1960-07-13

[Stage Direction]
Seventeenth and eighteenth reports of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. McCleave.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Having secured the translation, Mr. Speaker, I wish to lay on the table two copies in English and in French of the report of the royal commission on the Great Slave lake railway.


Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Can
the Prime Minister tell the house in summary what the recommendations are?


An hon. Member:: Read the report.


John George Diefenbaker: The object of the tabling, of course, is to make the recommendations available to all hon. members of the house. There is no unity in those recommendations, and I would suggest that the way for each hon. member to acquaint himself with the recommendations is to read the report.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Argue: 1.	Which government, federal or provincial, has jurisdiction in law over the manner in which disposal is made of radioactive wastes?
2.	Is there any difference in jurisdiction as between radioactive wastes derived from (a) commercial processes; (b) federal government processes; (c) provincial government processes?
3.	If so, what are they?
4.	Have regulations been enforced governing the disposal of radioactive wastes derived from (a),
(b)	and (c) respectively?
5.	If so, (a) by what government agency or agencies has this been done; (b) in what year;
(c)	to which of the above three categories does each apply; (dl what are the regulations?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the five questions listed on the order paper is as follows: All dealings in radioactive materials, including radioactive wastes, are and have been since 1947 controlled by the atomic energy control board, through
regulations made under the Atomic Energy Control Act, and a licensing system established under the regulations. The current regulations are the atomic energy control regulations approved by order in council P.C. 1960/-348 of March 17, 1960.
All persons handling or disposing of radioactive materials are required under section 402 of the regulations to take all reasonable and proper precautions to prevent injury or damage to persons or property and are required by part VI of the regulations to ensure that no person is exposed to radiation in excess of specified amounts. Applicants for licences to obtain radioactive isotopes are required to specify the manner in which waste is to be disposed of, and the board or inspection officers may specify additional precautions. Permits issued by the board authorizing the working of deposits of radioactive minerals require the operators to comply with provincial or territorial requirements as to mine, safety and cognate matters, as well as with the board's regulations.
Inspection to ensure compliance is normally carried out through the Department of National Health and Welfare or provincial health authorities or, in the case of mining operations, by the appropriate provincial authorities. The board retains its over-all rights of inspection and direction. In view of its great experience and competence in the field, Atomic Energy of Canada has been made responsible for ensuring that its own operations comply with the regulations.
Under the act, section 20, proceedings in case of infraction may be taken by either federal or provincial authorities.


STANDARDS GOVERNING DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES
Mr. Argue: 1.	Have standards governing the manner in which radioactive wastes should be disposed of been set or suggested by any United Nations agency or international authority?
2.	If so, (a) by what agency; (b) when; (c) what are they; (d) what position has been taken by the Canadian government?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I have been asked to reply to this question.
1.	Yes, as regards the disposal of radioactive waste into the sea.
2.	(a) By the United Nations conference on the law of the sea. By the ad hoc panel on

Starred Questions
radioactive waste disposal into the sea appointed by the international atomic energy agency.
(b)	In 1958 and in February, 1960.
(c)	Article 25 of the convention on the high seas adopted by the 1958 United Nations conference on the law of the sea at Geneva, which is not yet in force, contains the following general provisions:
1.	Every state shall take measures to prevent pollution of the seas from the dumping of radioactive waste, taking into account any standards and regulations which may be formulated by the competent international organizations.
2.	All states shall co-operate with the competent international organizations in taking measures for the prevention of pollution of the seas or air space above, resulting from any activities with radioactive materials or other harmful agents.
Then follows some technical information, Mr. Speaker.
The report of the ad hoc panel on radioactive waste disposal into the sea of the international atomic energy agency contains recommendations which are at present under study by member governments and the details of which have consequently not yet been made public. In general they are that though highly radioactive wastes should not be disposed of into the sea, sufficiently safe control can be maintained for wastes of low or intermediate activity. The panel recommends that the exposure limits stated in the most recent recommendation of the international commission on radiological protection be followed as a guide to safe disposal and that disposal sites should be designated by the responsible national or international authority, monitored regularly and a registry kept of all disposals.
(d)	As to the position taken by the Canadian government, Canada supported article 25 both in committee and in plenary session of the 1958 conference and has signed the convention.
The recommendations made by the ad hoc panel are at present under study by the appropriate departments with a view to formulating the Canadian position.


EDGELEY, SASK., POSTMASTER  INVESTIGATION
Mr. Argue: 1.	Was an investigation made into the question of the postmastership at Edgeley, Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, (a) when; (b) by whom; (c) what political connection or post, if any, does the field official who made the investigation hold; (d) what was the result of the investigation in full?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, this question asks whether an investigation was made into the question of the postmastership at Edgeley, Saskatchewan and the answers are as follows:
1. Yes, an investigation was made.

2. (a) March 9, 1960; and May 25, 1960.
(b)	Post Office Department area superintendent-J. N. Sackville.
(c)	None.
(d)	The persons interviewed were evenly divided in their choice of a candidate. Both candidates appear to have the ability to operate the post office. A further inquiry is being made.


FEDERAL DRY DOCK SUBSIDIES
Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Are subsidies paid by the federal government to Canadian dry docks?
2.	If so, to which dry docks were subsidies paid in the fiscal year 1959-1960, and what was the amount of the subsidy in each case?
3.	Are any of these subsidies being discontinued?
4.	If so, for what reason?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: The answer to the first question is that final payment under the terms of the Dry Docks Subsidies Act was made in 1959-60. The answer to the second question is: Bur-rard Dry Dock (North Vancouver), $44,326. The answer to the third question is yes, and the answer to question No. 4 is: see answer to No. 1.


VANCOUVER AIRPORT RUNWAY TENDERS
Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	What were the respective amounts of the three lowest tenders for the new runway at Vancouver airport?
2.	Was the lowest tender rejected? If so, for what reason?
3.	Was the second lowest tender rejected? If so, for what reason?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is as follows: $1,719,020.95; $1,740,983.22, and $1,761,325.
With regard to part 2, the answer is yes. The tenderer had never undertaken runway construction of this magnitude. Furthermore, the firm had been awarded a much smaller contract by the department some months ago and their performance was unsatisfactory to the department, necessitating extension of time running to eight months.
As to part 3, the answer is yes. The second lowest tender was submitted by a firm which had no experience in runway construction work. The tender specified 381 working days to complete the work, as compared to 200 days in the bid which was accepted. It was considered impossible to accept the time specified by this bid.
Under the present and previous administration, my department has experienced difficulty on occasion when accepting low bids submitted by contractors with poor or

inadequate equipment and experience. In carrying out the general policy of accepting the lowest bid consistent with assurance of performance to meet departmental requirements, I am carrying on the policy which was followed by the previous administration and which is endorsed by the Canadian construction association.


ADVERTISING TAX ON CANADIAN EDITIONS OF FOREIGN MAGAZINES
Mr. McMillan: 1.	What amount was collected from the so-called magazine tax on the advertising revenues of special Canadian editions of foreign magazines for the 12-month period prior to its removal in 1958?
2.	What amount was collected in the same period in respect to the magazines (a) Time; (b) Life; (c) Reader's Digest?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: May I revert to question 194? The answer to the first question is that the amount of tax collected on the advertising revenue of special Canadian editions of foreign periodicals for the 12-month period prior to its repeal on June 18, 1958, was $498,645.78.
The answer to part 2 is that it would be contrary to the practice of the government to divulge information which would disclose the affairs of an individual taxpayer.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Fisher: 1.	From the 1st day of July, 1958, to the 30th of April, 1960, were any lands or buildings acquired by the national capital commission in (a) the city of Ottawa; (b) the county of Carleton; (c) the county of Russell; (d) the city of Hull; (e) the county of Hull; (f) the county of Gatineau?
2.	If so, (a) from whom; (b) on what date; (c) what is the legal description and total acreage of the property in each case; (d) what was the total price paid to the vendor or any other persons in respect to the acquisition of each such property; (e) for what purpose, either present or future was each such property acquired, and to what use is each presently being put?
3.	At the present time, has the national capital commission any agreements of sale or options for the acquisition of other property, or has it commenced expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of other property in any of the aforesaid cities or counties?
4.	If so, (a) what is the legal description and total acreage of each such property; (b) from whom is each such property to be acquired; (c) what is the total price payable to the vendor or any other person under any such agreement or sale or option in respect of the acquisition of each such property; (d) what is the total price which has been offered to the owner of any such property in respect of which expropriation proceedings may have been commenced; (e) for what purpose, either present or future, is each such property to be acquired, and to what use will such property be put?
Motions for Papers


MILK AND BUTTER PURCHASES, VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1958, has the Department of Veterans Affairs purchased any (a) milk; (b) skim milk; (c) buttermilk; (d) chocolate milk; (e) cream; (f) butter?
2.	If so, for each month from January 1, 1958 to date, what was (a) the amount or volume of each such product purchased; (b) the unit or units by which each purchase was made; (c) the price paid for each such unit or units; (d) the names and addresses of the suppliers; (e) the names and addresses and bid prices of each other potential supplier or bidder?
3.	Are the prices for each such product governed by provincial statutes or regulations, and, if so, with respect to each province, to what extent is the price regulated for each such product?
4.	Are any purchases made on a non-competitive basis, and, if so, what are the names and addresses of each non-competitive supplier and how is each selected?
5.	Is there a select list of suppliers from whom tenders are received, and, if so, what are the names and addresses of each person on such a list, and the reasons for so establishing such a list?


UNPLACED JOB APPLICANTS, KENORA-RAINY RIVER CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Benidickson: 1.	With a breakdown by occupational groups for the latest reported week available in 1960, how many unplaced applicants (i) male; (ii) female, were registered at the unemployment insurance offices at Kenora, Fort Frances, and Sioux Lookout in the constituency of Kenora-Rainy River?
2.	If the answer to (1) above does not include persons residing at Atikokan and residents of the Red lake district, what are similar figures for such residents?
3.	What were the figures for the week in 1959 nearest to the week reported above respecting 1960?
4.	At the nearest comparable time in 1960 with a breakdown by job classification, what unfilled vacancies were listed at the said offices at Kenora, Fort Frances and Sioux Lookout?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 118-Mr. Cresiohl:
For a copy of the immigration regulations and all amendments to date; the orders-in-council approving same; all departmental rulings which are being used in determining the admissibility of immigrants under general and special circumstances and conditions.
He said: I have been informed that the regulations and the amendments to date will be made available to me. The parliamentary secretary to the minister told me that yesterday, accordingly I ask permission to withdraw my motion this morning.
Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw motion No. 118?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
79951-0-390

Motions for Papers



COLUMBIA RIVER HYDRO DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 124-Mr. Herridge:
For a copy of all correspondence, resolutions, telegrams and other documents exchanged between any member of the government or any official of any department thereof, and any corporation, organization or individual, in British Columbia, since January 1, 1959, in connection with various proposals for the development of the hydro resources of the Columbia river.
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have had a discussion with the hon. gentleman, and on the basis that what he desires is official correspondence between any member of the government and any private corporation, organization or individual, any non-governmental organization, corporation or individual in British Columbia, the motion would be accepted. I have explained to the hon. member that it would not be in the public interest to produce documents or correspondence between this government and any individual in the government of British Columbia because that would be contrary to the agreement we are now following. On the basis that it is official correspondence of the nature I have described we would accept the motion.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, the minister's explanation is quite satisfactory. I did not consider the government of British Columbia an organization composed of individuals in that sense in my motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion on the basis stated by the minister and the mover?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 125-Mr. Mcllrailh:
For a copy of the report of the commission on the railway route to Great Slave lake.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a copy of that report has been tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister reminds me that a copy of the report has been tabled. In the absence of the mover perhaps we might let this stand.
Motion stands.



PUBLIC WHARF, YARMOUTH, N.S.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 127-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of all communications received by the Minister of Public Works or any official of his department since July 1, 1957, regarding the need

for a public wharf at Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, together with a copy of the replies to such communications.
David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, this will require some time because it involves looking up three years of correspondence; nevertheless we will accept this motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 128-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of letter addressed by Mr. Lloyd T. Williams of Sarnia to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on December 22, 1958; the reply thereto; and all subsequent correspondence between Mr. Williams or his solicitors on the one hand and the minister or officials of the department on the other relating to Mr. Williams' claims respecting the surrender and sale of Indian reserve lands at Sarnia.
Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the letter referred to, together with the reply and additional documents, were all tabled last year on July 16 under sessional paper No. 14-C. So far as my department knows there has been no further correspondence, but we are conducting a search to see if there is anything further.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. lady could give an assurance that if there is any further correspondence it would be tabled that would be quite satisfactory.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I shall be glad to do that.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish the question to stand or does he wish to withdraw it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it might be withdrawn under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the increasingly difficult situation facing parliamentary committees in so far as the efficient conduct of work is concerned, and in view of the Prime Minister's expressed desire to keep parliament in session for as long as necessary and under conditions that would permit the orderly conduct of all business and the hearing of all witnesses by committees, will the Prime Minister as a matter



I960

[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry
of urgency examine the situation that con- evening we were told the Department of fronts us now with regard to the organization Finance would be taken up on Friday instead.
of parliament's business during the remaining weeks of this session?
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the import of that question is not immediately clear to me. I think the progress being made is very orderly and efficient. At the rate we are going I am sure we are going to be able to complete the entire course set out in the speech from the throne with the exception of the civil service bill, which by agreement has been set over to next session. There has been at all times available before the house legislation which required to be dealt with, and the estimates that required to be proceeded with are being dealt with in an orderly way.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question arising out of that of the Leader of the Opposition. Has the Prime Minister noticed that there are still the estimates of ten departments that remain to be considered by the house, many of them of extreme importance such as those of the Department of External Affairs, the Department of National Defence, the Department of Trade and Commerce and others that do not come to mind now? My supplementary question is this. How does the Prime Minister think we can dispose of these important departments within a matter of a few weeks if we are to give the estimates the careful attention and methodical study which they deserve?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am always very much in favour of close examination and the most thorough discussion of the various matters that come before the house. We have, of course, extended the hours of sitting very considerably, and I am sure that as always we shall find that those estimates will receive that consideration which they deserve, namely the closest.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to put either to the house leader or to the Prime Minister a further supplementary question which has to do with the business of the house. We are working under extremely difficult conditions and hours that are quite long. We are not protesting, but the point is that in connection with certain business of the house we were told on Thursday of last week that we would have the estimates of the Department of Labour. On the following day that was confirmed by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks) who was leading the house at the time. He told us that we would have the estimates of the Department of Labour and we were prepared to deal with them. Last 79951-0-390J
It is a matter of difficulty for us, particularly those of us who are prepared to deal with these matters, to be told now that we will have finance for which we have not immediately prepared ourselves. This is one of the things that should be given consideration not only by the Prime Minister but also by the house leader.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I fully realize the purport of the statement just made and the question just asked by the hon. gentleman. As far as possible we endeavour- and this brings in the co-operation that we have had from the opposition in recent days -to place before the house in ample time notice of the impending estimates and the general course to be followed on successive days. Sometimes, as the hon. gentleman knows, changes are made, and I am sure the change in question will not unnecessarily prejudice, or indeed prejudice at all, the opposition; because I will have the matter looked into and determine on a date for the labour estimates to meet the convenience of the hon. gentleman and other members of the opposition. At all times that must be the endeavour of both sides and I am sure that, having regard to the extent to which we have made satisfactory progress, we shall continue to work in that spirit of co-operation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask a supplementary question. I am rising on a question of privilege.


Mr. Starr:: Have some respect for the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognized the hon. member for Kootenay West. I will hear the question of privilege as soon as the hon. member is through with his question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My supplementary question arises out of the remarks made by the Prime Minister in answer to the previous question. I might say my question is based on information we have received via the underground, the pipe line and the grapevine but not over the clothes line.
In view of the legislation and estimates still requiring attention by the house, will the Prime Minister inform the house whether the government has been giving consideration to an adjournment of this session later this month and its resumption at some date in October?

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: All I can say is that the information that has come to the hon. gentleman via the underground, or by whatever route it came, has no foundation in fact.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege relating to the answer given by the Prime Minister with respect to the estimates of the Department of Labour. In the absence on Monday of the hon. member for Laurier, the house leader came to me about the estimates of the Department of Labour which had been called for that day. A definite arrangement was made, that to suit the convenience of the government they would be postponed until Friday. Last night, without any warning whatever, a change was made which is very inconvenient to the opposition. I wonder if the arrangement that was previously made could not be restored?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the question of privilege, I think the facts had better be placed before the house. On the subject of the estimates generally-I am sure the hon. member for Laurier will support me in this-I have consulted consistently with the people on the other side of the house and at the specific request of members on the other side we have made changes from time to time. For example, last week we were fully prepared to go ahead with the estimates of the Department of External Affairs on Friday. At the request of the Leader of the Opposition those estimates were put off until Thursday of this week.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not true.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, these are the facts as I know them. Similarly, the Department of Transport estimates were deferred until today. During the week I attempt to name in advance for the following week the estimates that may be considered; that is a tentative arrangement subject to alteration as a result of suggestions from the other side of the house and suggestions from my colleagues as to whether or not they are going to be present.
With regard to labour, we had hoped to go ahead with that department during the course of this week. I discussed with the hon. member for Essex East the day that might suit him. He suggested Friday. On Monday I was informed that this was not very suitable and that it would be better to go ahead with them on Tuesday. This is the type of adjustment that has to be made all the time, and which does go on all the time as it has in other years. No one has been taken by surprise by any arrangements that have been made. Everyone is aware of the estimates that are still to be considered, and everybody

should now be fully prepared for those estimates. I am even now ready to make adjustments according to whether or not hon. members opposite are going to be present. I have done that with all the departments so far, and will continue to do so.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In view of the fact that the minister brought my name into this question of privilege, I should say that the minister was quite right when he said that, I think it was last Thursday, he came over to discuss the order of business. I mentioned that I would not be in the house on Friday when the estimates of the Department of External Affairs were to be considered, and I said if it were convenient to the minister he could put them off until Monday and that would be convenient for me, but if he could not do so we would go ahead on Friday. The minister now says that I asked him to put them off until this Thursday, which is not the case.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Put them off until the following week, is what I should have said. The Leader of the Opposition knew that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be called away on the Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: I realize that there are certain difficulties, because of the hours we are sitting, in arranging the business of the house. A reasonable discussion which could lead to agreement is in order, but not a debate on this subject.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: I should like to raise a question of privilege which I think has a bearing on the discussion to which the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Laurier have addressed themselves. In doing so, I should like to direct my question of privilege to the Prime Minister, knowing his zeal for a full discussion of the public business in accordance with the principles that are basic to this free parliament-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member state his question of privilege?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is a question which I feel affects every member-


An hon. Member:: Get to it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -including the hon. gentleman, if he will just be patient. We are now faced with a situation which, in my judgment, prevents any member in the opposition from properly discharging his functions in this parliament-


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no question of privilege there.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member, as I indicated in commenting on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for

Bonavista-Twillingate, is really discussing the business of the house and an extended discussion is not in order on routine proceedings. As I indicated, it is permissible to inquire and, with the idea of mutual arrangements, to discuss the business of the house. I think it is quite out of order to proceed with an extended discussion of the business of the house, with no question before the house other than a general topic.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I address myself to Your Honour-


Mr. Speaker:: I trust the hon. member will not pursue the matter he has undertaken, because I have indicated my view.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am asking Your Honour to listen to me on the point you have raised. The point of privilege is one which affects me as a private member of this house, and I say affects every member of the opposition; that is that we cannot possibly discharge our functions because of the arrangements for committee meetings which are called simultaneously, because of the number of committees on which members serve, and because committees are meeting at a time when important business is being considered in this house. I say these are matters that affect the privileges of every hon. member, and I am raising them in that context.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot accept that as a matter of privilege. The control of the business of the house is under its own rules and its own decisions, and the control of the business of committees is under their decisions. I think the matter is quite out of order here.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On
the question of privilege, I should say my privileges are involved because what the hon. member is doing, in fact, is questioning the decisions of the house. Every reference to a committee, or virtually every one, has been made by an order of the house adopted in this house. When the hon. member now says that this is somehow unfair to him, he is questioning a decision of the house. I object to my privileges being called into question, because I think the hon. member should abide by the rules and decisions of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I have just expressed the same view, I hope that will close the matter for the time being.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has not given us an assurance that, in so far as possible, the work of the committees of this house would be conducted so as to not interfere with the normal business of the house in session.


