centres around the third assumption. Here we have assumed, essentially, that a drop in corporate profits would be reflected immediately in a similar drop in standard tax yields, and have made no allowance for any delay or "lag" that for all we know may very well occur between the time profit levels are established and the time they are reflected in corporate tax collections. If such a lag does occur, it should be taken into account in our calculations as it could significantly affect the size of the payments to a province in any given year.
You will readily appreciate that by ourselves we would find it difficult if not impossible to arrive at any sound estimates of this kind. We just do not have access to the information that would be required to enable us to make this kind of projection. The federal government, however, which collects these taxes and deals with these matters day by day is in a much more knowledgeable position in this regard-and we are therefore looking to you and your officials as the only people in Canada who can estimate for us, with any degree of accuracy, the probable effect on tax collections of a specified reduction in the level of corporate profits.
Would you, therefore, please verify for us the accuracy of our computation of the tax arrangement payment that would be made to Manitoba in 1958-59 if the 13-9-50 formula is applied, and the following assumptions are made:
(1)	that there would be no change in any of the provinces in the standard individual income tax yields and standard succession duty yields from 1957 to 1958.
(2)	that there would be no change in the population of any of the provinces from June 1, 1957, to June 1, 1958.
(3)	that the level of corporate profits would drop by 20 per cent from 1957 to 1958 and that the standard tax yields from this field would drop by the same percentage.
In other words, if we are prepared to make these assumptions, are we correct in estimating that the 13-9-50 formula would yield to Manitoba in the coming year $32,250,000?
Secondly, if the tax collection experience of the Department of National Revenue should indicate that there is a lag between
[Stage Direction]
Dominion-Provincial Relations the establishment of profit levels and their reflection in federal tax collections, what change should we make in our $32,250,000 estimate to take account of this lag?
I should like to emphasize that we are not now asking that you or your officials make any estimates whatsoever in connection with the forecasting of the 1958-59 tax arrangement payments to Manitoba. We are prepared to make our own estimates, recognizing that in the absence of a certain amount of relevant data they may not perhaps be as accurate as might be desirable. We would, however, appreciate your assistance in verifying the accuracy of the calculations we have made on the basis of the assumptions we have stated in this letter, and in resolving for us the one area of doubt that we have mentioned as being of particular concern to us: the significance of the lag factor in corporate standard tax yield determination.
You will note that we have not specifically asked for information respecting the effect of the lag factor in the individual income tax field, because it is our view that in this field it would have relatively little significance. The payroll-deduction method of tax prepayment would probably tend to keep collections fairly well in line with income levels. Your comments on this point, however, would also be appreciated.
Yours very truly,
Chas. E. Greenlay Provincial Treasurer.
MINISTER OF FINANCE Canada
Ottawa, February 20, 1958.
The Honourable Charles E. Greenlay, Provincial Treasurer,
Province of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Dear Mr. Greenlay:
As you point out in your letter of February 17, the data placed in Hansard on January 27 to illustrate the effect of the amendments to the tax-sharing formula was based on 1957 tax information. You will appreciate the necessity of this for at this time of year it is not possible to give any estimate of tax revenues for the 1958 tax year that would be valid for your purposes.
You mention that under the tax rental agreements estimates of probable payments were made available about this time of year. This is correct, but there was an essential difference that made this possible. Under the tax rental agreements payments were based on the gross national product and population of the previous year, for which there were
[Stage Direction]
reliable estimates. Under the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act payments are based on the current year for which even preliminary estimates are not yet available. This necessitates the use of data of the earlier period and the procedure is outlined in the agreements and the regulations. I think I should point out that the difficulty in giving reliable estimates was emphasized on more than one occasion during the course of negotiations but the provinces preferred to accept this in order to have the final payments on as current a basis as possible.
There are, of course, very real problems in making estimates on the basis of the earlier year, for as you point out, changes in the level of corporate profits and personal incomes could have a noticeable effect on payments, especially when taken in conjunction with population changes. It is for this very reason I am most reluctant to make any forecasts at this stage. I may say that for the purposes of my own estimates I have used the figures based on 1957-58, i.e., those used for illustration in the House of Commons, accepting the fact that there very well may be substantial differences when these payments are finally determined.