John George Diefenbaker: I have not known of any
interference whatever.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Hellyer:: Your pipe line is not working very well.


John George Diefenbaker: There is no reason to give an answer, if that is the reception one gets.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: When you make a misstatement.


An hon. Member:: What about the bill of rights and the rights of parliament?



REQUEST FOR ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Of course, Mr. Speaker, the decisions with regard to lay-offs are primarily and absolutely the responsibility of the management. The question as to setting up another royal commission has not received the attention of the government. However, this is a problem that is of an all-embracing nature. Because of the policy being followed by the railway management with a view to obtaining a high degree of efficiency and effectiveness, there have been lay-offs. I feel most keenly the position of many of the employees who, after many years of service, find themselves unable to continue in their vocation, and I will have the government give consideration to the amendment of the powers of the royal commission in order to cover this full situation arising from automation and otherwise.']
Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the fact that we will be discussing the estimates of the Department of Finance on Friday, and also in view of the fact that starred question No. 199 was orally asked of the Minister of Finance about a week ago, would the parliamentary secretary undertake to see that answers to these questions are provided before these estimates come up for discussion on Friday?


Mr. Richard A. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: We will endeavour to get the information in due time.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister based on the continued breakdown of government administration in the Congo-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was not talking about the breakdown in the signals of the official opposition, who voted for the extension of the rules of the house and are now complaining about it. If I might get back to the Congo-


An hon. Member:: Any time.


Hazen Robert Argue: -I should like to ask the Prime Minister a serious question. In view of the well known interest of Canadian citizens in our country being of every possible assistance in these difficult times, has the Canadian government given any consideration to making an offer of needed technical and professional personnel, preferably through the United Nations, for use in the Congo?


John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday I indicated to the house that the secretary general was consulting with representatives of member governments with a view to responding to a request of the

Inquiries of the Ministry Congolese government at Leopoldville for assistance. The secretary general's consultations are continuing. As the hon. member knows, what the secretary general has in mind is the dispatch of United Nations technical personnel to aid the Congolese authorities in restoring order and discipline, and in particular to send specially qualified personnel who would be able to discharge responsibilities in that connection. To begin with, these personnel I hope will be drawn as far as possible from the African states, so there will be no suggestion of intrusion in any way not only on the part of the Congolese but of other nations in Africa.
The secretary general's consultations are continuing. Today he will be discussing his plans with members of the security council in an informal manner. Until these consultations are completed I think the hon. member will agree that it would be presumption on the part of the government of Canada to make an offer to the United Nations. We have to await the consultations that are taking place between the secretary general and other representatives.
As it is, the secretary general is proposing that suitable officers might be seconded from the United Nations truce supervision organization in Palestine to begin with, as a temporary measure until others can be recruited direct from the member states. The government has been assured by the United Nations secretariat that contributing countries will be consulted before any of their officers at present with UNTSO are moved to the Congo. The question of what contributions Canada might make will of course depend, as I said yesterday, on the nature of the requests by the United Nations following the determination of the course to be taken.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is the minister aware of a German press agency dispatch carried by several newspapers in West Germany a few days ago, to the effect that German immigrants are leaving Canada in large numbers in order to seek employment opportunities elsewhere because they feel that they are only tolerated in this country? Has the minister any evidence concerning this dispatch?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I saw the dispatch from the Ottawa correspondent of the German press agency which
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
deals in substance with the allegations described by the hon. member for Waterloo North. As I have said repeatedly in the house, neither my department nor any other department of government keeps a record of the number of persons who leave Canada for permanent residence in other countries.
After having seen this particular news dispatch I instructed the department to investigate the matter in order to see if there was any way in which they could find out whether there was in fact any abnormally large movement of German immigrants from Canada. They have been unable to find any evidence at all of any such movement in any substantial number. Of course immigrants from any country return from time to time to their homeland, sometimes on visits, sometimes for permanent residence. There are always a certain number of those. However, we have nothing to indicate that there has been any. untoward movement of German immigrants.
I should like to say that I regret very much that any responsible person would suggest that prejudice on the part of Canadians would be responsible for the permanent departure of any German immigrants. I am sure that hon. members in this house would know that any such statement is contrary to fact. The German immigrants have made a magnificent contribution to our country, and I am sure they are well received in all the communities in which they have settled.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday the hon. member for Assiniboia asked me this question, which was a continuation of an earlier question:
Has the Prime Minister any report to make on the meeting on June 8 with the London railroad workers' council which dealt with the transfer of C.N.R. passenger car repair work from the London shops, at which meeting the Prime Minister presided?
As the hon. member knows, under the law as it stands the minister is prohibited from interfering in any way in the decisions of management with regard to the day to day operation of the railway. That prohibition applies to all members of the government. The decision in so far as this transfer of work from London is concerned was made by the railway company. However, following the discussions and the representations made by a committee of the London railroad workers' council, presided over by Mr. Clifford M. Phillips, the railway company had indicated

that for the purpose of ascertaining the situation, various courses of action were explored by the railroad management.
One suggestion made was that the question be referred to the royal commission on transportation for its consideration. However, in the opinion of that body a matter of this kind did not come within the ambit of the terms of reference or scope of authority of the commission. Subsequently the president of the Canadian National Railways announced that it would not consider it advisable in the interest of the railway to alter the decision to transfer the passenger car repair work from the London shops. However, at the same time he made it clear that the Canadian National Railways was planning to set up new administrative regional headquarters in London as part of its general plan for decentralization.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary question. In view of the government's desire to have part of this problem referred to the royal commission on transportation, and in view of the decision that this was an improper area of inquiry, has the government given any consideration to changing the terms of reference of this commission or to providing another royal commission to inquire into the reduction of railway services and the lay-off of personnel that is causing so much hardship?


John George Diefenbaker: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the decisions with regard to lay-offs are primarily and absolutely the responsibility of the management. The question as to setting up another royal commission has not received the attention of the government. However, this is a problem that is of an all-embracing nature. Because of the policy being followed by the railway management with a view to obtaining a high degree of efficiency and effectiveness, there have been lay-offs. I feel most keenly the position of many of the employees who, after many years of service, find themselves unable to continue in their vocation, and I will have the government give consideration to the amendment of the powers of the royal commission in order to cover this full situation arising from automation and otherwise.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. McLennan (New Wesiminsler):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the fact that the city of New Westminster is this year celebrating its one hundredth birthday. On behalf of
Inquiries oj the Ministry Her Worship the mayor, the city council and all the friendly people of the city, I extend a very hearty invitation to all hon. members to visit the royal city this summer or in the fall.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. Monieiih (Verdun):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he can advise the house as to the progress being made on the construction of the Champlain bridge at Montreal.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am advised by the national harbours board that construction of the bridge is proceeding according to schedule, and that contracts have been awarded for all sections of the bridge across the St. Lawrence river. Construction is under way in every instance and the progress of the work is in accordance with the schedules submitted by the contractors.
Tenders will be called shortly for fill for the approaches on the Montreal side; also tenders for the toll plaza and administration building will be called this fall. The board expects that the bridge will be opened to traffic in the first half of 1962.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question. Could the minister say whether one tender has been called for this whole project?


George Harris Hees: I believe there are several tenders, but I will check up on that and let the hon. member know.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question. What steps, if any, are being taken for the protection of the lives and property of Canadian citizens in the new Congo republic?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has of course no diplomatic representation in the Congo. The British post there is looking after the interests not only of British citizens but of Canadians as well. There is no indication as yet that any Canadians are in peril. In so far as the missionaries are concerned, they seem to be desirous of remaining.
6182	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
The extension of temporary advances for repatriation to Canada has been authorized for those Canadian citizens who may need assistance in order to return home. However, it is reported that the general feeling among the Canadians in the Congo is that they wish to remain there and await developments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question. The Prime Minister has stated that there is no Canadian diplomatic mission in the Congo, but in view of the fact that there is an official representing the Canadian government who has consul status, would the Prime Minister not think that to him should be given the responsibility of directing this situation as far as Canada is concerned?


John George Diefenbaker: As the hon. member knows, recently the position of vice consul was raised, as I recall it, to that of consul general. The Canadian representative there is naturally concerned with the general situation; and while communication is somewhat difficult having regard to the disruption which has taken place, that official is of course concerned as well primarily with the discharge of the responsibilities in question.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Paul Tardif (Russell):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is the minister aware that the police are preventing the unemployed from queueing at the Queen street unemployment office in Ottawa for the purpose of seeking jobs?


David James Walker: No, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Tardif: A supplementary question. When the minister makes his investigation would he advise the house on whose instruction this action was taken and what measures are being taken to rectify this position?


David James Walker: I will look into the matter about which the hon. member is asking.


UNEMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, and I apologize for not having sent him notice of it. My question relates to an article in this morning's Globe and Mail to the effect that the Prime Minister has ordered a special study of various
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)

proposals which have reached him on methods to combat the current unemployment problem. I wonder whether the Prime Minister is in a position to comment upon that matter and indicate what form these studies will be taking and who is involved in making them.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that would require a somewhat lengthy answer, and when the labour estimates come before the house I think a full answer will be given.
There has been, not only recently but over a considerable period of time, the fullest examination into the unemployment situation. We are very much in the same position as the United States, which during the last few weeks has had a very large increase in unemployment. Indeed, I think the number of the unemployed in the United States has risen to one million, and the same concern is being expressed there.


Mr. Brooks:: Five million.


John George Diefenbaker: It is five million. The fullest investigation is being made there as it is being made here, in order to ascertain the reason for this unusual situation, having regard to the expanding economy in all fields of economic endeavour.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that unemployment in the United States is now and has been for the last year lower than that in Canada, will the Prime Minister not agree that even at this late date the government ought to assess-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon.
member is in effect presenting an argument. If he has a question to ask I would suggest he put it without the argument.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: In view of the inaccurate statement of statistics made by the Prime Minister as to-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Murdo William Martin: -the relative
position of unemployment in both countries, will the Prime Minister even at this late date take steps to set up a parliamentary committee so this house may discharge its responsibilities in this very serious situation?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: So now they want another committee. There is consistency for you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Prime Minister may wish to answer the question, but to my recollection the hon. member has had an answer to that same question on several occasions during the course of this session.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question, but I do not intend to ask for the setting up of an additional committee and then complain about there being too many. I would ask the Prime Minister, so far as his reference to the labour estimates are concerned, whether he will be available during those estimates to answer questions relating to his role in this field.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that is hardly a matter of administrative responsibility. It is really a question which the hon. member should take up with the Prime Minister personally.


VANCOUVER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question of mine on July 8 the Minister of Labour said he would obtain a full report of the situation in Vancouver, where the employment office had dispatched men to hardware firms where the employees had been locked out. I wonder if the minister is in a position to make a statement now as a result of receiving a full report?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have not that report with me. I had not anticipated that the hon. member would want it and the information has been forwarded to the sender of the telegram, but if the hon. member wishes I can make a report on this matter.


UNEMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Can the Minister of Labour give an assurance to the house that the report of the committee which has been set up to examine the statistical measuring of unemployment will be available to hon. members before the estimates of his department come up for consideration?


Michael Starr: Since I give no directions to that committee I cannot assure the Leader of the Opposition as to the exact date when the report will be brought down.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely the Minister of Labour-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will appreciate that the somewhat affirmative way in which he started his question was likely to provoke a response. I hope he will ask a question and not make a statement.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: I take your observation as a constructive one. I can only say that I did it because, having passed a bill of rights in this house-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Ask your question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the fact that this particular committee set up to arrive at more effective standards was established as a result of the minister's intruc-tions, and in view of the serious level of unemployment which now prevails in Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -does the Minister of Labour not think he can get on the telephone and obtain an answer which has now been pending for some four months?


Michael Starr: Eegardless of the bill of rights, the hon. member for Essex East seems to infringe upon the rights of every other member of this house at all times.
To answer his question, there is no intention on my part to interfere with the work of that committee or in any way to give directions to that committee as to what should be done and when it should be done. I want the committee to bring in an unbiased opinion based upon the experience of the members of that committee, when they are ready.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister say on his responsibility that that report is not now ready?


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Michael Starr: Evidently the hon. member has been infringing on the rights of this committee, judging from the type of question he has asked.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a question of privilege, if the hon. member will look at the Financial Post he will see where three weeks ago-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a question of privilege he should begin by stating it, rather than making some extraneous statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My question of privilege arises because the Minister of Labour stated I had violated the privileges of this interdepartmental committee. I am now seeking to deal with that point. I say that according to the Financial Post some three weeks ago it was stated that this committee had arrived at its conclusions, and it is on the basis of that story that we are now asking the Minister of Labour to display some real concern for the solution of the problem which the Prime Minister said he would solve.


Michael Starr: As far as I am aware there is no member of that committee who has any connection with the Financial Post.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister whether he will inquire of this interdepartmental committee of civil servants working under his responsibility as to whether this report is ready?


Michael Starr: All the members of the committee are not under my responsibility. The committee is composed of representatives from the dominion bureau of statistics, the Department of Labour and the unemployment insurance commission. The committee was set up on the initiative of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and myself.


Mr. Crestohl:: What beautiful skating.


CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is the minister yet in a position to advise the house what progress has been made in setting up a citizenship court in Vancouver, and when it is anticipated that this court will be in operation?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that premises have been acquired at 3100 Main street in Vancouver. The Department of Public Works is presently engaged in renovating those premises to make them suitable for occupancy by the court and its required offices. The civil service commission has advertised for staff, and selection boards are expected to sit within the next couple of weeks. As soon as staff has been acquired and the premises are available, the court will be established.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REPORTED INTENTION TO REVISE EQUALIZATION PRINCIPLE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question based upon a dispatch in the Winnipeg Free Press of last Monday by Mr. Victor Mackie, a highly respected member of the press gallery, in which it is stated that the principle of equalization as now applied under the federal-provincial tax rental agreements is expected to undergo a change, with the western provinces and

Quebec possibly suffering a loss of revenue. Could the Prime Minister dispel any such unfortunate impression?
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, that matter will come before the dominion-provincial conference later this month. I am not going to enter into a series of denials or affirmations of speculative articles, however distinguished and outstanding the journalist may be.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister assure the house that the assurance he gave at Carman, Manitoba, in 1957, still stands?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my assurances are always kept.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is now willing to make the report that he promised to make early this week, concerning the arrangements being made with the western farmers liaison committee?


John George Diefenbaker: Hon. members opposite have just been complaining that they have so much to do and so little time in which to do it. I will give a report just as soon as I am in a position to do so, but sometimes, having regard to the amount of work one has to undertake, as hon. gentlemen opposite have been saying, there must be postponement of anticipated events.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister what he meant, then, by the assurance that the report would be given early this week?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of State) moved: the third reading of Bill No. C-83, respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members of the House of Commons.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Acting Secretary of State whether the bill is available in reprinted form with the amendments?


Léon Balcer: I am not sure if there are yet enough copies for the whole house, but I know the printers were working on this last night.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In view of the answer given by the minister, I wonder if he would not agree to let the third reading stand over until the bill is available.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not allowed to look at it, eh?


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that we are being asked to give third reading to a bill which is not available to the house, without even the courtesy of an explanation from the government as to why they are asking us to take this extraordinary and unusual procedure. In my opinion we are witnessing a period when the government does not deal with this matter of the management of the business of the house in a responsible way-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is going beyond the subject matter. If he wants to complain that the bill is not available, perhaps be will address his remarks to that point.


George James McIlraith: I think I 'have the right to continue my remarks-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member was going beyond the point which has been raised and dealing with the general management of the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There was no intention whatever-


George James McIlraith: I have the floor, and if I went beyond the point which was proper, after the point of order has been dealt with I am entitled to continue my remarks without interruption by the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I assure the hon. member that he has the floor.


George James McIlraith: Surely, Mr. Speaker, we are entitled to an explanation from the government as to why they are following this extraordinary and unreasonable procedure. I do not believe the house should acquiesce in this practice of putting forward a motion for third reading in these circumstances without an explanation. I think it is something to which the house should not be asked to submit unless there is some reason, as well there may be. It is quite possible that there is a reason, but I for one do not know what it might be.
Now I hear noises from two backbenchers supporting the Prime Minister, apparently with the approval of those who sit on the treasury benches. We are left in a position
Canada Elections Act
where we never know whether the catcalls from the back benches of the government represent government policy or whether-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is straying from the question.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor at this time. I have a right to the floor and a right to speak without interruption, and that applies to the hon. member behind me who is a supporter of the government as well as the previous two government supporters who interjected.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What member sitting behind you is a government supporter?


George James McIlraith: I have that right in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, and I propose to ask Your Honour for your ruling, which I will follow to the utmost of my ability.


An hon. Member:: Oh, grow up.


Mr. Speaker:: I trust that hon. members will recognize that the hon. member for Ottawa West has the floor and is entitled to speak without interruption.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to a point of order. Yesterday at six o'clock it was agreed by the two opposition parties and the government that we would carry on the discussion at the second reading stage with the copies of the bill that were available. The chief spokesmen of the two opposition parties were supplied with all available copies of the bill and everyone was pleased to proceed. There was absolutely no intention on the part of the government to push anything down the throats of hon. members opposite. We were simply acting on an agreement reached with the opposition. I do not know what is the reason for this outburst on the part of the hon. member for Ottawa West. All we wanted to do was to co-operate with the opposition. We are quite agreeable to postpone this debate until copies of the bill are available.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak to the point of order, I will do my best to restrict myself to the point of order itself-


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member for Laurier proceeds, let me say I am not sure there is a point of order. There has been some mention of an arrangement, and I expect that if hon. members have made arrangements they will carry them out. Perhaps the hon. member who has the floor would consent to yield it, whether or not the point of order is valid, until this matter can be cleared up.

Canada Elections Act


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate what the arrangement was last evening, because I was instrumental in part of it. I want to say at this time that what the Solicitor General has said is in part correct. We on this side of the house did agree to facilitate the passing of this bill, but when it came to presenting the bill to this side of the house there were only a small number of copies. I do not know how many there were, but I had one which I had to share with at least five or six of my colleagues, and doubtless the same situation obtained in relation to other hon. members.
We are now asked to give third reading to this bill when we do not have the amendments before us. The point at issue is that we should not proceed with third reading until such time as we have the amended bill. Each and every one of us should have the bill with the amendments so we can understand all the provisions of the bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Acting Secretary of State has just agreed to that.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise in an attempt to conclude this matter. I refer hon. members to page 6161 of Hansard of July 12, where the following is found:


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time.


Some hon. members:: Now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: At the next sitting of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think we should see these amendments.
I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is a proper suggestion, and that third reading should be postponed until the amendments are available, as the Acting Secretary of State has suggested.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa West has the floor and is speaking in the debate. Until there is some action arising from the debate the hon. member may not be interrupted.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, what we have seen and heard only intensifies and illustrates the wrongness of the procedure that is being followed by the government. By way of a point of order raised by a minister of the crown, the hon. gentleman sought to deal with the substance of the point I had raised. The Prime Minister did the same thing. That points up the whole difficulty in these matters.
I want to leave the subject now with the request that in matters of this kind, if the government has to bring them forward not in accordance with the rules, as well may be

the case at this stage of the session in any given matter, the government should then offer some explanation to the house. The proposition that we should proceed with third reading of the bill when a large number of hon. members have not seen the bill because it is not available and has not been submitted to the house in final form with the amendments is not a sound proposition, as I believe all hon. members will agree.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention of pressing on with this matter in view of the statements already made. The printing bureau has now passed a message to us to the effect that the reprinted bill including the amendments of yesterday will be available at two o'clock. I therefore suggest that the debate on third reading be resumed at that hour.


George James McIlraith: No, we want to examine the amendments.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to the house leader that we will not have time even after two o'clock to look at all these amendments. It is a long bill with more than 100 clauses.. Could we not leave it stand until tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The amendments, Mr. Speaker, are those suggested by the opposition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette).


Mr. Speaker:: I think we should consider what rules apply. Third reading has been moved. There has been no motion to the contrary. If there is a unanimous request for adjournment to a fixed time, very well; otherwise it will have to be dealt with by motion. Several hon. members have already spoken in the debate more than once and the entire proceedings are irregular. If a proposal is to be made for unanimous consent I suggest that the hon. member make it now.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I would move that we take up third reading of this bill tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: I think a simple motion for adjournment of the debate would cover the point.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, would not the effect of a motion to adjourn the debate preclude hon. members who have spoken from speaking again? I would suggest that if the house agrees we simply accept the motion to take up third reading of this bill tomorrow, and that would not affect the right of any hon. member to speak again.


Mr. Speaker:: It is moved by Mr. Balcer, seconded by Mr. Churchill, that this order be taken up tomorrow. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
41. Grant in respect of the net operating requirements of the radio and television services. $62,085,000.
Mr. McFarlane:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to bring up a small point arising out of the remarks made on July 8 by the hon. member for Vancouver South, who I believe has left a wrong impression with the committee on this matter. I refer hon. gentlemen to the remarks of the hon. member as found at page 6012 of Hansard of July 8, where he said:
The argument seems to have been that any money spent on outlets in big cities is wasted because it has not been spent in bringing the benefits of the C.B.C. to remote areas ... It is just as important to promote Canadianism in the cities, and considering that most of our new Canadians flock to the cities it is perhaps a little more important than it is to bring entertainment and the Canadian viewpoint to remote areas.
We have had C.B.C. programs available to the cities and some of the urban centres for many years. I know myself we have been able to receive C.B.C. programs for over 15 years; also in the cities they have the choice of several stations. They are able to pick up radio stations and television stations, and in some instances they are now requesting the inauguration of colour television. At the same time we are not giving even the benefits of radio to some of our rural areas.
We are not asking the C.B.C. to undertake heavy expenditures. They are doing a good job in their endeavour to put on worth-while programs. All we are asking for is the installation of a low frequency booster station to bring in C.B.C. programs so that the people in the rural areas may be able to receive them. In the vicinity of the Rocky mountains, as I mentioned the other day, we have very sporadic reception, especially in the lake Windermere valley in Kootenay East. In some places we are not able to get a C.B.C. production of any kind. I bring this matter up because it relates to the matter raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South. I believe this is one matter which should receive the serious consideration of the department.
Supply-C.B.C.


Mr. Brunsden:: Mr. Chairman, the last speaker raised a point which is of considerable concern to many of us. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek dealt with his situation; mine is comparable. We both have low voltage stations with restricted areas of listening, and it does seem to me, sir, that out of its budget the C.B.C. might very well give consideration to the establishment of boosters in order that audiences may be enlarged.
One hears a great deal concerning the C.B.C. It is condemned; it is not praised too often. I am not particularly a television addict but I do think perhaps we often overlook the fact that there are certain programs -I am referring now particularly to "Farm Forum", "Citizens' Forum", "Close-Up" and "Viewpoint", and programs of that kind- which give the Canadian people a view of their country and of its potential that could be gained in no other way. I do say there is an opportunity for the C.B.C. by means of boosters to greatly enlarge its audiences. There is an opportunity to bring before more Canadians the good work the C.B.C., is doing.


Mr. Jung:: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few brief remarks. Possibly this matter might have been more properly discussed under item 42. However, for various reasons I was not able to speak on that item, and I should like to make my remarks now. They have to do with the consolidation of the existing facilities that C.B.C. and CBUT have in Vancouver. On March 23 of last year I asked the Minister of National Revenue, the following question, as reported at page 2140 of Hansard:
As the minister is doubtless aware, the C.B.C. radio and T.V. studios in Vancouver are at present situated in three different locations. With a view to increasing administrative efficiency and reducing production costs, as well as to create employment, would the minister advise whether the C.B.C. has given, or will give, consideration to the erection in Vancouver of a building which would house all the radio and T.V. facilities of the C.B.C.?
A statement was made before the parliamentary committee on broadcasting last year by Mr. Bushnell, and he concluded that statement by saying:
In addition, we ourselves face a number of capital projects which must be undertaken if we are to achieve our goal of maximum efficiency at minimum cost to the Canadian taxpayer; probably an example of this is the importance of consolidating our production facilities in the large centres of Montreal and Toronto where we are now too widely dispersed.
No mention is made of Vancouver. I understand that Vancouver is one of the originating stations of the C.B.C., and certainly we have marvellous facilities to make that city a consolidated production centre. I say this in view of the fact that I am led to believe we

Supply-C.B.C.
pay $80,000 a year on rental facilities alone for the three separate locations. Over a period of five years it would come to almost half a million dollars. This has been going on for some time now. I would seriously urge the minister to make representations to the department so that an early start may be made on a single building. We own, as I understand it, the property on which the CBUT stations are located on Georgia street, which is a substantial piece of property. I see no reason why we cannot get started on a building at this time.


Mr. Peters:: I am of the opinion that not enough work has been done by the department in the field of experimentation in developing transmitters, and particularly small transmitters, which would work off the microwave set-up that we now have and supply coverage to places at least within 100 miles of the microwave tower. I am thinking of the small repeater stations such as we use for radio itself, where you put in a radio transmitter of very low voltage that has a radius of 25 miles and goes on and off automatically with the station that it is following. We hear continually that the Japanese, for instance, have developed a very low cost radio transmitter which would work on our microwave set-up. If this is so, I would think that the C.B.C. itself could do some planning for the development of a similar type of device. It would be economical to install this type of device, even disregarding the advertising potentiality and the things that would be necessary if a small station were to be put in by private enterprise.
In many communities, particularly in northern Ontario, there is a fringe area which could be supplied with radio reception if there was a much more economical method of getting transmission to those areas. Some of those communities have gone to the expense of erecting towers on a community basis and using coaxial cable. In most instances this has proved unsatisfactory. In some instances, and this is true of my own area, a private station has put in satellites which are quite effective and are doing a fairly good job but, Mr. Chairman, these all produce one bad result. It is true that the areas may be too small to finance their own studios and their own set-ups, but it seems to me we lose a great deal when we combine a very large area and feed to it the type of coverage that would be satisfactory in one of the main centres of that area rather than the outside points. This means that the people in the fringe areas served by satellites, while they do get television reception, get very little in the programs that is of a local nature.

It is impossible for the companies themselves to rectify this because the cost of equipment for mobile transmission is very high. This, of course, is the major objection to putting in a repeater type satellite which works only off the microwave. There is no opportunity for local broadcasting. There is no local programming at all; therefore this type of station should be used mainly in those areas where there is going to be no opportunity now or in the foreseeable future for the people to get local coverage from television stations in their own areas.
I should like to refer also to the operations of the C.B.C. in the field of programming. I certainly am not a long-hair, and I do not particularly care for that type of program. I have been struck, and I think perhaps the minister has too, by the reception given the program from down east, the Don Messer show. I understand that the C.B.C. was shocked to find it had a high rating. It was put on as a substitute program, and now they find it is one of the most popular programs on the C.B.C.
It seems to me that while we need culture, it does not have to be of the long-hair type. We do not have to carry a violin under our arm nor do we have to grow a beard to appreciate music. Some of us like the type of music to which we can listen while doing our work. At the same time we do not have to sit down and emit some of the sounds which come from some of the professional types who are interested in good music.
I feel that in so far as these Wednesday night radio programs are concerned, sometimes without a doubt we have put on the most stupid type of program possible. From listening to these programs it would appear that the C.B.C. gets a good three-act play, but then only has enough time and money to put on the middle act. You never know where the play begins or ends. You often wonder if the announcer is going to say that this will be continued the next Wednesday night.
Perhaps this type of play appeals to some people, but it is not necessarily what we should consider to be Canadian culture. We should develop a more homey type of culture which would appeal to the east, to the west, and to the north. We could have some programs of the other type for Toronto and some of the other beatnik cities. I am not suggesting we should eliminate them, but we should attempt to strike some balance so we would have programs that appeal to all Canadians rather than a situation which results in Wednesday night radio listening being pretty well eliminated for a large number of Canadians.

We should like also to commend the C.B.C. on the high calibre of many of the programs. It is my opinion that the C.B.C. does a better job on the commentary programs than do the United States stations. It seems to me the commentators are less biased and more interested in giving three, four or five sides of an argument than they are in admitting that there may be only two. A great deal of our programming of that nature is very constructive and very well done.
Recently, Mr. Chairman, a problem developed in connection with one of the programs that I consider is making an exceptional contribution to Canada. I refer to the program "Close-Up". I was shocked when I heard the minister say he would give Mr. Roberts, the attorney general of Ontario, the right to ascertain who the people were who were involved in this particular program in which the attorney general was interested.
First, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I have known Mr. Roberts for many years. He originally practised law in my area. I was surprised, indeed, to find him saying that he did not know these things were going on because he had never known about them during his practice of law. Well, this may be lawyers' talk, but it certainly does not make much sense. I know Mr. Roberts had a general practice in my area, and the people of my area are no different from people in other places. The cases which he handled must have contained the same ingredients as the cases that were handled in other places.
In my opinion the girl who appeared on "Close-Up" did a very good job. I could not care less if she was lying the first time or if she is lying now. What she said about the divorce situation in Canada was true then and it is true now, whether it affected her or whether it affected the general public. We all know that at least the ingredients in that broadcast were true. Everyone knows it. When some of these leading lawyers say they did not know about this, in my opinion that is just so much eyewash.
I think this young lady was put in a very embarrassing position when it was suggested that she should tell her story to the attorney general of Ontario. There were many complications in this situation. First, she had to protect the C.B.C. people with whom she was dealing, if at all possible, and she also had to protect the other people with whom she was dealing, who in that case would be the legal profession. It seemed to me that many lawyers in Ontario would have been involved and would have faced probable disbarment if Mr. Roberts could have got the testimony from her which the newspaper stories I read suggested that he wanted.
Supply-C.B.C.
I think, Mr. Chairman, we are doing a job in Canada. We are presenting on the C.B.C., as we should, all sides of various arguments. I am sure that we have to protect those people whom we ask to participate in these broadcasts. We have to protect, as well, the people who work in the industry. I believe we hire these people on the understanding that they have some ability, that they are not completely new to the field. Certain precautions should be taken, and perhaps these should be more closely regulated.
However, every newspaperman with whom I have talked is very familiar with the libel laws, very familiar with what he can and cannot do. Most of the newspapers insist on this before they allow anybody to write a story. The C.B.C. have probably taken the same precautions. If they have, then I think they should take all precautions possible to ensure that those whom they ask to participate in broadcasts are protected. I would make a personal guess that the honesty of the broadcast in question was much greater than the honesty that has appeared since the investigation took place.
I am only saying that if we are going to ask people to put forth their views, we should give them an assurance that they can be protected. We should take all the precautions necessary to make sure that they are protected. I have listened to many controversial subjects discussed on these broadcasts. I have talked with a large number of people, not people in the long-hair class but people who are interested in getting more information on Canadian topics, and they have been very pleased with the presentations made on "Close-Up" as well as some of the other programs on the C.B.C.
I think it is safe to say, Mr. Chairman, that the Canadian people have been more interested in the controversial type of program than they have been in many of the other programs that have been carried. It seems to me that we should not devote our programming to what would satisfy one group of people or what would satisfy another group of people, but should attempt to develop a well-rounded series of programs. There should be heavy music for those who like it, but I think it should be in proportion to the number of those who like it. There should be some jazz music, but that also should be in proportion to the number who would appreciate it. The programs in the middle group should be, in the main, the type of programs that will tend to develop Canadianism and the things that separate us from our neighbours in the United States.
If we do not do this; if the main part of our programming is only a reproduction of that which satisfies United States audiences,

Supply-C.B.C.
we are going to have great difficulty in establishing in Canada any type of nationalism at all. It would appear that this should be one of the functions and indeed one of the fundamental functions of the C.B.C., so that we can develop in Canada a Canadian culture and a Canadian outlook and give a Canadian expression which will be a little bit different. I suggest that many of the things that are considered suitable by some of the people in charge of programming have not, in my opinion, tended to the middle but have been rather on the extreme.
I believe that the C.B.C., in the main, has done a very good job. If it had not been for the C.B.C. I am quite sure that my local station, which is a privately owned one, would be broadcasting more soap dramas and more advertising of all kinds. I am quite sure it would have been advertising indiscriminately if it had not had the competition that it has had for many years from the C.B.C. The C.B.C. itself is able to develop a standard and to produce to that standard in the major cities, something which again is carried over into private broadcasting.
I think it has done a good job. We have had differences of opinion with it and probably we shall continue to do so. However, in the main I think it is making a contribution. As it grows older it also will grow up and will concentrate much more on what would be truly Canadianism, something which is not an extreme at either one end of the cultural ladder or the other but which would satisfy many of us who are just in the middle and who understand and appreciate good music or fair music. This concentration in turn will tend to develop more of a Canadianism than will some of the things that have been done, and I refer particularly to Wednesday night C.B.C.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising just to make two comments on the speech we have just heard from the hon. member for Timiskaming. My first comment is that I also, like the hon. member, on the whole approve of the C.B.C. and have done so over the years. I too think that on balance they have done a very good job indeed. I have some criticisms and I will have more. However, I would not like my criticisms to alter that fact.
The other comment is that I was rather astonished at some of the arguments of the hon. gentleman. It seems to me that if the C.B.C. would be careful not to put on its programs people who need protection from the police, they would not get into any trouble in the first place. It seems to me that we do not vote money here for the purpose of having persons do broadcasts for the

purpose of confessing that they have committed crimes for which they could be charged in the courts. I think the C.B.C. made a great error in judgment, and I hope that in future they will not put on their programs unconvicted burglars, murderers, thieves or perjurers boasting about their crimes. It seems to me that there are in this country enough people who are capable of entertaining and instructing the Canadian people without portraying confessed but unconvicted criminals.


William Arnold Peters: Before the hon. member sits down, may I ask him a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


William Arnold Peters: Would he not consider that this type of program is something along the line of the activities of those newspaper reporters who over the years have, on occasion, made contact with someone who may be outside of the law or who is considered at the time to be outside of the law, and have carried on interviews which were published in their newspapers and tend to make a change in the status quo? In many cases murderers have given themselves up to newspaper reporters. Would the hon. member not agree that this type of program is somewhat in the same category?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I certainly do not agree with anything of the sort. I do not think a newspaper reporter or anyone else has any right to shield self-confessed criminals from the police. It is the duty of every member of the public to report to the police any evidence he has of any crime. If we are to have any organized society at all, that duty must be upheld. If we want to change the divorce laws that is an entirely different matter, but so long as the law is the law it should be obeyed. No one who admits to having committed a crime should be shielded from the rigours of the law merely because that person has in addition made an exhibition of himself.
(Translation):


Mr. Foriin:: Mr. Chairman, I have only two brief remarks to make.
First of all, as was stated yesterday by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) I should like to say-and this, of course, is just my own personal opinion -that the C.B.C. does not place enough emphasis on Canadian politics.
As an illustration, Mr. Chairman, I would say that in the evening news, considerable importance is attached to events in Cuba,



I960

[Stage Direction]
Indonesia, Ceylon or elsewhere, and that little time is left for news from Ottawa.
The people of Canada should take an interest in their own politics. They should know what is happening in Ottawa. They have a right xo know what their representatives are doing in the House of Commons.
That is why I would ask-and this is my first remark-that C.B.C. authorities instruct editors of their evening news broadcasts to give Canadian politics the importance it deserves.
In the second place, Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) in expressing my appreciation to the C.B.C. for the quality of some of its programs, which really show good taste and are genuinely useful.
But as the hon. member for Roberval said I would not like my congratulations to be accepted blindly. We must not forget that changes are overdue in the C.B.C.
As my colleague said yesterday evening, it is a matter of general atmosphere, and it is extremely difficult for us to give concrete evidence in support of certain statements, because the doors are closed.
It is not as easy for us, as it seems to be for the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard), to have the run of the C.B.C. building to see what is going on. Therefore, I support the suggestion made in this house that a royal commission be established. It would be of benefit both to the C.B.C. and to the people of Canada.
This suggestion should be accepted because any member who rises in this house is impelled by a sense of duty. At times, the points he raises may be debatable, but he should not be accused of partisanship and his interventions should not be considered as mud-slinging.
I wish therefore, Mr. Chairman, to congratulate C.B.C. authorities. They have performed fine work emphasizing especially the French fact in Canada.
Our compatriots who live in different environments welcome the possibility of getting in closer touch with the province of Quebec through the medium of the C.B.C.
As for us, we are glad to be able, through the C.B.C. to spread the splendid French culture. Not only is it of benefit to Frenchspeaking people in other provinces but it affords the English speaking population of Canada a means of adding to its own culture.
(Text):
Mr. Creaghan:: Mr. Chairman, on this occasion I think it is most appropriate for me, for perhaps the first time in my political
Supply-C.B.C.
career, to agree with the words of wisdom spoken this morning by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. His recommendations to the board of directors and the management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation I think will be appreciated and acted upon.
Mr. Chairman, while I am on my feet I have a few remarks to make in a general way. Many speakers have urged an expansion of C.B.C. facilities into the outlying areas. I urge the management and the directors to give serious consideration to that request. In my opinion there is a strong duty on the part of the crown, whether it be an agency corporation or otherwise, to do what it can to develop our country.
Perhaps in doing so some consideration ought to be given to the sale of some of the existing facilities of the C.B.C. By that I mean studios and stations in the urban areas which should be self-supporting. It is impossible to ascertain whether some of the large C.B.C. set-ups are operating at a profit or a loss. If it should turn out that they are operating at a loss I am sure that free enterprise would be glad to take them over, and if that were done many items in the estimates could be reduced.
I hope when the minister replies he will make a statement concerning the progress in construction of the second microwave network into the maritimes. Last year the C.B.C. opened a new French language television station at Moncton which has been very much appreciated by the people of the maritimes who are within its range. However, it is not a live station, except for two hours a day when it has the facilities of the English language microwave. I hope the minister will cover this point when he replies so that the hundreds of thousands of Acadians in eastern Canada who are awaiting anxiously live television will some time in 1960 or 1961 have live French language television even though it may be originating in Montreal.
My final point concerns the way in which the estimates which appear on page 11 and again on page 128 are detailed. Under votes 43 and 44 for the international shortwave broadcasting service we get full details, even showing the amounts spent on fuel, postage, advertising, printing of publications and rent. A great part of that vote is spent in two communities, principally in the city of Montreal and in the town of Sackville, New Brunswick.
I think hon. members will be interested in knowing that as of April 1, 1960, there were a total of 27 transmitter stations at Sackville, New Brunswick, owned by the C.B.C. international shortwave service. Each

Supply-C.B.C.
of these stations has a call sign and is on the air pretty much right around the clock. They are strong stations; all of them are in the 50,000 watt range. On page 128 of the blue book we get the full details of expenditures of $2.3 million. This like the other items appears as a grant, but the big vote of nearly $70 million has the same phraseology on page 11 as it has on page 128. That amount of $70 million odd perhaps represents an amount well in excess of $100 million when we credit the revenue which the C.B.C. obviously gets.
Therefore I urge the minister and the board of directors to give more detail when preparing the estimates for the next fiscal year. The people of Canada and members of parliament in particular are entitled to that information.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I am going to be quite brief, but I must say first of all that while I enjoy good music, opera, drama and all that sort of thing, I do not consider myself a beatnik. I represent the people of my constituency, who are a cultured people.
However, I rise to say that I was particularly interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre when he suggested to the minister that it would be a good idea to have a new production building in Vancouver and centralize the activities of the C.B.C. That may be very desirable, but no doubt an expenditure of that sort would run into millions of dollars. I rise once again to urge the minister and the C.B.C. and its senior officials to listen to the pleas of the hon. members for Kootenay East and Kootenay West, and make certain they provide the people in the out of the way places with radio and television, which facilities have been denied them to date, before they spend millions on a new building in Vancouver. When I say that, once again I repeat that I am speaking for the cultured people of the Kootenays.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, just one small matter. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate got up and made a rather unctuous statement about the law. He seems to be in the old tradition of law as a brooding omnipresence in the skies. I want to say that we hold no brief for the C.B.C. taking this particular program and putting it on the air in the circumstances which developed in connection with it, but to accept the hon. member's position so far as the law is concerned seems to me to overlook just what the law involves and the fact that laws shift and change.
Mr. Chairman, I discovered just the other day that I had committed, I will not give

the number but quite a host of parking violations, and I am sure there is not one human being in Canada but who is constantly breaking the law. We always have to bring the law into some kind of accordance with the public's point of view, and I think the point of view on this particular program on divorce which was mentioned by the hon. member for Timiskaming was really to the effect that the C.B.C. made a contribution to that discussion.
I say that because at the present time we have both shifting and conflicting views and attitudes toward divorce. Sooner or later we get a public consensus which leads in the end to a certain amount of hypocrisy with regard to the law, and I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is well aware that in many laws there is this hypocrisy.
In this particular case it seems to me that the C.B.C., whatever their judgment in the matter, were trying to make a contribution of that kind. Since I have asked the C.B.C. to be bold in its program rather than timid, I certainly do not feel that I want to turn around or that the members of our group want to turn around and clobber them over the head because of something which may have been a little too bold; but I certainly hope they will learn from this experience.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to ask the
hon. gentleman a question, if he will permit it. Does the hon. member think that the public view of perjury is changing very much with changing customs?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I would certainly think the public view of perjury is changing with custom, and I think the public view on divorce is changing with custom.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a different matter, but I must say I am glad to be old-fashioned.


Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, I think it is just shocking to hear members of the C.C.F. party rise to defend this practice of the C.B.C. of having criminals appear on a program; boasting about their crimes, or lying, whatever the case may be; paying them for doing so, and then go on and suggest to this committee that they should be defended by the C.B.C. I think it is absolutely ridiculous that we should hear such suggestions coming from a political party of this country.


William Arnold Peters: I want to make it clear that no action has been definitely criminal. There have certainly been no charges laid in this particular case. What we are suggesting is that this type of hypocrisy which is being displayed by the attorney general of Ontario is not to be desired, either. If it had been

stated that this was a program putting forward a composite view rather than an actual one, there probably would have been no objection to the program at all.
As far as I am concerned, I think many people would be willing to make a contribution to reimburse the C.B.C. in respect of this cost of $100, if it is the $100 that is worrying some hon. members. I am sure that such an amount could easily be raised by public subscription to pay for this particular program. The point I should like to make is this. Newspapers, in the past, have been successful in bringing injustices to the attention of the general public. No law is stagnant. The law should be changed as the need arises. I am sure this program intended to put forward one side of the argument. There are other sides, and the corporation would certainly be condemned if they did not put forward these views, too.
I do not think this is a matter of protecting a criminal, or anything of that nature. I doubt very much whether this young lady will ever be charged with anything, and I think that is the consensus in Ontario. It was merely a question of many members of the legal profession having to justify the position they appear to have taken, in the only manner they could, by discrediting the young lady in question-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. The question of the conduct of solicitors has nothing to do with item 41 which is under consideration.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, this has been a long and interesting debate covering the whole gamut of human emotion and reactions to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, ranging from accusations of payola at Montreal to perjury in the C.B.C. If I attempted to deal with all the questions which have been raised I presume I would be keeping the committee here until six o'clock, and certainly, Mr. Chairman, you would have to rule me out of order on occasions, because many of the matters which have been raised have been out of order. However, it is often better to allow hon. members to say what they have in mind rather than raise points of order and become involved in an altercation as to how the rule applies, thereby wasting more time than has probably been spent as a result of the lax and reasonable attitude the Chair has taken during this debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question? Would he engage in some missionary activity on the treasury benches?


George Clyde Nowlan: There have been many questions raised, and I do not intend to try to deal with them all in detail. I am sure hon.
Supply-C.B.C.
members do not expect me to do so, because there are many other matters which are engaging the attention of this committee. There is, of course, a close association between the board of broadcast governors and the C.B.C. Both the hon. member for Port Arthur and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate raised questions which are, perhaps, shall I say, hybrid; questions which impinge on the functions of both the board of broadcast governors and the C.B.C. I propose to reserve any comment on these matters until the item dealing with the board of broadcast governors is before us. Perhaps other issues will arise at the same time, and I think it will be economical of time if all such matters are dealt with on the latter item.
I think it is perhaps advisable, at the outset, to make a statement which one might expect not to have to make in this house. However, I want to make it clear not only to those who have taken part in this debate, and in particular to those who have been criticizing the C.B.C., but also to others in this house who perhaps have not taken part in this debate at all but who from time to time approach me asking why I permitted this or that to happen, or why I did or did not take action of a particular kind, that the minister is here only to report to parliament for the C.B.C. and that he has no power whatsoever to exercise control over that corporation. That is a matter of law, that is a matter of statute, and that is a matter of public policy.


An hon. Member:: Why?


George Clyde Nowlan: All I can say is that this is the policy which has been followed in this parliament ever since the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its predecessor were incorporated. I would point out as well, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate mentioned yesterday-this is one of the few matters with respect to which the hon. gentleman is prepared to give credit to R. B. Bennett-that it was a Conservative government under Mr. Bennett which created and incorporated the predecessor of the C.B.C., and the fundamental principle laid down at that time has been carried out throughout the years. That principle has been continued, and that has been the finding of every royal commission since which has made recommendations on the subject, in addition to about every parliamentary committee, and there have been around 20 of them since the corporation was established.
It is embarrassing at times. There are times when I should like to be able to exercise some control and power, but if there is sometimes embarrassment and frustration on the

Supply-C.B.C.
one side there is, on the other side, the obvious danger of having a public service such as the C.B.C. brought under political control. I am sure that on reflection one does not want to see political control exercised directly over the corporation, and that is the reason the situation is at it is.
I should also, perhaps, reiterate this. One hon. member did somewhat facetiously suggest that the proper thing for the government to do would be to sell the C.B.C. It is true that from time to time there have been suggestions that there are members of the party to which I have the honour to belong who are hostile to the C.B.C. and who would like to have it sold. Such suggestions have sometimes been specifically associated with this party. Undoubtedly that is true; there are a few of them. There are a few also, I think, in other parties from time to time. The Conservative party has no monopoly of that viewpoint by a long shot. There are people who have been hauled screaming and protesting into the twentieth century and still think they live in the eighteenth.
We respect their views, but certainly as far as this government is concerned I want to say again what has been said from time to time, namely that we believe in the C.B.C.; we support the corporation, and as long as this government is in power-and, I hope, as long as any government is in power-that policy will be maintained; because I am quite certain that if any government attempted to destroy that principle they would be heaved out of office so rapidly that they would never know what struck them.
It is true that from time to time as individuals we may disapprove of matters of programming, actions taken by the corporation, or actions by the board of boadcast governors. That is a privilege we all have, and I am far from saying for one moment that the corporation is anything like perfect. It has made its share of mistakes, and I am glad to see that some of them have been drawn to the attention of the committee during the present session. I hope these matters which have been brought forward will be investigated and dealt with-in fact I know they will be-and perhaps as a result the climate may be better than it has been heretofore.
But in so far as the general principle is concerned, I can say that this government believes in the C.B.C. as, I think, does every member who has spoken in this debate, including those who have been critical. They too have expressed appreciation of the contribution which the corporation is making to national unity. That is my view, though as I say there are many times when I could be critical. That general situation prevails,

and I want to make that clear at the outset in case any question is raised again at some time about the attitude of his government toward the C.B.C.
There were some specific questions raised by hon. members concerning their own constituencies. I know from experience that these matters are of great concern to individual hon. members. I feel that perhaps I should deal briefly with some of the detailed questions asked with respect to our television and radio services.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the minister proceeds, may I put a question and ask the minister when he is going to give television coverage to the constituency of Digby-An-napolis-Kings. I know it would be an embarrassing thing for him to ask himself.


George Clyde Nowlan: Well, Mr. Chairman, the constituency of Digby-Annapolis-Kings does receive television coverage from private stations which are affiliated with the C.B.C. in Saint John. Part of my constituency receives television coverage from the C.B.C. station in Halifax. That depends on contours. In the little town in which I live the people who live on the hill receive excellent service from C.B.C. Halifax, but those living down where I live at the foot of the hill do not receive it at all. If I were a private member sitting in this house and someone else were standing in my place, I would be urging that improved coverage be given to the banner constituency of Digby-Annapolis-Kings so it would have the coverage it deserves. Modesty, of course, and my sense of responsibility toward all hon. members dictate that I have to look after their needs before pressing on the corporation the demands of my own constituency.
The hon. member for Churchill, who I see sitting here, who I see everywhere I turn when C.B.C. matters are raised, and who I see sometimes when I do not turn.-the hon. member sometimes is sitting in front of me-has raised again the question of coverage in northern Manitoba as did, of course, the hon. member for Dauphin and also the hon. member for Mackenzie, who referred to the other side of the provincial border-


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, and the hon. member from the far reaches of Bonavista-Twillingate has also raised his voice in a plaintive cry that this area should be serviced. I am sure we all appreciate this evidence of co-operation. I am sure the hon. members for Churchill, Dauphin and Mackenzie recognize that this area has a unanimous claim for support

for better service from hon. members from all areas and all parties, and that this claim takes priority. Certainly if something is not soon done about it my life will be made absolutely impossible, because I will not be able to avoid the hon. member for Churchill even when I am eating lunch, which is about the only time the hon. gentleman is not asking me about this.
The president of the corporation when in Edmonton recently, on an occasion which has been criticized and to which we will perhaps refer later on, I hope, made certain specific statements with regard to the extension of coverage there. He said these matters will be included in the estimates for the coming year. I can assure the committee and the hon. members concerned that if this is included in the estimates, those particular items will be passed even if nothing else is passed, and thus there will be a commencement on the necessary television service in that area. It cannot all be developed at the one time; nevertheless there will be substantial amounts included in next year's estimates to start the development which I hope in the end will assure adequate service in that area, although some further engineering studies are necessary with respect to part of it.
The hon. member for Humber-St. George's raised the problem of radio coverage of station CBY. This is a very complicated problem and not an easy one to solve. The corporation is well aware of the problem there, but it bears on frequency allocations of other stations on the mainland and on planned changes the corporation has in mind for its own Halifax station. It relates to frequency allocations not only on the island but on the mainland and perhaps even as far as central Canada. This is a problem which is engaging the attention of the engineers of the corporation, and I am assured that in so far as engineers can be definite about any of these complicated problems, within a year to 18 months an adequate solution will have been found to the coverage problem.
The hon. member also raised the problem of television coverage, as did the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. The corporation advises me that over the next two or three years it expects to have progress to report in the general coverage problem in Newfoundland. The areas of Bonne Bay, Port aux Basques, Deer Lake and Steady Brook will probably come within the area of these plans. The solution suggested, of raising the power of the Harmon Field station, would not give the results that are needed.
Supply-C.B.C.
The hon. member for Halifax noted the requirements of the eastern section of Halifax county. I realize that there is in that area of my own province a need for adequate service. We are hopeful that the recent recommendation of the board of broadcast governors for approval of the Atlantic Broadcasting Limited application for a television station at Antigonish will solve this problem. It has not yet been dealt with by order in council. If the order in council is granted and that station goes into operation some time within the next year, we believe this area of the eastern Atlantic provinces will be much better served than ever before.
The situation around the west coast of Vancouver island and the Port Albemi section which was raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni will await developments resulting from the change in power and location of the Victoria television station. It is expected that the results of these changes will materially improve the reception on Vancouver island in those areas.
The hon. member for Kootenay West in his remarks mentioned the need of improved radio coverage in the Kootenay West and upper Arrow lakes districts, and I am glad to inform him that the corporation's plans for these areas are within a year to a year and a half of achievement if all goes well. Regarding the results of the Trail and Nelson low power television stations, we will have to await their operation, which is expected to start somewhere around next Christmas, before the corporation can assess the effectiveness of their coverage. The area of the Windermere valley also came in for mention by the hon. member for Kootenay East. This area is also slated within the foreseeable future for coverage by low power radio relay stations.
The situation in regard to the Mont Trem-blant-Mont Laurier area was also raised, and I am informed that the corporation is actively studying this area, making engineering surveys and endeavouring to clear a proper site to give television satellite coverage.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before the minister proceeds, perhaps I could suggest a solution. Perhaps the Bomarc site could be used.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I think that will be used for a much more important purpose. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek questioned the provision of television in the Maple Creek area. Again, this is one of the areas under active investigation, and I am sure the hon. member is aware that this area receives radio service already.

Supply-C.B.C.
Some hon. members raised questions with respect to applications pending before the Department of Transport. I am informed that the following areas will be affected: St. Fintan's, Newfoundland, Senneterre, Quebec, Bancroft and Red Lake, Ontario.
There have been many other questions raised about individual areas. The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort has raised with me on many occasions the question of service in the Tisdale area in Saskatchewan. I am advised by the C.B.C. that this is under study with the approval of the board for engineering surveys and cost and coverage estimates. All things going well and depending on any action by private stations, construction should be completed within the relatively near future, but certainly not before a year or perhaps a little more has elapsed.
I believe I have dealt with most of the geographical questions raised, but the hon. member for Westmorland a few moments ago raised a question about the connection of the microwave system with the French language station in Moncton. As the hon. member said, the French station there has the use of the English network for two hours a day when that network is not used for regular programming. I am told it will be approximately 18 months-give or take a few months but probably 18 months-before the French station is completely and permanently served by the microwave.
Some general questions were raised about the development of the corporation.


Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, before the minister leaves the question of future plans for so-called neglected areas, perhaps he would say something about what is in store in the near future for such localities in my riding as Dryden, Sioux Lookout and Ati-kokan? I am sure the officials will be quite familiar with the matter, because when I last met the president of the C.B.C. he told me I was perhaps his principal correspondent this session in the matter of mail with respect to the needs of this section.


George Clyde Nowlan: Correspondent or corespondent? Apparently the C.B.C. has both. I will get the information from my officials for my hon. friend and give it to him, I hope, within a few minutes.
On the general construction program perhaps I should say this, taking radio first. It should be noted that the C.B.C. has in operation at the present time 73 of these low power relay stations. We all, of course, know the major ones. It has five applications pending before the Department of Transport, and is preparing eight other applications for submission to the department. Hon. members, of course, realize that these applications have

to be approved technically by the Department of Transport and then, having received technical approval, they usually-I think in every case-have to go before the board of broadcast governors for final approval. The corporation is conducting detailed engineering investigations in 19 other areas. It will be seen that this represents a total of 106 areas throughout the country. Of the stations in operation on the radio networks, 10 are French language relay stations and 63 are English language relay stations.
Let me turn now to television. The present situation is that of the 12 areas which have been licensed, seven are now in operation and five are under construction. The C.B.C. is preparing applications for nine other areas and is conducting detailed engineering investigations in 14 other locations, for a total of 35 areas. Of the 12 stations in operation or under construction eight will carry the English language service and four will carry the French language service.
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm asked this question:
I should like to know, if possible, how many stations or networks, either French or bilingual, have been set up by the C.B.C. since 1958, in each province other than Quebec.
I am advised by the C.B.C. that the French language operations of the corporation are extensive. The C.B.C. operates a French language radio network from Edmonton, Alberta to southeastern Nova Scotia, servicing not only its own stations but also 22 privately owned affiliates. Since the beginning of 1958 the C.B.C. has installed and is operating low power radio relay French language transmitters in eight centres outside the province of Quebec, and a ninth is about to be installed.
In television, the C.B.C. operates a French network which links by recordings recently built C.B.C. television stations in Winnipeg and Moncton with its microwave network linking stations in Quebec and Ontario. It also provides French language television service to bilingual stations in Timmins and Sudbury, and has C.B.C. stations under construction in Sudbury and Sturgeon Falls in northern Ontario. The proposed C.B.C. station in Edmonton will also carry some French programs.
Another recent development of interest has been the establishment of a bilingual F.M. network, linking the corporation's F.M. stations in Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto, making available French language broadcasts in Toronto for the first time.
Generally, Mr. Chairman, that covers the development of the C.B.C. during the last year and the plans for extension in the immediate future.

The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River asked me a question a moment ago and I am advised by the officials of the C.B.C. that the Dryden and Sioux Lookout application is in preparation at the present time; Atikokan is some time away, but I cannot spell out the "some time". It is in the planning stage, at least. It is much more expensive than the first one I mentioned, namely Dryden and Sioux Lookout. The whole thing is in the course of planning, and at least part of it will be done in the relatively near future.
I think I have more or less covered the specific questions which were raised. One could deal at length with the criticism which has been levelled at the corporation. Perhaps hon. members will permit me to summarize that. In the first place we have been told that the corporation has refused to give information, and there has been much criticism of the statement in the estimates as being too concise and not giving enough information.
That criticism may have some justification. I think it has. But on the other hand I would point out to hon. members that the budget of the C.B.C. was tabled by me in the house some months ago and has been available to all hon. members. It is a break-down of the expenditures as set out in the estimates. In doing this we have simply carried out the practice that has been followed throughout the years. Maybe more detailed information should be given and there is no reason that I can see why, except for space, the information we put in the budget should not also be put in the estimates. The only reason it is not done is that it is already in the budget. The departmental estimates do not have to be tabled in the house. In the case of the C.B.C. therefore you have to look at both these documents in order to get a breakdown of the detail, the lack of which has been the subject of quite a bit of complaint here this year.
References have been made to the C.B.C. refusing to give information to the committee last year. I was a member of the committee but I attended only on two occasions. One was a very happy occasion and the other a very unfortunate one. As a matter of fact I suggested that the committee should not be given as much information as the officials were giving, and the committee turned around and by a substantial majority said that I did not know what I was talking about. The actual information was given, and I am told that whatever information was requested by the committee was placed in the hands of the committee.
It is not for me to come to the defence of that committee, but I do suggest that the
Supply-C.B.C.
problem lay with the administration of the committee and with the decisions it made as a committee of this house rather than with the corporation itself. In the past the position has been taken, which has been respected by this house and by the committees, rightly or wrongly, that information with respect to the amounts of moneys received by individuals has not been disclosed. That principle has been followed and I understand was followed by the committee last year.
There have been complaints also about waste and extravagance and, as I understand, even including what is called payola. A suggestion was made that payola took various forms, not only in so far as cash was concerned but also in other forms. I am not in a position to comment on that in any way, shape or form. In most instances the statements were of a very general nature.
The hon. member for St. Mary saw me after the debate the other day and gave to me a list of names, suggesting that if those matters were investigated at least some of the accusations made here could be substantiated. I told him that I did not want to take the list at that time because I would probably lose it, but I do not think it is a matter of my taking such lists anyway, though I went on to say in that connection that if any person had any information of that nature and would pass it on to me I would certainly see that it was turned over to the officials of the C.B.C.
That may not be satisfactory, because I think we can realize quite frankly that there are some suspicions on the part of some hon. members with respect to some of the officials of the C.B.C., particularly Radio Canada. Whether that situation is justified or not is not for me to say but I want to make this very plain. We have a board of directors, and part of the responsibility of that board is to deal with financial problems, with waste and extravagance and anything of that nature. I could go into that at length, but I do not propose to do so at this hour unless I am asked to develop it.
The chairman of that board of directors is Mr. Robert Dunsmore of Montreal, one of the outstanding businessmen in Canada. I can assure any hon. member that if he does not want to deal with the C.B.C., if he will talk to Mr. Dunsmore, or Mr. Dunsmore will talk to any member here when he is in Ottawa, and if the member will give him the information, it will be studied in detail, so that we shall have a complete investigation of any matter whatsoever that any hon. member feels should be brought in and studied by the directors. That is one of their responsibilities; that is why Mr. Dunsmore

Supply-C.B.C.
was asked to take the chairmanship of the finance committee. We felt that as an experienced businessman he could deal with this matter, and he certainly will. I would ask any hon. member to bring to his attention any of these matters which have been referred to here today or at any other time.
Now, as has been said, there has been a substantial amount of criticism here about the Radio Canada end of the Canadian broadcasting coverage. This particular part of the corporation has come in for very substantial praise as well, and has received very little criticism on the basis of its operations. I am prepared to admit, however, that no organization is perfect. If there are matters which should be drawn to our attention, if there are matters connected with partisanship or with extravagance or graft, then I am assured by the officers of the corporation sitting in front of me that they are going to investigate every matter which has been brought to their attention. I can assure you also that, regardless of that, the board of directors and the chairman of the finance committee will make a very careful study of anything that might be brought to their attention. I do not believe it is necessary for me to go further into that phase of the subject at this time.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate raised two specific problems in connection with the C.B.C. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I have not looked up last year's debate but I think you could find those problems almost verbatim in the debate which took place a year ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My memory is not that good.


George Clyde Nowlan: I think no greater tribute could be paid to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation than the fact that an able, astute critic such as the hon. member could only bring up matters with which he dealt extensively last year. I replied to those last year, and I do not believe any good purpose could be served by spending much time on them now. He again criticized the board of directors in appointing a chairman other than the president, and suggested that was illegal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman; the hon. gentleman does not mean or he is not suggesting that this is something I brought up last year, because it is something that only came to public attention since the last session.