As to your first two questions, I do not think it would be proper for me to attempt to indicate what your estimates should be for 1958-59, for the reasons I have stated.
On the third question, the stabilization at 95 per cent is on the basis of actual payments for the year 1957-58 and is not affected by any amendments to the standard rate of individual income tax recently made. Section 5 (4) (a) of the act was not amended.
I am sorry that I cannot be of greater assistance to you in making up this estimate of revenue but the use of current figures involves this difficulty, a fact of which all participants in the agreements were fully aware at the time this method was decided upon. I am sure you will understand and appreciate my position in this matter.
Yours very truly,
Donald M. Fleming.
PROVINCE OF MANITOBA Department of Provincial Treasurer Office of the Minister Winnipeg
February 17, 1958.
Honourable D. M. Fleming, Q.C., M.P., Minister of Finance,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Fleming:
We have been following with great interest the proposed and now actual changes in the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Agreements Act. We have noted that, as an illustration

of the significance of the 13-9-50 formula, you indicated to the House of Commons that Manitoba would have received $35,755,000 by way of tax rental and equalization payments in 1957-58 based on the tax collections of, and other data relating to, 1957. However, as is well known, these tax-sharing arrangements and the returns to the provinces therefrom are based primarily on the tax collections of the current year and therefore, for the year beginning April 1, 1958, which is our immediate problem, our returns would be based on the collections experienced by your Department of National Revenue in 1958, not 1957. We are therefore, most anxious to have from you some forecast of the receipts that Manitoba may expect in the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1958, and ending March 31, 1959.
About this time every year since the tax rental arrangements came into effect, the federal government has made available to the provinces estimates of their probable payments under these programs for the fiscal year about to begin. In some cases, this information has become available with the publication of the federal estimates of expenditure for the coming fiscal year then being presented to the house in Ottawa. In other cases, by direct communication very early in the year, we have secured from Canada reasonably firm estimates of the amounts involved. We recognize that these estimates must have been largely based on forecasts and projections, but nevertheless have found them most essential to us in our planning. Therefore, even if full forecasts should not be available to you at this time, in view of the widespread belief that corporate profits are likely to fall substantially in 1958 and the fact that they have already fallen in the last several months of 1957, we would greatly appreciate your advice as to what kind of downward revisions, if any, we should be making in our forecasts of the returns to our province from this most important revenue field. Our calculations, for example, show that if corporate profits were to drop by as much as 20 per cent, and if as a result the standard
Dominion-Provincial Relations tax yields in this field were to drop by a similar percentage, the 13-9-50 formula would yield not $35,755,000 but $32,250,000. In other words, instead of getting more during 1958 than we are getting in the year just closing, we could, under these circumstances, get as little as this year's amount or even less. A drop in personal income could also cause a drop in personal income tax collections and a drop in tax-sharing payments to provinces.
It would be most helpful to us in our planning for next year if you would please advise us as to the following:
(1)	In your opinion, in the light of existing circumstances, should we, for the 1958-59 fiscal year just ahead, reasonably budget for the full amount of $35,755,000 indicated by you as being our revenue from the tax-sharing arrangements under the 13-9-50 formula?
(2)	If, in your opinion, Manitoba is likely to receive in 1958-59 less than $35,755,000, what is the amount that should be expected? would it be 5 per cent less than the $35,755,000 -10 per cent less-15 per cent less-what would be your estimate?
(3)	How does the 13-9-50 formula affect the minimum payments under the tax arrangements? We are not clear as to how this new formula will apply in respect of these minima. As you know, prior to the January revision, one of the guaranteed minima available to the province for 1958-59 was an amount equal to 95 per cent of our 10-9-50 tax arrangement receipts in 1957-58. In view of the change from 10-9-50 to 13-9-50 will this 1958-59 minimum now become 95 per cent of the tax arrangement receipts the province would have received in 1957-58 if the 13-9-50 formula had been in effect? In this case, it would appear that we could expect revenues of not less than $33,967,250 in the coming year. Will you please advise whether it is correct for us to assume that this $33,967,250 is to be our guaranteed minimum for the 1958-59 fiscal year or, if not, what in your opinion the proper figure would be?
Yours very truly,
Chas. E. Greenlay, Provincial Treasurer.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, July 15, 1958