George Clyde Nowlan: Perhaps I have heard it discussed earlier this year. I know the hon. member has referred to the matter before in this house.
In so far as that point is concerned, 1 simply say this. I am satisfied that it was not illegal, that the matter was within the power of the

board of directors, and there can be no question whatever of its illegality. I am prepared to admit that there is ambiguity in the act in so far as the division of powers among the chairman and the other officers of the corporation is concerned. I will also admit quite frankly that I had hoped at this session to introduce legislation that would define the powers of the chairman with respect to the other officers of the corporation and also deal with one or two other matters which need amendment, such as a member of the board of directors having an interest in a retail store distributing radio equipment, which perhaps makes an appointment illegal. This should have been dealt with this session.
Then there is the other matter which was raised the other day by the hon. member for Vancouver East in connection with members of parliament receiving fees from the C.B.C. Perhaps this is a matter that could be covered in the act covering the independence of members of parliament, but I think it would be better if it were covered in the broadcasting act. I had hoped to have specific amendments in relation to these matters dealt with at this session, but due to various pressures that has not been done.
Since the name of Mr. Dunsmore has been mentioned specifically, I should like to take this opportunity of paying my tribute to him and to the other directors for the work they have done as a board of directors. They have rendered a very great service, and I think they deserve the thanks of the corporation and of the country for the work they are doing now. It is not easy for strong personalities to mesh together, in a short time, such as the board of directors and the officials of the corporation. I think the degree of co-operation has been very good indeed, and is a tribute to all parties concerned. As I said when the bill was introduced two years ago, it is a matter of evolution and development, and I am satisfied that that is taking place. That is all I think I should say about that matter.
The other specific criticism which was raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate concerned the financing of the corporation and the suggestion that these annual grants coming from parliament were something which was wrong, which prejudiced the corporation and should be dicontinued. He referred, of course, specifically to the recommendation of the Fowler commission to the effect that some long term method be worked out whereby the corporation would not have to come back to parliament except over a stated period of years.
This argument probably has some merit from a theoretical standpoint. I do not believe It is possible of application. It may have been

all right in the Victorian era when the factors were constant and one could look ahead for a long period of time with little change taking place. Today, with rising costs and the fluctuations in conditions and all the rest of it, I do not believe, from the standpoint of the corporation, it would be at all possible. Perhaps it would be possible, but it would be very unfortunate to fetter the corporation within some rule of thumb, which might very adversely affect the corporation, depending upon the impact of conditions of the day.
The hon. member referred to the treasury board. As he said, I am not in a position to say, because of the privy council oath, what if any action the treasury board took in connection with the estimates of the C.B.C. I must point out, however, that the C.B.C. and the treasury board were not strangers whom I introduced for the first time. The C.B.C., under the Financial Administration Act which was brought in by the former government-at least I do not know when it came first on the statute books, but it has been recognized by all governments-had to have its expenditures approved by the treasury board. There is nothing new in that whatever. The hon. member did admit that during the last two years of the preceding administration there were parliamentary grants voted for the C.B.C.
I would point out to him, too, that in addition to those grants-it is true that there was a five-year grant made and then it was renewed for one year-what the hon. member had forgotten and what I would bring to his attention now is that there was something euphemistically called a loan made by the government to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It is true that, in so far as radio was concerned, the loan referred to capital. However, I am advised, but I am not stressing this, that the expression was perhaps a litle bit of a euphemism in so far as television was concerned, and the loan was said to be for capital and operating. I should like to know what the difference is, Mr. Chairman, between parliament voting an amount of money for operating purposes year by year or the government taking a note from the corporation and lending them the money for the same purposes.
These were not insignificant amounts, either. In 1950 there was $4,500,000 for capital and operating; in 1951, $650,000 and that was later paid off; in 1952, $1,500,000; in 1953, $2 million; in 1954, $4,750,000; in 1955, $3 million and in 1956, $8,500,000. Those were loans, so-called, which were made by the government to the corporation, and of those loans $1,250,000 was paid off out of a total of $29,400,000. The balance of $28,150,000 79951-0-391
Supply-C.B.C.
was wiped out by this government when the Broadcasting Act came into effect. I say again, therefore, that there is no difference whatever in the way this has been administered. Of course there were two major votes which were made in the years 1957 and
1958.
The hon. member for Port Arthur was critical, I think, of somebody; I am not quite sure who. Of course the hon. member for Port Arthur is always critical of persons. I think he is one of those men who are worried, who are distraught, who are concerned. I shall not refer to that matter, however, because I know the hon. member is coming back in a short time when we will be dealing with the board of broadcast governors.
He asked me specifically with respect to the survey that was conducted by Mrs. Aitken. I have not the note in front of me at the moment, but perhaps I can answer him when he is back in the chamber and we are dealing with the B.B.G. He also, of course, as did the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, mentioned pointedly and sharply the operations of the B.B.G. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate had particular reference to Edmonton and the hon. member for Port Arthur referred in somewhat dubious tones to rumours he had heard about Halifax, Ottawa and other places. As I said, the hon. member is one of those who seem to be professionally particularly and permanently disturbed. He is always under apprehensions. I should like some time to be able to relieve his mind of those apprehensions but, Mr. Chairman, I would think it is a physical impossibility so to do.
The hon. member for Roberval last night asked me some specific questions with respect to the policy of the C.B.C. in tendering for construction. I am advised by the C.B.C. as follows, and I may say I am more than advised; I know this from experience because I have found it out on various occasions when I have raised the matter with the C.B.C. The C.B.C. obtains tenders for all building work, for construction and for major equipment requirements for both television and radio. Detailed specifications and drawings are prepared by the corporation's engineers and architects, and tenders are called for on the basis of these requirements. No qualified contractor or supplier is refused the opportunity to tender. All tenders are obtained under sealed cover and are opened on a specified date with three officials of the engineering department present.
All things being equal the lowest tender is accepted, but the corporation is not bound to accept the lowest tender if, by doing so, the interests of the corporation as to quality of workmanship and the complete fulfilment of

Supply-C.B.C.
requirements are jeopardized. For the obtaining of bulk supplies a minimum of two and in most cases three quotations are obtained. Purchasing agents in the corporation's centres at all locations are instructed to maintain a close check on this procedure.
I might say also, and I know this from experience in dealing with the department-* and it is true of all departments of government as well as of the corporation-that it is possible that people are not invited to tender when other people are invited to tender, where they are working on a list that is restricted. If any hon. member has in mind anyone who should be invited to tender or should have the right to tender, if he will bring the name of that person to the attention of the corporation or of myself, I will see that that person has an opportunity to tender; although, of course, once the tender is in the corporation will naturally have the right to award the contract to the lowest tenderer and only then if they are satisfied that the tenderer can do the work.
The general purchasing agent and the director of purchasing and stores make periodic checks to ensure the maintenance of this procedure. I am sure, as I said earlier about extravagance generally, that the chairman of the board will be glad to have information with respect to instances where this procedure is not being followed, if one does not want, for one reason or another, to raise the matter with the corporation itself.
I should perhaps say this in a general way and very briefly. There were two functions of the old board of governors, when the new corporation was created and before, that I suggested to the corporation needed special attention. There was a division into what I called the judge and jury, of the board of the corporation, to deal with applications as it saw it. To correct that situation we created the board of broadcast governors, and we split the former original board of the corporation. I will perhaps have something more to say about that matter when the estimates of the board of broadcast governors are up for consideration.
The other matter which I discussed with the corporation, the present president, the former chairman of the board, before he resigned and other senior officials in my office when we discussed these matters was that I felt that the C.B.C. was suffering from two criticisms. One was the judge and jury one which we intended to obviate. The other one was extravagance. I know that charges were made. I know that criticism was rampant. I suggested to the corporation that a board of directors be appointed, particularly the finance committee of that board, to deal with that matter.
Those were the instructions which the chairman of the finance committee was given when he received the appointment. I believe he is attempting to carry out those responsibilities. Only in that way can the C.B.C. be relieved of criticism, whether warranted or otherwise. It is not for me to say whether it was warranted, but that is the only way the C.B.C. could be put in a clear position and operate in the national arena free from criticism, as it should. As far as I am concerned, as long as I have anything to do with reporting for the C.B.C. and, as I said, only the reporting-although naturally we have consultation and discussion and we develop personal associations-those matters will be cleared up, and I believe and know that such is the belief and desire of at least the senior officers at headquarters here in Ottawa.
I have now the paper dealing with the Aitken survey, and perhaps I should put this on the record now rather than wait for the
B.	B.G. estimate. The hon. member for Port Arthur asked about it. I am told that the
C.	B.C.'s national radio-television study was carried out between November 15, 1959 and January 15, 1960. It began with the solicitation from community and organization leaders across the country of names of people who would be willing to participate by offering constructive comments about radio and television programs.
Approximately 1,000 volunteers participated by choosing program areas and reporting on their own selection of programs within those areas. Reporting forms were supplied which permitted maximum flexibility in the choice of programs and expression of opinion. The returns were collated and turned over to the board of directors.
A statement issued to the press on April 22 1960 reported that the material would be turned over to the corporation's senior program people for study in conjunction with other pertinent information. I am informed that the results are under continuing study at this time. The statement declared that the board was highly appreciative of the frankness of opinions expressed, generally of a favourable nature, and would respect the obviously confidential nature of those opinions. The personal comments were highly interesting, even though they did not lend themselves to summation in report form. This statement of April 22, 1960 has been the only official statement on the results of the study made by the corporation.
I think that is all I could properly or profitably say, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to the committee for having taken up so much time, but one could take longer because this is an extremely important corporation. As the

hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate almost implied the other day, it is the arch key or the arch stone on which Canada is being constructed. I think the corporation is serving a wonderful purpose in so doing. I believe it has the confidence of the great majority of the people of this country in the service that it is carrying out. It is a very sensitive area. Some hon. members would be surprised at the flow of mail that has been going over my desk in the last two or three days as a result of the debate which took place last week. A substantial volume of mail has come in as a result of the debate which has taken place here.
I should have said this previously but I overlooked it; I did not have any notes prepared. Reference was made to, and I want to express my own appreciation of the fact that we are all so glad to have the president of the corporation with us again apparently, as we hope, in the very best of health and strength. He has contributed tremendously to this corporation. It has been a life work with him. I know that we all, as Canadians, appreciate it. What I say of him I also say with regard to the senior officials and officers across this country who, working together, not perfectly and certainly not free from criticism, some of it deserved, are doing a great national work and deserve the tribute and support of the people of this country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know the minister did not expect this item to be carried when he concluded his remarks, and I do not want to disappoint him. The minister was at his sweetest and his most plausible-I was going to say reasonable but I think I will modify the adjective and say most plausible-during the last hour.
However, notwithstanding his plausibility, and notwithstanding the fact that I completely agree with his introduction and with many other things he said, and not least with his last observation, I too have known the president of the corporation for a good many years, as I knew the chairman of the C.B.C. before him and as I knew the general manager of the C.B.C. before that. I think it should be a matter of pride to those Canadians of his origin that the two great radio engineers of this country have been Dr. Frigon and the present president of the corporation.
I do not think the president of the corporation is perfect or that he should be free from criticism, any more than I think anyone else in a free country should be free from criticism; but I do think, as I said earlier, that over the years the corporation has served Canada very well in this kind of 79951-0-391J
Supply-C.B.C.
world in which we live, in which broadcasting, especially this new form of broadcasting to which I cannot quite become accustomed myself, is the most powerful, single influence which operates on the conscious minds and perhaps even more on the unconscious minds of our citizens. I doubt whether we would have the same sense of nationality in this country today had it not been for the work over the years since Mr. Bennett, to whom I always give credit for one achievement, established the radio commission which was precursor of the C.B.C.
I only regret that so many of the present members of the party of Mr. Bennett seem to have deviated so far from the position which he took, but I am very glad to acquit the Minister of National Revenue of being one of these deviationists, whether he be a right deviationist or a left deviationist. I do not know, but I suspect myself they would be left deviationists.
I am not going to deal with any points which were not dealt with by the minister, because I do not think that would be fair at all and I have had plenty of opportunity to do that earlier. But I cannot allow to go unchallenged the minister's denatured account of the history of the financing of the C.B.C., because it is the very essence of this problem. While I have given up hoping to change the position of this government, I think the public are entitled to know that there is an alternative way of doing this that is very much better than what is being done now, and that we cannot too often point out how important it is to the safeguarding of the C.B.C. and public broadcasting to have that alternative instituted as early as possible.
The minister produced a new rabbit out of the hat today in these loans to the C.B.C., which he apparently thought I was not aware of.


George Clyde Nowlan: You were hoping I would not find them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would hate to think the minister was so incompetent that he had not found out about them three years ago. After all, he has been minister for three years. The plain fact is that these loans were like the two annual appropriations, a stopgap, and they were a stopgap in so far as current expenditures were concerned. The whole policy of financing the C.B.C. from the very beginning was to make loans for capital expenditures were concerned. The whole policy by some other method than direct parliamentary appropriation. Indeed, there was no parliamentary support in the beginning for the operations of the C.B.C.; it was supported exclusively from licence fees.

Supply-C.B.C.
In the early period the loans, of course, were repaid. Then when it was clear that the method of financing by licences was not very satisfactory, and when it was clear that practically everybody had a radio set in the country and therefore the idea of distinguishing between licence holders and citizens ceased to have very much meaning, the Massey commission did recommend a different method of financing over a period of years.
I would remind the minister that that was not in the Victorian period. That was since the war, and that worked very well as long as only radio had to be considered. When we got into the field of television the capital expenditures involved were of a very much greater magnitude than anything which had existed in the days of radio. That was so for two reasons; one because of the postwar inflation and the other because it was intrinsically a lot more expensive.
Notwithstanding that fact, the government of the day was so anxious to avoid parliamentary appropriations that the method was taken of earmarking the 15 per cent tax on radio and television sets and parts exclusively for the corporation, and this money went to them automatically. Treasury board had no control over it whatever, and in that way the corporation was independent of the government, though not of course of parliament which had appropriated the tax.
For some time these tax revenues more than sufficed to pay for current operations, but it was evident after a time that the people who had television sets were not going to replace them too rapidly and that some other method had to be found, and that is why the Fowler commission was established.
The Fowler commission was headed by some very distinguished businessmen. One of them was a banker, the head of one of the leading chartered banks of this country, a gentleman with some experience of finance. These gentlemen recommended the same kind of arrangement as did the Massey commission, and they suggested methods for dealing with any potential inflation and for dealing with increases in population.
The minister dismisses their recommendations as wholly impracticable, I think largely, if I understood him correctly, on the ground that you could not tell how much more inflation there would be. Of course the Minister of Finance has told us over and over again that he has cured inflation. In fact he cures it about every six months, but the Minister of National Revenue is rather skeptical of his colleague's cures if we can judge by what he said today.
We take the view that the Fowler commission, the Massey commission and the Aird

commission were right, and that broadcasting should not be financed out of appropriations by parliament; and precisely for the reason that annual appropriations by parliament have to be settled in secret by the treasury board.
The minister said that from the beginning the expenditures of the C.B.C. have had to be submitted to the treasury board. That, Mr. Chairman, is not correct. I am sure the minister did not intend to mislead the house, but he happens to be in error. The current expenditures of the C.B.C. were under no control of the treasury board whatsoever.


George Clyde Nowlan: Nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister says nonsense, but he simply does not know the facts.


George Clyde Nowlan: Will the hon. member permit me to ask him a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


George Clyde Nowlan: Did his legislation mean anything, when the amendment which was made to the Financial Administration Act many years ago revising the schedules under which all expenditure had to be submitted to the treasury board specifieially contained the C.B.C., which was moved from one bracket to another so that its expenditures would have to be submitted to the treasury board?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is quite
wrong in saying its expenditures. It is true that under the amendment to the Financial Administration Act the budget of the C.B.C., by which it was not bound, was submitted to the treasury board and ultimately to parliament as part of the parliamentary control. But the treasury board had no control whatever over that budget. Until those last two years when there were annual appropriations to fill a gap, the only part of the expenditures of the C.B.C. which the treasury board had any power to alter up or down were the capital expenditures.
Of course the Fowler commission recommended that capital expenditures should still be within the control of the government. I am not going to repeat the arguments I made the other day for that distinction; they are all in the Fowler commission report, and I will not take up the time of the committee because I am not going to convince the minister anyway. However, I think the record should be set straight, and I want to make very clear what our position is. Our position is that the operating expenses of public broadcasting should be provided by parliament with a ceiling and a floor over a period of years, and that the treasury board should have no control of them whatsoever.
The reason for this is that otherwise the corporation is entirely under the thumb of

the Minister of Finance, because there is no control without the power to alter, and if there is the power to alter there is the power to discipline. However objective the Minister of Finance may be-and I must say I am not much convinced of the objectivity of the present Minister of Finance; no less objective or more partisan member ever sat in this house-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not to his discredit; it happens to be his nature. He is the gentleman I am afraid of, not the Minister of National Revenue, who in my view has a much broader and more liberal mind. But the Minister of National Revenue has no control over the C.B.C. except as a junior member of the treasury board. On the other hand the Minister of Finance, the great pooh-bah, does; and there is no way of getting around that under the present set-up.
I think I have said enough to make clear the fundamental difference between the Liberal position with regard to this matter and the Tory position of putting this corporation under the financial thumb of the Minister of Finance.
The minister did not say anything about the answer he gave me on July 10 of last year. I do not want to belabour this point, because I think perhaps this is a matter about which I said enough the other day. I think probably the minister has taken steps to see that he is not misinformed again in the way he was on that occasion. However, I do want to say one thing about that matter which is in criticism of no one except myself. I did make a remark the other day about the person who failed to inform the minister, and there was a suggestion that perhaps if I had been the minister responsible I should have felt that a head might roll. Certain members of the press gallery abbreviated my remarks and reported me as having said that the person concerned ought to have his head cut off. I did not say it, and I certainly did not mean it, but I think if I had a chance to talk in private to the person concerned, had I been in the minister's shoes, that person would not have enjoyed the conversation very much. I am not thinking now of the original error, but it was a shocking thing that whoever was responsible within the board of the C.B.C. should have allowed that error to be perpetuated and allowed parliament to prorogue without it being corrected. The minister says-and he is a lawyer while I am not-


An hon. Member:: Still a student, Jack?
Supply-C.B.C.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope to be a student as long as I live. As a matter of fact I never expect to get beyond that stage in the study of law.


George Clyde Nowlan: No one ever does.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, the minister agrees with that. The minister said that in his opinion what the board of the C.B.C. had done in electing Mr. Dunsmore was legal, that it was within their powers. I do not agree with the minister, and I think the hon. gentleman owes it to parliament to give us an opinion on that point by the deputy minister of justice. That is what is normally done when an act of parliament is called into question. This is a serious matter. What we are dealing with is not some internal matter of the corporation, but whether a statute of this parliament was disregarded by a body set up under that statute. I continue to think it was, for the substantial reasons I indicated the other day.
There are one or two specific points which I raised and which I do not think the minister dealt with. If the minister prefers to leave them until we reach the estimates of the board of broadcast governors it does not really matter very much to me, because in a sense it is in the shadow land, though I think the minister will agree that anything I said about this shadow land was confined entirely to the C.B.C.; I did not talk about the jurisdiction of the board of broadcast governors over anyone else.
I think we should be told now, after two years' experience of the Broadcasting Act, precisely what the various stages are in the establishment of a C.B.C. station. This is a shadow land indeed. Perhaps on reflection, on reading what I said in Hansard, I think I went a little farther than I really intended to go. I shall try to indicate clearly what I think should be the situation under the present set-up. It seems to me that the only way in which the board of broadcast governors should come into this question, if it is to come into it at all-and that is one of the recommendations of the Fowler commission about which I always had some question in my mind-is to have hearings after everything else has been settled on the question of whether some private interest rather than the C.B.C. should perform a given function.
It does seem to me that the present way of doing things is not completely satisfactory. I am not even very clear as to how it works, and I wish the minister could explain this, not merely for my benefit but for the benefit of members of the public who are very troubled about this matter. Ideally, I think the board of broadcast governors should make the decision as to which areas are to be

Supply-C.B.C.
covered by public radio and which should be covered by private broadcasting. To me that was one of the primary functions which the board of broadcast governors was to receive, but the board was not given that function or, at least, the chairman in his answers to the committee last session said it was not. But somebody has to decide whether or not these areas are to be public.
In one sense it is inescapable that this decision should be made by the government, because the government has to put up the cash. Therefore it seems to me that the rational way to do this within the present framework would be for the C.B.C. to decide where it wanted to have facilities, and then to consult the government about whether the government was prepared to finance those undertakings. Then if the government was prepared to finance them it could post a notice with the board of broadcast governors so that private interests would then be able to indicate whether or not they believed those functions could be performed privately.
I think it is exceedingly unfair to private interests-an example which comes to my mind is the case in Edmonton-that they should be put to the considerable expense of preparing plans and going through all the ground work in connection with the establishment of a private station, only to find that the hearing is really a farce. It cannot help but be a farce. It would be equally a farce for the C.B.C. to make its application without knowing in advance that the government was prepared to back it up.
I know this is a very complicated point, and it is not easy to express it clearly. Here is something that needs to be cleared up so that everybody will know what really does happen, where the initiation comes from and what are the various steps. I believe that either now or on the estimates of the board of broadcast governors the minister would be very well advised to set this out in A B C fashion so it would really be clear. I do not think I am more than usually dense as a member of parliament, but I do not understand it and I should like to.


George Clyde Nowlan: I think perhaps I should wait to reply. I am hoping to sneak out behind the curtain and get a sandwich. I am sure that when I return I will be much better natured.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I sneaked out for one a
moment ago.


George Clyde Nowlan: I will leave it to my parliamentary secretary.

(Translation):


Mr. Johnson:: Mr. Chairman, at the risk of making myself unpopular in this house, I shall, if I may, make a few additional remarks.
Let me start with the bouquets. A moment ago, I heard the charming Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) give an interesting description of his position with regard to the problems that were raised, and the best answers he could imagine or that he could obtain from C.B.C. officials..
I would like to point out to hon. members how pleasant it was to hear the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) insist on the true and recognized ability of engineers, on the competence of those men who have succeeded in setting up a durable project, like Messrs. Frigon and Ouimet, the latter now being chairman of the C.B.C.
I want to commend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who yesterday, after the representative of St. James (Mr. Campeau), paid tribute to all those who organized our Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and more particularly the French network. Among all of those, two names stand out: those of Messrs. Frigon and Ouimet.
This might perhaps reassure some opposition members who are always inclined to protest when any government member is critical of some aspects of C.B.C. organization and activity.
Yesterday I heard the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) refer to criticism voiced by certain members on the government side. First of all, I must congratulate the hon. member for Lapointe for admitting, at least implicitly if not explicitly, that there might be some merit in the suggestion of an inquiry into activities at the C.B.C. That is precisely what the hon. members for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) and Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul), had called for. Not only did they call for an inquiry, but they exposed their reasons for demanding one.
Who then can reasonably blame them for adducing facts, or for attempting to show that there were sound reasons for requesting an inquiry?
Let the hon. member for Lapointe follow his argument to its logical conclusion and let him frankly admit that the members for Roberval, Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere, Chambly-Rouville and Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) and St. James were right in asking for a closer look and for a careful investigation of the charges made against the C.B.C., so as to clear up the matter once and for all.

What, indeed, is the purpose of hon. members who are asking for an investigation? Their purpose is to put an end to the existing abuses that the C.B.C. is accused of tolerating.
What we ask, and have no fear of doing in spite of criticisms from the opposition, is that all schools of thought have a say on the C.B.C., in artistic and cultural productions that could be described under the general heading of programs of ideas.
There is this amazing thing in our country, on the French network as well as on the English network-and let the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) take due note of this-that these networks have become a school of thought directed by supporters of socialism.
Without fear of being mistaken, it can be said that the present leaders of this school of thought do not represent one per cent of the population.
Why, then, could we not insist that the C.B.C. be managed by people such as Socreds, who have only a few hundred thousand adherents in the province of Quebec?
Why could they not take over the C.B.C. management, and make it a propaganda school for their ideas, namely Social Credit?
If the Liberal members are prepared to admit this point, they will take responsibility for their stand.
If the Liberals are prepared to let people of the stamp of Roger Holland, head of an important C.B.C. division, namely the programs division, join a school of thought as radical as that of "Cite libre" and select, or let his staff select, commentators or members of C.B.C. panels, the Liberals are quite free to accept this principle.
We who claim to represent the people in this house, and who believe that every school of thought should have a say at the C.B.C., also believe it is unfair that other schools of thought be excluded, and that C.B.C. people with radical views be allowed to direct broadcasts or series of broadcasts dealing with ideas.
I am quite prepared to let the C.B.C. be free, and to let it enjoy freedom of speech. I also recognize that commentators are entitled to their own views. What I cannot accept, however, and what the people of the province of Quebec and Canada cannot accept, is that people be allowed to use the C.B.C. as a hot-bed of propaganda.
Supply-C.B.C.
I say to the Liberals that, in voicing such criticisms in this house, we expect that the minister or the C.B.C. officials will take the trouble to reply.
But what do they say? If you can ask questions, well and good; otherwise, sit down, and stop criticizing.
Well, we did ask questions. For my part, I am still waiting for answers to several of mine. Only recently I asked a question, and have not yet received any answer either from the minister or from the C.B.C.
I know that at times it is not easy to find the information requested. I know it requires a little time to prepare a satisfactory answer both for the member and for everyone.
However, I should like to repeat that we are entitled to ask questions on the orders of the day. Let us, then, have answers without any beating about the bush.
I am sorry that it should be so but last year, a member dared ask, on the orders of the day, what income was being earned by some commentator or performer. The answer was that it was not C.B.C. policy to reply to that type of question.
The principle was laid down that salaries earned by C.B.C. staff must not be made known.
Yet, take a look at the public accounts and you will find there the salaries of officials earning $8,000 or more.
Salaries of members of the house are listed, and a fact of which the public seems to be unaware is that members too have taxes to pay, I take this opportunity to set the record straight and to emphasize that fact. We have to pay taxes on our indemnity. The public knows what indemnity is paid to members and what salaries are paid to ministers.
The public also knows what salaries are paid to the chairman and high officials of the C.B.C. Why should we be denied knowledge of what salary is being paid to certain C.B.C. commentators when we have every reason to believe that favouritism exists within the corporation and that certain performers and commentators are given preference over other persons who are at least as talented and competent, and when we know that such persons have no say in the matter.
In reply to the questions we asked, the minister set forth certain principles. He seemed to back up the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate who, with his winning

Supply-C.B.C.
smile, likes to refer to the Minister of National Revenue as "the minister who reports for the C.B.C.". In short, the minister is said to be "the glorified reporter for the C.B.C.".
Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to believe that what is quite acceptable to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is not nearly so to others who are truly democratic and who believe that a sense of responsibility is still to be found within a democratic government.
Who is answerable to the public for the C.B.C.? Who, in the C.B.C., has to render accounts and is subject to sanctions if the public is not satisfied? Surely not the minister, who has no power whatsoever; surely not the government since it has nothing to say and is taken to task as soon as a minister or a member wants to shed light on the goings on in the C.B.C.?
What has happened to the principle of responsibility of the people's representatives?
Are we going to keep voting amounts of $70 million to an agency which refuses to report on the use it is making of those funds? Is it an encroachment upon the freedom and autonomy of the C.B.C. to ask that its directors account for the public funds entrusted to it?
If we look up the estimates of the C.B.C. for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1961, we find on page 11 of the estimates that we are asked to vote $71,739,400. We see, too, that there are more details in the summary on page 11 than under "Details of services", on page 128 of the blue book.
And when we ask questions, we cannot get answers. It seems that the government does not want to be in a position to answer. But while the Liberals and the C.C.F. are most anxious that this situation continue, no one objects to members of the opposition taking all the time they want to look into the estimates of a department like the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, whose estimates this year amount to $59 million.
Members of the opposition are allowed to make a thorough study of estimates, but when the time comes to take up the estimates of so important a department as the C.B.C., whose budget reaches $71 million, we are told that we have to respect the freedom of C.B.C. authorities and that we must not be given particulars, in case we should discover something. We are told again and again that we must have regard for C.B.C. independence and

that we, government members, have no right to ask questions. Yet when we ask questions about some other department, we are entitled to answers. Where is government responsibility in a case like that? I admit it is easier for the minister to reply: "I have no power whatsoever, I can only repeat what C.B.C. officials want to tell me. I can only read out in the house what C.B.C. representattives choose to write to me, without as much as reading that reply myself before I enter the house. All I have to do, is to read out to hon. members the statement that has been sent to me."
Mr. Chairman, I think the minister is being a bit presumptuous in telling us that, whenever we make representations to him, and submit concrete facts, he will inquire from the C.B.C., after which we patiently wait for an answer. It might be a good system. It may be that C.B.C. are giving adequate answers but it seems to me-and I am sorry to say so -that there is wide discrepancy between what we are told by C.B.C. officials in answer to our specific questions and what people repeat derisively about the C.B.C. and the federal government whenever they talk of the corporation.
Mr. Chairman, even though I touched upon this matter last week, I repeat that there are people who would like to do away with the C.B.C., and have its network put up for sale. I do not agree with this view, and I am saying so right away. But, it must be recognized that serious-minded citizens have suggested such a step and, if I remember rightly, certain associations even made this suggestion to the Fowler commission. I remember that in 1955 or 1956 the Federation of the Junior Chambers of Commerce of the province of Quebec made the suggestion that the federal government should give up C.B.C. operations and sell its network to private interests.
Let me say at once that I do not agree with that suggestion. But, if deficits continue to pile up, and to soar drastically, without stricter and more efficient supervision, there wifi probably be more people who will ask that the C.B.C. be sold off to private enterprise, which, to my mind, would be calamitous. However, it must be admitted that those people are making a serious suggestion when they recommend that the C.B.C. give up operating its network, and looking after its organization, even though it might prescribe that private networks carry certain

cultural programs, that for a certain number of hours private stations must produce cultural programs, at no other compensation than the cost of time on the air, in order to contribute efficiently to the development and extension of Canadian culture.
That solution is worthy of serious consideration, even though I feel it would give rise to difficulties, perhaps as insuperable as those now being experienced.
Again, about the C.B.C., I wish to deal with the matter of purchases instead of sales.
I want to congratulate the C.B.C. on its plan to buy a site for a building in the area bound by Amherst, Papineau, Craig and Dorchester streets. I also take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. members for St. James (Mr. Campeau) and for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) who can claim a large part of the credit for this project.
Public acknowledgement of this credit has been given to the hon. member for St. James, but I think there has been a lack of adequate congratulations to the hon. member for St. Mary. Those two members are keenly interested in the development of eastern Montreal and I have nothing but congratulations to offer to the C.B.C. for that decision. All that remains for me to do now is to offer a suggestion. If the C.B.C. fails to reach an agreement satisfactory to both parties, and does not manage to come to terms with Montreal city authorities, it might perhaps choose a site in the splendid constituency of Chambly-Rouville. There is in Rouville constituency a very pretty valley between Mount St. Hilaire, also called Mount Beloeil, and Mount Rougemont. The valley is an inspiration to poets and artists. The area would provide ample space for studios while the necessary towers could be built on either of the two mountains. This would solve the perennial problem of whether the natural beauty of Mount Royal should be spoiled by the erection of T.V. towers on top of it.
In my opinion, those towers would be ornaments on our two mountains, St. Hilaire and Rougemont, and we would have no objection to their being built up there, provided, of course, that the C.B.C. built its studios in St. John the Baptist valley, between the Rougemont and St. Hilaire mountains.
Many might think I am jesting about this, but if C.B.C. officials should fail to come to an agreement with Montreal authorities,
79951-0-392
Supply-C.B.C.
I suggest they come and look over that site. They might find an opportunity to buy such land as is required by the C.B.C. not only for immediate use but for future expansion.
I realize that this might not please the hon. members for St. James and St. Mary (Mr. Valade) and other members from Montreal island, but it must be remembered that I made a reservation. I said: if no agreement can be reached, it might be interesting to look into my suggestion. In any event, I invite the people of the C.B.C., if possible outside working hours, to visit this fine area and see whether they should not develop an alternative plan, so as to be in a better position to negotiate with Montreal authorities.
Yesterday the hon. member for Lapointe gave us an interesting account of his opinions. I should like to return his compliments. However, I have no compliments for the Liberals who spoke before him and who violently accused us of trying to smear reputations and destroy the French network of the C.B.C.
Let the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) not rejoice too soon; we have no intention of destroying the French network. We are proud of it, we are proud of the C.B.C.'s achievements.
We know that the English network is not without sin either and members from other provinces deserve credit for their patience in concealing them. We, however, are candid enough to expose, in the place where they ought to be exposed, the wrongs of the French network.
We want to protect the C.B.C.'s reputation, and we want some light to be cast, once and for all, on the charges that are being made. If severe action is in order, let there be severe action. If congratulations are in order, let there be congratulations. However, let us bring the whole thing out into the open.
As I have said before, I was elected to this house in 1958. The C.B.C. came under fire in three sessions, and I refrained from making any remarks for fear of harming the corporation. I was reluctant to deal with this matter, because I was running the risk of being accused of malevolence towards C.B.C. networks.
I intervened during this session because I realized that, in the last three years, not only have the charges continued but they have grown stronger, as have also the facts adduced in support of those charges.
During the C.B.C. French network strike in 1959, the strike leaders, including Rene

Supply-C.B.C.
Levesque, launched accusations against C.B.C. management. The most violent of them, with Rene Levesque leading the way, scathingly denounced the C.B.C.'s president, Mr. Alphonse Ouimet, at a time when he was ill, knowing as they did that he could not defend himself. During the strike, certain C.B.C. officials were likewise denounced. Some, like Andre Ouimet, assumed their responsibilities. Whether their attitude was warranted or not, that is beside the point. People like Roger Rolland, director of programs, tried to straddle the fence. Some people took sides first with the management and then, sided with the strikers, when these appeared ready to agree to come to terms, to back down a bit. They wanted to remain on good terms with the strike leaders after the employees had returned to work.
It is not for me to say whether the C.B.C. strike in 1959 was legal, legitimate or useful, but one thing that I remember and that hon. members here will also remember, is this: the strike leaders know that, like several of my colleagues in the Conservative party, I tried to help them. What I cannot accept is the fact that certain persons asked us, as representatives of the people, to inquire, and to ask that an inquiry be held into the behaviour of the C.B.C. in Montreal and then turned against us and denounced us for attempting to obtain that their charges be looked into.
They would have us say, during the strike, that everything was black at the C.B.C., and the next day they wanted us to turn around and say that everything was white, simply because of attempted blackmail by certain people who were making the most of the strike-including certain people I do not wish to name-


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead, name them. Name them.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: -because I do not want to harm their reputation-because after the strike, in the face of the management's weakness, a little clique was formed which allowed the strike leaders to get jobs as commentators or producers of the best programs. And so, on account of the management's weakness, they secured commanding positions.
There were people who denounced things which they had supported during the strike, and who, in particular, denounced men who, in good faith, and acting on their representation, had wanted to ask the government, as

was their right and duty, to see that the charges levelled during the strike be looked into.
I leave it to the people to assess such behaviour. However, I just cannot see how responsible people, responsible members, can say that in calling the C.B.C. to account, we are trying to destroy its freedom. We have a right to ask for explanations.
No one is shocked when a member rises, either on the government or on the opposition side, to ask questions when the estimates of any government department come up before the house. However, whenever a government member, at the request of his constituents, dares to rise on the government side and ask questions on C.B.C., you see the opposition, strangely enough, rise in protest.
Why? On what basis? Why do the Liberals have only words of commendation for the C.B.C. and for certain people in the C.B.C., and why do they disparage our attitude?


Mr.   Chairman@: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his speaking time is over.
(Text):


Mr. Regier:: At a meeting of our group this morning I was asked to present to the committee a number of opinions that we felt ought to be presented near the conclusion of the discussion of item No. 1 of the estimates in connection with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. However, before I do that and I will not be long in doing it, I should like to express a few personal opinions.
It is my opinion that the minister has been most able in conscientiously maintaining the general over-all principles and purposes that parliament had in mind when it established the C.B.C. in the first place. I believe the minister has been most able and that he is most worthy of congratulation on the forthright and blunt manner in which he has at all times defended those basic principles and purposes. As long as we are obliged to endure a Conservative government in Canada we should not like to see the C.B.C. moved to any other minister.
I should like to underline the request made by the hon. member for Port Arthur and ask the minister, if he has not already replied, why at the end of three and a half months after the end of the fiscal year we have before us as the latest annual report one that is some 15J months old. I believe efficiency could be enhanced a bit there.

I should also like to offer the personal proposal that the C.B.C. might make more use of less expensive film showings rather than engage in repeat programs. On Monday last there was a repeat program. On Sunday, when the listening audience must have been very large, C.B.C. television used two half-hour repeat programs that had been seen previously. I know that the lack of adequate resources is likely the explanation. However, I believe that other use might be made of that time and that it need not necessarily involve a great deal of expenditure.
I should also like to offer the proposition that in arranging for the engagement of commentators and interviewers, the work be spread around a little more. People do not like to see the same individual commentators and interviewers appear repeatedly to the exclusion of others and to the exclusion of a little more variety. We have over 100 members in the press gallery here. There are other press galleries in Canada. There are extremely able newspapermen and other commentators and observers from one end of Canada to the other. People rather resent being obliged to listen to the same commentators over and over again, especially when they know there are many more able people available in Canada than are being utilized by the C.B.C.
I have mentioned previously the original principles and purposes of the C.B.C. The hon. members who preceded me seems to lack an understanding of the relationship of the C.B.C. to the government. As I have always understood it, the C.B.C. is not an institution of government. The C.B.C. is an institution of this parliament and is responsible to this parliament rather than to the government of the day. It is only as a convenience and only for the sake of reporting that a minister of the government is the spokesman for the C.B.C. when it is obliged annually to appear before this House of Commons.
That situation in effect means that the people of Canada who own the C.B.C. have elected themselves a board of directors composed of 265 members of parliament. However, the members of parliament in their wisdom have decided to entrust matters of management to an appointed board of directors, and I believe that it ill behooves us to begin to interfere in small details of management with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
79951-0-392J
Supply-C.B.C.
If we are unhappy with the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I believe that we should then be bold enough to say that in our opinion the board of directors is not fulfilling its obligations and ought to be replaced. We have one other course open to us and that is to move a reduction in the amount of money that is being asked for. I believe that is a more responsible attitude to take than this continuous attempt by politicians to interfere and to dictate the every day routine business that rightfully is the prerogative of the board of directors we have engaged.
We have noted with a little bit of dismay that the many attacks on the various phases of the operations of the C.B.C. as they have been recorded in this House of Commons within the last number of days have been represented by the radio and the newspapers as almost complete dissatisfaction on the part of the House of Commons with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We feel that this is a misunderstanding. I myself have noted the many hon. members in this committee who have expressed approval. After commenting on some phase or other of the operation, either favourably or otherwise, most members of this committee have none the less expressed their over-all approval of this institution, namely the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Yet I believe our newspapers have tended to highlight the attacks on little details of operation, and have not adequately reported to the Canadian people that in the main the House of Commons has expressed its desire to have the C.B.C. continue to serve us as a national and publicly owned radio and television broadcasting network.
We endorse-and we should like to underline our opinion-the need for a national and publicly owned radio and television network because we believe that without it, and if we were obliged to depend on private enterprise, there might not even be a network at all of any kind in Canada because it might not be economically possible for private enterprise to establish such a network. Even if they were able to establish a national network we believe that many more communities than there are now would be obliged to do without either C.B.C. radio or television services. There would also be no hope of those communities which do not now have those services ever getting them unless they can get them from a publicly owned operation.
We also feel the need for a national and publicly owned network because we are concerned with the raising of the level of culture all across Canada. Perhaps I should not say "the raising of the level of culture" but rather the enjoyment of culture. I believe that

Supply-C.B.C.
expression has less of a connotation to it. We do know that of necessity privately owned broadcasting facilities have to cater in the matter of taste to the lines of least resistance, and that if all radio and television in Canada was in the hands of private enterprise there would inevitably be a degradation of the levels of Canadian culture. I say this without any malice but because I believe the mere law of economics would enforce a condition of that kind to arise.
We have been a little surprised, though perhaps we ought not to be, at the terrific controversy which has arisen within the last several years all across Canada about this matter of the C.B.C. and the whole field of radio and television broadcasting. The C.B.C. was moving along rather smoothly for a number of years and seemed to know where it was going. On the whole there was very little dissatisfaction across Canada. I believe it is a good thing that after many years there has been this public look taken at what is happening in the field of broadcasting.
The attacks we have heard over the last few years I believe were inevitable, and I hope that all these proposals which have been made were made out of a sincere effort to be useful. I am not too sure that this is necessarily so after looking at some of the remarks which have been made.
After having been reorganized so that there is now a board of broadcast governors and a board of directors of the C.B.C.; after the house has appointed several committees which over the years have investigated all the ramifications, we feel that the time has about arrived for a decision to be made as to the validity today of the original principles and purposes. We feel there ought to be a consolidation of opinion and that the board of directors of the C.B.C.-I feel we owe this to them-should be given a clear indication of what their responsibility is and what the Canadian people really expect of them. They should also then be given the green light to go ahead with the least possible hindrance in implementing the resolution of the Canadian people in that regard.
I regret that in his reply the minister did not deem it advisable to enunciate very clearly what in his opinion the role of the C.B.C. is expected to be over the course of the next few years, so that this committee might have expressed its endorsation of such a general statement of broad, basic principles on the part of the minister, or of an amendment if it were deemed advisable to announce an amendment of these basic principles. I know the minister was pressed for time and perhaps did not deem it necessary, but I feel we have been muddying the waters long enough. We

have spent more time on the C.B.C. within the last three years than on any other department of government, and I think the time has now arrived for the minister and his advisers to formulate a conclusion and announce that conclusion even though it may only be a reiteration of the old basic principles and purposes of the C.B.C. or some revision of them. In the interests of the future health of Canadian broadcasting, both in the field of radio and in the field of television, it is time we decided where we are going and then gave the green light to the board of directors to pursue its objectives.
(Translation):


Mr. Godin:: Mr. Chairman, before passing the estimates of the Department of National Revenue, and perhaps also to take advantage of the presence in this house of some C.B.C. officials, I would like to make a few remarks and ask some questions, which might perhaps satisfy people, more particularly in my constituency. I shall do so in French, because I am speaking of the service given on the French network of the C.B.C. in the northern areas, and perhaps also in the Toronto district.
We know that, last February, through the Canadian Press Le Droit informed people in northern Ontario that plans had been made for the establishment of satellite stations in the Sudbury and Sturgeon Falls districts, which would give a French service to our numerous fellow citizens in those areas. However, the minister might perhaps enlighten us on some details and the possibility of operating such service before long. The news story from Le Droit to which I was referring mentioned that perhaps that service would be available to the French-speaking people in northern Ontario by the end of 1960 or 1961. I therefore ask the minister to ascertain from his officials whether this proposed service-
(Text):


George Clyde Nowlan: I have already answered that earlier and I gave the time when the station would be ready.


Osias.-J. Godin: I may not have been present at the time.


George Clyde Nowlan: It will be about the end of this year.


Osias.-J. Godin: My remarks to the minister do not only pertain to the time of the possible installation of the station. Comments have been made about the power the two proposed satellite stations would have, and for that reason I would ask the minister whether the investigation which will take place before the final decision and description of the installation is made will ascertain if the service

will provide facilities for those listeners in areas such as Gogama, Chelmsford and Capreol and southerly in areas like St. Charles and Noelville.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I realize that the power
of a satellite station is necessarily limited. However, I hope those areas I referred to will have the opportunity of being connected to the two satellite stations it is proposed to set up.
According to the information now given the population, the Sturgeon Falls station would be more powerful than that of Sudbury. However, the new service which it is proposed to provide is perhaps not exactly what the people need. And, as I think that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure, I would ask the minister today, before that project is definitely launched, whether the areas I mentioned a moment ago will get the benefit of the French network which they need.
Furthermore, in the Toronto area, a French service has been asked of the C.B.C. I have exchanged correspondence with a Toronto association, through one Mrs. Anne San-ouillet, editor of Les Nouvelles frangaises d Toronto- I know that some people in the Toronto district have requested a French station. I hope that the minister will be able to tell me whether it would be possible to give French coverage to Toronto districts where there is a fairly large number of French speaking people and to neighbouring centres where there are many French Canadian residents.
I wish to join with the hon. members for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) and for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) in saying that the C.B.C. has rendered outstanding services to our country, that it has helped very significantly in developing a Canadian mentality in spite of occasional mistakes. And since now is the time to discuss French language radio services in my province of Ontario, a province with an English speaking majority, I must say that the C.B.C., through its French network, has rendered tremendous service to the country with respect to bilingualism. In my view it would be wrong to be too critical of the services provided by the C.B.C. on the occasion of the estimates of the Minister of National Revenue.
We all know there are things that could be improved, but we must recognize that all in all, this federal government agency has been doing one of the finest jobs in Canada.
13, 1960	6211
Supply-C.B.C.
(Text):


Mr. Bigg:: There are just one or two questions which I wish to raise. 1 am pleading for television coverage for the rural areas in northeastern Alberta. I know this is something which is close to the heart of the minister. There is a large section up there which has no television coverage whatsoever, an area which includes the Cold Lake airport where 5,000 of our armed forces are living in wild country. The rural population there numbers about 50,000 people, and there is no television service available.
I do not want to say anything against colour television because I think it is on the way in, and I welcome it, but as so many hon. members have said I think black and white television should be available for everybody before public funds are spent in that direction. In addition to the airport, there is the town of Cold Lake, the town of Grand Centre, St. Paul, Elk Point, Bon-nyville and several others. I am speaking only of the towns in my own district.
While I am on my feet I should like to compliment the minister on the fine programs we are getting from C.B.C. radio without which life in these rural areas would be a greater hardship.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask two questions. I should like to ask the minister whether the corporation has received any protests from the blind people in organized form with regard to the corporation's failure to carry the national hockey league play-offs on radio. There was a tendency toward the end to carry the games on television only.
Second, I should like to know if we are to have available to us tomorrow the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I understand that tomorrow is the last day which the corporation has to submit the report in accordance with the statute.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I take it the minister intends to answer the hon. member for Port Arthur, but I want to say something that I forgot to say this morning. I hope the C.B.C. will take note of what I think is a regrettable failure on their part to accept the offer of CJON TV in St. John's the other day to carry the opening of the Confederation building. I understand the offer was made to carry it on the station at Corner Brook, which is also a part of Newfoundland. It seems to me that an occasion of this kind when the former prime minister of Canada officiated was of sufficient importance to be carried by all the stations in the province.

Supply-C.B.C.


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member for Sudbury raised a question about French programs in Toronto. This morning I dealt in some detail with the fringe network programs, and, as I told hon. members then, the F.M. network will be carrying programs in Toronto. There is no intention at present of carrying them over A.M.; we have no facilities for doing so.
Unfortunately I cannot answer the detailed questions the hon. member asked about the local points within his constituency, because we have not got that detailed information with us, but I will undertake to obtain it and communicate with the hon. member either personally or through the officials of the corporation.
The hon. member for Port Arthur raised a question about the report. I hope I shall have the report within the statutory period. I have a copy at the moment but it is in English only and in view of the compliments we have received from one province in particular during the last three days I do not think it would be advisable to ask for leave of the house to table the report in English only. Imagine what might happen if I did that. The translators have been working on this day and night for the last few days, and I have every reason to hope that I shall receive copies in both English and French by tomorrow, so I should be able to table them, though this is not a guarantee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of broadcast governors-
40. Salaries and other expenses, $298,420.
Lionel Chevrier: Has the minister statement to make on this item at this time?


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is the vote dealing with the board of broadcast governors. I have a statement here, the whole of which I do not think it is necessary for me to read at this time. It deals with the statutory powers of the board, the background and so forth. I will read the latter part, however.
The decision by the government announced in July 1959 to permit the licensing of an additional television station in centres already served by a Canadian television station will add significantly to the work load of the board. As a result of this policy it has been necessary for the board to hold special public hearings to consider applications for a second television station in Edmonton, Calgary, Halifax and Ottawa in 1960-61. Similar hearings were held in Winnipeg, Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto in 1959-60. The board will also be expected to consider applications for other new stations, increases in power and changes in facilities that are referred to it regularly by the department. It is expected

that the board will hold a minimum of six public hearings, six meetings of the board, three meetings of the executive committee and a number of other meetings of the subcommittees of the board during 1960-61.
The present establishment of the board provides for 31 positions, including those of the chairman, vice-chairman and the full time member. At the present time 28 of these positions have been filled. The three full time members are appointed to their positions by the governor in council for a period of seven years, and the full tune staff of the board are all appointed under the provisions of the Civil Service Act. The 12 part time members are appointed by the governor in council for a period of five years.
Although the estimates before the house indicate an increase of $98,420 over the amount voted for the previous fiscal year, the actual increase will be closer to $75,000 as the actual expenditure of the board for the fiscal year 1959-60 will be approximately $223,000. Supplementary estimates in the amount of $23,138 have been submitted by the board for the fiscal year 1959-60. In this respect it should be pointed out that the estimate of $200,000 for 1959-60 was prepared by the board less than six months after it had been established and was, inevitably, based on projected operations of the board, the cost of which could not be fully foreseen and, in fact, it proved necessary to submit supplementary estimates to provide additional funds.
In the 1959-60 estimates the amounts provided for allowances and travelling expenses proved inadequate due mainly to the necessity for the board to hold public hearings of longer duration to consider the numerous applications for second television licences resulting in additional expenditure for per diem allowances for the part time members and travelling and living expenses. On the other hand, the actual expenditure against the amount provided for salaries in 1959-60 was more than was needed due to the fact that some of the positions approved were not filled as quickly as had been anticipated.
The board held its first public hearing in January, 1959 and has therefore been in actual operation for 18 months. During this period the regulatory and administrative functions of the board have inevitably increased and additional staff has been added to properly discharge the responsibilities of the board. Apart from the continuing necessity to hold public hearings, the board has within the past year issued radio station broadcasting regulations, radio (T.V.) regulations and a statement of policy on political and controversial broadcasting.

I think that is all that is indicated at the moment, Mr. Chairman. Of course, I shall be glad to attempt to deal with any questions raised by hon. members.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the minister will remember that the other evening when I thought this vote was under consideration I began to make certain observations in connection with it. I hope that in anything I have to say at this time neither the minister nor anyone associated with him will consider what I have to say as personal. After all, we on this side of the chamber have certain obligations and duties to perform and it seems to me that in performing these properly there has to be criticism.
At the outset of my remarks the other day I stated that I believed the policy in connection with these applications was that first applications were made to the Minister of Transport who after having determined through his officers whether there was any objection from a technical standpoint or a telecommunications standpoint would then pass them on to the board of broadcast governors who in turn would hold public hearings across Canada, hear the evidence, and they would then be returned to the Minister of Transport after which he would submit them to the governor in council for approval.
Following what the minister has said it would appear that the board of broadcast governors has held a number of public hearings in this country, with the following results: One was held in Halifax where a licence was recommended by the board in favour of CJCH Limited which now operates radio station CJCH Halifax and which would be expanded to include Canastel Broadcasting Corporation of Toronto, a wholly owned subsidiary of Association Television (ATV) of England; major individual shareholders are Gerald E. Martin, Halifax, chartered accountant, and Finlay MacDonald who manages CJCH.
Montreal-English language station-Canadian Marconi Company which already operates radio station CFCF, Montreal, and which is controlled by Canmar Investments Limited, wholly owned subsidiary of English Electric Company Limited of London.
Montreal-French language station-Paul L'Anglais and associates, headed by Montreal French film distributor Joseph A. DeSeve.
Ottawa-E. L. Bushnell Television Company, headed by the former C.B.C. vicepresident and including the Granada TV Network of England and NTA Telefilm (Canada) Limited which includes United States participation.
Supply-C.B.C.
Toronto-Baton Aldred Rogers Broadcasting Limited, controlled by the Toronto Telegram and including veteran broadcaster Foster Hewitt or radio station CKFH Toronto, T.V. personality Joel Aldred and Paul Nathanson of Sovereign Film Distributors Limited.
Winnipeg-Ralph S. Misener, Winnipeg businessman and sportsman, associated with Lloyd E. Moffat, owner of radio station CKY Winnipeg, Walter E. Kroeker, president of radio station CFAM Altona, Manitoba; Roland Couture of radio station CKSB St. Boniface, Manitoba; and T. O. Peteirson, director of a Winnipeg investment syndicate.
Edmonton-The publicly owned C.B.C.
Calgary-CFCN Television Limited, headed by Gordon Love, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and members of his family who now operate radio station CFCN Calgary.
Vancouver-Van tel Broadcasting Company Limited, headed by 34-year-old Arthur Jones, now head of a Vancouver film production company and including several British Columbia businessmen.
Before dealing with some of these licences in the manner I wish to I should like to put a question to the minister. The hon. gentleman may respond to it later if he wishes. Of those licences I have mentioned, how many have been approved by the governor in council and how many still remain to be approved?
Following what has been said by my colleague the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate I wish now to say a word with respect to the steps necessary for the establishment of a station. What are the principles? What is the manner in which the board of broadcast governors goes about the granting of these licences? It would seem to me that the main requirement for a station is a frequency channel. Without that a licence cannot be granted. These frequency channels belong not to an individual group. They are part of the public domain, the property of the Canadian people, and they should be treated as such.
In 1953 when I occupied the position of minister of transport I outlined at some length the position of the government and I put on the record a statement which I should like to repeat again today. I believe this statement has a great bearing on the granting of these rights.
That statement with which I was in complete accord was made by a former prime minister of this country, the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett, when he discussed the principles dealing with matters of this sort on second reading of a bill which he introduced in the house on May 18, 1932 as reported at page 3035 of Hansard of that date. I shall quote


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want to say something about the subject to which my hon. friend from Laurier has just referred. I had something to say on this subject at the time the motion was before the house to set up the committee on broadcasting. I did say something about it on an earlier occasion outside the house. I think I should, if the minister will not take a technical objection, put on the record again what I said the other day as recorded at page 5195 of Hansard, because I want to deal with it. I would rather put it on exactly as I said it than to paraphrase it, which I would have a perfect right to do.
I was referring then to the granting of the private television licence in the city of Toronto and I said in part:
It is very hard now to understand this extraordinary decision which was made in Toronto in

Supply-C.B.C.
favour of a newspaper whose proprietor, according to all reports, months before the application was heard by the board went about saying that there was no need for them to hold any hearing because he already had it. It does seem to me that is something which needs very careful investigation, as well as the whole policy underlying that situation.
Subsequently, the publisher of the Toronto Telegram, Mr. John Bassett, apparently took notice of what I had said in the house. I am sorry I do not have an extract from his own newspaper, but I have one from the Toronto Star which I think would be most scrupulous to report him correctly, for obvious reasons.


Mr. Lambert:: If the shoe were on the other foot, what would then be the case?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would think they would be very careful to report each other correctly because of the rule of law in this country, if not for any other reason. In any event, I think I should read what Mr. Bassett had to say. The news item reads this way:
John Bassett, publisher of the Telegram, denied today that he boasted about having a licence for Toronto's private T.V. station before the board of broadcast governors awarded it to a company controlled by him.
The charge was made in the commons yesterday by J. W. Pickersgill (L-Bonavista-Twillingate) during a debate on the board's choices for private T.V. ownership.
Then it goes on to say something about the hon. member for Port Arthur and Mr. Bassett is quoted as having said:
"Mr. Pickersgill's statement is absolutely untrue," Mr. Bassett said. "I haven't spoken to Mr. Pickersgill about anything important for the last 10 years -other than just a few how-do-you-dos."
That is quite correct. Mr. Bassett and I are not what you would call bosom pals, and I have not spoken to him on many occasions, certainly not beyond ordinary politenesses. However, I thought Mr. Bassett's denial very odd because I never said he told me this. I said that there was a rumour, and that is all I said. Perhaps I was wrong in saying there was a rumour without having more than a rumour, but this rumour was not the casual kind of rumour. This rumour had been published by a very reputable journalist, Mr. Pierre Berton, in the Toronto Star on April 1. I think that this part of what Mr. Berton had to say ought to be on the record because I think it does justify a member of parliament using it as a basis and, to the best of my knowledge, no action was taken against Mr. Berton to get him to withdraw this statement. Here is the way it read:
Please, Mr. Bassett, don't put away that crystal ball.
I have been worrying about the Toronto Telegram which recently lost the services of one of its columnists, Dr. Spencer Thornton.

The article continues to some extent about that, which is not really relevant, and then goes on:
I suggest this because Mr. Bassett's prescience in the matter of the private T.V. license is now the talk of Toronto. He is being congratulated on all sides for what may well be the greatest piece of crystal-gazing since the late Mackenzie King put away his glass ball.
X don't really know whether Mr. Bassett was peering into the future via the Telegram horoscope, or if he simply switched to Wildroot cream oil, the hair tonic that gives you confidence, but he has certainly been exuding assurance for several months regarding Channel Nine.
This is in Mr. Berton's style which is not exactly my style. It goes on at some length but the most significant paragraph of it is this:
So certain was he of victory that his architects went ahead and produced complete detailed drawings for his million-dollar T.V. building-a job that takes several weeks. The blueprints were rolling off within four days of the B.B.G.'s announcement that John Bassett was the fortunate winner.
Other evidence is also given that he felt that he had this licence. But whether he had or not is not the main point. I merely put this on the record because it is common gossip; and I would have thought that if Mr. Bassett felt this statement that he had forecast this decision was untrue he would have taken steps to correct it when it appeared in the Toronto Star. But again, as I say, that is not the main point. The main point is the point which I made in Toronto and which I made again in the House of Commons, namely the point that as a matter of public policy-and up until very recently this has appeared to be the policy not merely of the previous administration but of the present administration-I believe it is undesirable for television licences, which are much more monopolistic in character than are radio licences, to be given to newspapers or the proprietors of newspapers or corporations in which newspapers have a substantial and controlling interest.
I think that procedure is undesirable when there is in the place another applicant who is equally qualified or approximately equally qualified to have that franchise or that bit of the public domain, as my hon. friend from Laurier pointed out. I say that we took the position when we were in office that if there was no other applicant or no other qualified applicant to provide a television station, then a place should not be deprived of it because the only applicant was a newspaper or a newspaper publisher or a company in which a newspaper or a newspaper publisher had a substantial interest. I think this would be a ridiculous position to take.
Mr. Bassett apparently thought that he had found a beautiful reply to me when I spoke

in Toronto last May because on May 4 he published an illuminated article. It was illuminated with an extremely attractive sketch which I take it is supposed to be me in oilskins and in the usual costume in which I am portrayed in that newspaper which has given me a great deal of favourable publicity for which I have always been grateful and for which I have never had to pay, but which I do not feel puts me under any sense of obligation which prevents me from criticizing the newspaper or its publisher if I feel so inclined in this free country. It is headed "Politician with a short memory... Pick Clouds the Airwaves". I must say I thought that was rather flattering. I had a feeling that perhaps the great public was not quite as much interested in what I had said as was Mr. Bassett himself or whoever wrote this for him. This article purports to be written from Ottawa and it is marked "Special". I suspect, of course, that it was a synthetic piece but it also purports to give a list of all the television stations and all the radio stations that are owned by newspapers, newspaper publishers or people having any connection with newspapers. Since Mr. Bassett, this favoured person of the B.B.G. and the present government who was given the best piece of the public domain available in Canada, thought it was quite important to put these arguments forward I think it is equally important to have the facts put forward about them.


George Clyde Nowlan: Hear, hear. Let us get them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Here they are. Here is a list of these television stations that are owned or partly owned by newspapers where the licence was granted in the time of the previous administration on the recommendation of the board of governors of the C.B.C. I have gone through as many as I could of the notices of application and of the recommendations and subject to error which I may have made because I was obliged to do this research myself and to do it rather hastily I think that my facts will be found to be correct.
There was a licence granted in Calgary. This was one of the very first applications and it was granted to the only applicant so that it comes completely within the terms of the statement I made at the beginning of May of this year in Toronto, whatever date it was. There was a licence granted in Lethbridge and that was not granted until nearly a year after the early application and it was granted to the only applicant. There was one in Regina granted, among the early ones, to the only applicant. There was one granted in London to the London Free Press,
Supply-C.B.C.
a newspaper which has over the years not been notoriously favourable, as everyone knows, to the Liberal party.


George Clyde Nowlan: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And that was granted to the only applicant. There was a licence granted to Niagara Television Limited in Hamilton in which a minority interest is held by the Southam Company. There is no control there. It was among the first and it was granted to the only applicant. Then there was one granted to the Saint John Publishing Company of Saint John, New Brunswick and it was granted to the only applicant. The only two cases I have been able to find in Mr. Bassett's list where there was any question at all of any other applicant entering into the picture were the station in Kingston and the station in Peterborough.


Mr. McGrath:: What about St. John's?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am just dealing with Mr. Bassett's researches or Mr. Bassett's special report. I am not dealing with any other cases or any other hon. member. I happen to know about one or two others myself, as a matter of fact, which I will deal with if any questions are raised. But in the case of these two stations, one at Kingston and one at Peterborough, they were both originally applied for by the same company and they were both deferred. Then subsequently, when no other applicant at all turned up for the Kingston station, the licence was granted to another company which was divorced from the original company to some degree. I think it is a well known fact that two very prominent publishers, one of whom is connected with the Liberal party and one of whom was a Conservative candidate in a not too distant election in one of the constituencies in the suburbs of Toronto and who now own a very substantial part of all communications in this country and two or three other countries, were joint owners.
I do not think it could be argued that it was because of any particular preference the previous administration would have had for that particular kind of set-up that that was done. In fact, in the case of the Peterborough station according to the records another applicant ultimately turned up after the application was deferred three or four times and the other applicant had apparently no local backing according to what the C.B.C. recommended, I presume quite honestly, and the application was not recommended. Finally the application of the Kawartha Broadcasting Company was.
I might say that one or two others were held up. In the case of Saskatoon the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix was the first applicant

Supply-C.B.C.
and their application was held up until another applicant turned up and then the Star-Phoenix application was denied, and I could give other cases of that kind too.
When these television licences were being recommended by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation they were complete monopolies. That is to say, you could not have one television station nearer than 40 miles from another and certain steps were taken to see they did not invade each other's territory. That was in the experimental stages when a lot of people did not think that in many places television could be made to pay at all. That is why in many cases no other applicant, except a publisher or a newspaper or someone connected therewith, ever turned up because I assume no one else felt the risk was worth it.
The fact that ever since the beginning of radio broadcasting in this country radio stations have been owned by newspapers and radio stations have been all through our history competitive seems to me to have nothing to do with the argument at all, and as far as I am concerned I never at any time said it had. But what I do think is fundamental is that we do not want monopoly of sources of information. The government is pretending to try to strengthen the combines legislation in this country, although we do not think it is. We do not think it is desirable, wherever it can be practically avoided, to have this common ownership of multiple sources of communication.
The Toronto situation was a particularly glaring one. My opinion was, as I expressed it in Toronto, that the B.B.G. should have thrown out the applications of all three newspapers at the opening of their hearing, because in the judgment they gave afterwards they said they had a hard time making up their minds because all the applications were so good. They had thrown out every other application from a newspaper up to that time, in Winnipeg and Vancouver, but suddenly here in Toronto, where if my memory serves me there were six other applicants, they apparently transgressed what I thought had always been understood by hon. members opposite as well as our party to be undesirable in principle, namely to have newspapers own these facilities when anyone else of competence was available to own them. Why that should have been departed from in that case is hard to see.


James Aloysius McGrath: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would he not agree that a few years ago the government of which the hon. member was a minister granted a [Mr. Pickersgill.J
television licence to a newspaper owner in St. John's, and would he not agree that that television company has been doing a very good job? At the time I believe the C.B.C. also applied for that franchise.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member is not quite accurate in his facts. In those days the C.B.C. did not apply for licences at all. The C.B.C. was the licensing authority, but I do not want to seem to quibble.
It is true that the C.B.C. was willing to build a station there if the government would put up the money. It is true that there was a private applicant and that the government in its wisdom decided that there should not be a C.B.C. station at St. John's, as it also decided there should not be one at Saint John, or Fredericton, or Charlottetown, or Calgary, or Edmonton, or Regina, or Saskatoon. The decision which was made by the previous administration, which was made by the government as I suggested earlier in the debate on the C.B.C. estimates should be done, was as to the places in which public money should be used to establish these capital facilities. Whether we were right or wrong we decided that if we established public stations in Vancouver, in Winnipeg, in Toronto, in Ottawa, in Montreal and in Halifax, we would have enough stations to provide national network coverage and that the rest of the field should be left to private initiative.


James Aloysius McGrath: What about Corner Brook?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Corner Brook decision was made by the hon. member's friends, not by the previous administration.


James Aloysius McGrath: That was no friend of ours.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not really relevant, but the Corner Brook station was not decided upon until after the present government came into office.


James Aloysius McGrath: But by the old board.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am talking about what the previous government did, and if the hon. member thinks I should be replied to perhaps he will reply afterwards because I should like to carry on the thread of my argument.
The position we took was that in order to get national coverage in Canada and in order to minimize the cost to the taxpayers of the country we should establish enough stations to create a network, that everywhere else we should give in each area a monopoly for the time being to see whether television was practicable, and up until the time we left office that remained the situation.
The Fowler commission was asked to report on this matter and they made a report which

we did not have time or opportunity to act upon but which has, after three years, now been acted upon by the present government. That action was the policy of establishing second and competitive stations in the places where the C.B.C. had stations and in one or two other places, like Edmonton and Calgary, where it did not.
I say that what we find impossible to understand is why there should have been this departure from this time-honoured principle. I think it is regrettable that the government, which has the final responsibility, did not reject the recommendation of the B.B.G. in this case. It should have rejected it, not on the ground that these people were not as competent to do the work as somebody else-I have no opinion on that at all and I would not venture an opinion because I do not think it is desirable that we should try to adjudicate things like that here in parliament-but the board having said they had such difficulty in choosing between the applicants and it being objectionable in principle, it seems to me the government should have said "We do not want a licence given to a newspaper or to a station controlled by a newspaper if there is another equally good applicant, so take this thing back and hear it over again". That it seems to me would have been the right course.
We now have in this Ottawa decision an even more frightening thing, because here we have a licensee picked out from among five, I think there were, the one licensee who seems to be partly owned and controlled by television organizations in another country. The whole purpose surely of the development of broadcasting in this country and of the development of private broadcasting is to give an expression to local and national conditions, local and national aspirations and to local and national talent. The idea that we are going to have a station largely owned by one of the leading television companies in the United Kingdom is-


George Clyde Nowlan: Which one?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Granada. It does seem to me to raise very grave questions indeed. The whole purpose of public broadcasting in the first place is to keep it Canadian. We have never interpreted that in any narrow manner or sense. The C.B.C. from the beginning has taken the best of the things from the United States and the best of the things from the United Kingdom, but it begins to look, from what we hear, and here again we need some reassurance from the government, as though this Ottawa station is to become the focus of a network which is to bring in television from the outside.
Supply-C.B.C.
Apart altogether from that I express, as I have expressed in the past with regard to the Canadian Pacific Air Lines, and, of course, the railways, concern with this situation because as we know there was very grave concern about the whole question of so-called competition in this field, and I say "so-called competition" because it is not really competition, as everybody knows. In Toronto at the present time you are going to have a public station and one private station and there is no room for anyone else because there is no channel. If this is going to mean in Vancouver, Toronto or Halifax-and I think that from an economic standpoint the situation in Halifax can only be marginal-the private corporation is going to bring in film or other material more or less dumped from the United States and the United Kingdom in order to pick up advertising revenue by filling up the air waves with material of this sort, while leaving the C.B.C. to carry the other material and the taxpayers to pick up the tab, then I do not like that at all. That is the direction in which it appears we are moving now. That is why we feel we should move very prudently with regard to this matter. My hon. friend from Laurier has pointed out the way in which the Canadian Pacific transcontinental air service is affecting the balance sheet of the T.C.A., and I am worried about how these things are going to develop with respect to the balance sheet of the C.B.C.
No doubt this will be slightly out of order, but hon. members do read, and they undoubtedly read the editorial about C.B.C. finances which appeared in the Ottawa Journal last night, a newspaper which is notoriously not unfriendly to hon. gentlemen opposite. This situation gives us all cause for concern, because the money, after all, comes out of our pockets. I think that generally speaking we have got value for our money up to now, but we will still have to pay whether we get value or not, and if we have to pay an unnecessary amount because the cream is skimmed off in this field by private stations importing material from the outside, as would appear to be the implication of the granting of this Ottawa licence to this particular licencee, it seems to me it is a cause for very grave concern indeed.
I should like very much to put on the record, though I do not think I will, a letter written by another notorious "Liberal" in this country, and I use the word ironically, Mr. Joseph Sedgewick, Q.C. of Toronto, which appeared on March 29 in the Globe and Mail about the granting of the television licence in Toronto. It is entitled "The Curtain Falls". It is true that Mr. Sedgewick was associated with one of the disappointed applicants, and it is true that he was no doubt biased by that

Supply-C.B.C.
view, but I do think that his letter, which I commend to the attention of hon. members, raises almost as many questions as I have raised in what I have had to say here this afternoon. I would say that this is not the kind of thing we expected when the Broadcasting Act was passed and when the board of broadcast governors was established.
I could do as some hon. members have done. I could make a biographical analysis of the board of broadcast governors. I do not intend to do so. That has already been done. I associate myself with my hon. friend from Laurier. I impute no blame to any individual. I know this was a corporate decision, presumably made by a majority, but in the case of Toronto I have no hesitation about saying it was a bad and a wrong decision. In the case of Ottawa I do not go beyond saying that the implications of that decision are, I think, very frightening for anybody who agrees about maintaining at reasonable cost to the Canadian people the Canadian content and character of our television broadcasting.


Douglas Mason Fisher: About a month ago when we set up the committee on broadcasting we had a debate which covered much of this ground. I have thought a bit in the interim about whether it is worth crying over spilt milk. The decision of the board of broadcast governors in the major areas has been taken. Most of us dislike these decisions-


George Clyde Nowlan: Who? Who dislikes them?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I would say that most of us who are likely to speak here do.


George Clyde Nowlan: I doubt that. Are you speaking for yourself, or for whom?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Let me put it this way: in any case, our party dislikes them, and I think the decision with regard to Toronto was, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate says, wrong and bad.
The minister when he was speaking on June 21 referred to innuendo and indicated that he wanted the people who are prepared to make these charges against the board of broadcast governors to make them and not hide behind excuses. I assume by that the minister wanted to see this question come before the broadcasting committee. I think he is a fair man in that regard, and I think he knows we are not going to have anything of that kind this session. I can just imagine what that would involve at the present time, with the long hours we are sitting, to have Mr. Bassett or Mr. Hendrick or Mr. Sedge-wick appear before the committee in order that we may hear the views of the board of broadcast governors. I assume we should

have to call people like that in order to bring the board of governors into focus.
The minister raised a question of innuendo. That is the standard reply to anyone who is going on sketchy information, and I admit the information is sketchy. I could give the minister a long parade of how the whole Bassett thing came up. For instance, I remember a Telegram reporter saying in reply to some joshing I was giving him about the gaudy way they were painting the Prime Minister: Well, wait until we get the television licence and we shall see the way it straightens out. That is, in essence, gossip, but this is about the only way we can make an appreciation of all the facets, and there have been many things said about the Telegram application, not only by rival newspapers such as the Star and the Globe. Public opinion in general has been outraged by the way this was awarded. I have heard a story that the vote was eight to four among the members of the board. That is another one that is going around. We are prepared to say that the award has been made and that there is no possibility of rescinding it, but we should like to know more from the board of broadcast governors both at this time and later when it comes before the committee about the reason why it had evaluated things in that way.
I think it has been pointed out by many people that there have been marked inconsistencies in the awards. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has found a little principle in that newspapers should not be given the licences. Anyone looking at the attitude of newspapers throughout the years toward the mediums first of radio and then television will discover that the newspapers decided that if you cannot lick them you should join them or buy them out. The process goes on. I see that Thomson was given the right to buy into the North Bay station.
The book entitled "The History of Journalism" sets out resolutions passed throughout the years in Canada by newspapers with respect to radio. A reading of it reveals that early in the game they decided to buy into the radio racket as soon as they could and they did. The newspapers own many radio stations. The question is, has the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate a new principle in so far as television is concerned?
Obviously the principle was well breached during the Liberal administration-perhaps, as the hon. gentleman said, not from a Liberal point of view-but it was breached. With the concentration of ownership in these media the trend is obvious. You have only to look at Thomson to see it. Obviously the question now is this: should it become a hard and

fast principle and should the board decide to try and get the licences now controlled by newspapers into different hands?
Another principle involved in the Toronto, Halifax and Ottawa applications was whether a radio station has any prior right to a television licence or should it be considered the same way as a newspaper? In Halifax a radio station got it. In Ottawa a radio station was turned down. In Toronto several radio stations were turned down. No inkling as to the principle involved can be taken from the experience in those communities.
We feel that ownership by a radio station of a television station is less dangerous. There are some technical and programming similarities which make it advantageous rather than the contrary. We would like to have the board's view on this matter.
If we are going to have the board before us next year we would like to see a review in the board of broadcast governors' annual report or some other report available to the committee of the way the board went about reaching its decisions. There is a new prospect now looming on the horizon. In a small area just as much trouble can be caused through the establishment of additional television stations. I can tell the board that if it decides to entertain applications for another television station in the Port Arthur-Fort William area there will be just as fierce a controversy as took place in Toronto. The only difference is that it will be on a smaller scale. We want to know what the ground rules are in so far as these other stations in the smaller cities are concerned.
One ground rule I want to know about in particular involves the market, the size, the economics of the matter, from the B.B.G. point of view. With Telemeter going into some smaller places with one television station on the market and with a number of competing broadcasting stations it seems to me almost fantastic to expect that another television station will make money. Yet there is a great logic in having it. If, as hon. members of the government remind us, this is a free enterprise economy it is logical that we give other people a chance, throw the competition open. We should know more about this aspect of the board's future plans.
Even more than in the awarding of licences this group is interested in another aspect of the board's endeavours. Everyone was critical of the C.B.C. in its role as supervisor-that is not the right word and perhaps it would be more accurate to describe its role as program regulator-of private interests so far as content of programs is concerned. I understand that the board did not take over many of the employees of the C.B.C. who
Supply-C.B.C.
were working in this field. I understand they have hired Ross McLean as one of their employees and his chore is to check logs and supervise programs-again I use that word in its special sense-so the board will have an appreciation of what the stations are doing. We need to know how they are moving in this field.
I want to know about the CKLW situation. When the act was passed it allowed those stations which had foreign ownership to continue in that way. I do not think we would have been prepared to pass that section of the act if we had known that the foreign share of the ownership was not going te be stabilized. As I understand it the foreign ownership of CKLW has increased since the act was passed. This station must derive a great deal of its revenue from the United States market in order to continue. In the Toronto area complaints are constantly being made about Buffalo stations coming into the Canadian market. Recently Saturday Night carried a flattering article about the relationship between Time magazine and the Prime Minister and the whole set-up of revenues for Canadian publications.
Here again a Canadian station is raiding a United States area for revenue. I know that the Americans will not worry about it because it is probably only a pinprick in relation to the total market area but the principle is still the same. Here is a Canadian station, both radio and television, licensed through Canadian authorities and operating on Canadian soil, catering to and getting much of its advertising revenue from the United States side of the line. I understand that the board has looked into the matter. I want to know what its views are with respect to that station and its operation.
I have had a number of complaints from the Windsor area about the fact that the news broadcasters on Windsor programs are American and that most of the orientation is in that direction. If we have a bi-national community there there may be some excuse but as I understand it this is a radio and television station licensed and operating in Canada. Despite the fact that the act allows foreign ownership to run it I cannot see why it should compete in the United States market and why it should carry what in essence are United States programs.
There are a number of other examples. Some of the private stations in Canadian television have done a tremendous job in local service programming. I think of Sault Ste. Marie and Timmins. In those communities I have had an opportunity of visiting the studios and watching the programs. These communities are offered many hours of

Supply-C.B.C.
local programming each week. There is a great effort made to make the station stand for something in each of those communities. But what do we get in other places? I can tell the minister about a station close to my home where the local programming is practically non-existent. This situation has been going on for two and a half years. The C.B.C. did not do anything about it. What will the board of broadcast governors do about it? The action it takes in this field will be proof to me whether the board of broadcast governors will function and operate in the long run. In the short run I appreciate that the board has been faced with dirty and difficult decisions about licences. I could get as worked up about that subject as anyone else but in the long run its performance will be judged on its regulating role and whether it does it fairly and honestly. Of course, we will watch for the 55 per cent Canadian content and that type of thing.
The board has been in existence long enough that we should now have some indication of correction and adjustment and letters to show cause why licences could not be rescinded when obviously the stations are not living up to the code. I know that the argument will be to the effect that the board has already held hearings such as that. I want to know about the concrete results of the hearings. It does not do any good to slap private broadcasters on the wrist and say, "Naughty, naughty". You have to be tougher than that. This is what the B.B.G. is to do.
I remember people complaining to the C.B.C. about a local station that used to have 15 or 20 spots in one hour, quite against the law. The people would write to the C.B.C. complaining about this and the C.B.C. would send the station a letter but that was all that was done. The station continued with its over-crowding of spots. That is just one small example. The board is faced with a role we would like to see it carry out with justice but with fairness and thoroughness and in accordance with the rules and regulations set up. At the present time we do not know whether it is going to do better than the C.B.C.
I have been disappointed that the board has not given any indication that it is going to take a lead in setting up regulations that will encourage educational and school broadcasting. We have the likelihood of a private network. I understand the board is encouraging private television networks. It is going to set general regulations in regard to it but I think we are

lagging badly behind in educational television in Canada, and all the excuses of provincial jurisdiction do not answer the question. This is a medium that we need to use in the educational field and unless the board is willing to give some kind of leadership through regulation we will not have it.
One of the aspects the board has already touched on is unsatisfactory to us, and that is their notice issued on March 31, 1959 in relation to political and controversial broadcasting. There are a number of points in this that are ambiguous. I can give one right here in relation to controversial broadcasting and also governing purchase of time. It makes a whole host of qualifications that to me would just end the possibility of controversial broadcasting of any kind. One of the points I cannot understand is why if someone comes in with a partisan controversial broadcast the station must give time to the other person to answer. This is in the United States tradition, but nothing is said in the regulations about the question of payment. Does the person who gets the chance to rebut have to pay? If not, why not? What about the matter of equal time or comparative time? It seems to me that the eight points under controversial broadcasting are almost useless because some of them are ambiguous and the others are far too restraining. Take point No. 7 as an example. It reads:
The broadcast must be of sufficient Interest to the public to justify inclusion in the program schedule.
Who is going to make that judgment? Of course, the board of broadcast governors and the local area, the local station such as Port Arthur, Timmins, Sault Ste Marie or North Bay. Can you see the possibility of a controversial program of local or regional interest that has to go through all the rigmarole of being cleared by the board of broadcast governors? It does not make sense to me, and yet it is one of the ways in which television can play its part, by allowing controversial broadcasting supporting various points of view. I do not mean political, I mean organizational, or economic, that type of thing.
As a matter of fact, I can tell the chairman of the board that these rules are already being broken. I know of a number of places where controversial broadcasting is taking place, being sponsored in various areas, and there is no clearance with the board of broadcast governors, and no approval is sought. This proves to me that these eight points are largely inapplicable.
The final point I wanted to touch on in general, Mr. Chairman, was to ask the minister to give us an explanation through the board

of their views and the action they took in relation to a letter put out by W. W. Williams, president and general manager of the Proctor and Gamble Company of Canada, Limited and dated September 17, 1959. This letter was addressed to Mr. W. A. Johnston, Q.C., Red River television association, Winnipeg, Manitoba. I wish to read one paragraph and to know what action the board took as a result of finding the existence of this paragraph in a brief which was presented to it. The paragraph reads:
I am, of course, implying that the board of broadcast governors' proposed regulations may seriously damage the economic health of the television broadcasting business; and I, therefore, believe that it is vitally in your interest to put up, individually or through C.A.B., the strongest possible fight against the B.B.G.'s proposals. And in this respect I can assure you that through A.C.A. and through our contracts with C.A.B. directors, this company is devoting a great deal of time and energy to the task of helping independent broadcasters to ward off this major threat to their economic well-being.


Mr. Palleil:: Will the hon. member indicate the date of the letter?


Douglas Mason Fisher: September 17, 1959. I was just asked the date of the letter. Hon. members may consider that this is water over the bridge. In some ways it may be, but if this view of the board of broadcast governors and what it is set up to do represents the honest reaction of most of the larger advertisers of this country it seems to me that we may have a continuing difficulty so far as the respect given to the board of broadcast governors by the private broadcasting stations is concerned, who in the main will be very much influenced by their advertising revenue. This is the kind of letter that Mr. Williams may regret having written.


George Clyde Nowlan: He did.


Douglas Mason Fisher: But I certainly think we should know how the board reacted to this specific example.
I would imagine that not too long after the new private stations get going in the metropolitan areas the 55 per cent program content rule is really going to hurt in so far as the opportunity to maximize revenue is concerned. The tradition in so far as the past record of the broadcasting stations is concerned is that when they are vying for a licence they will promise very much-they are like politicians to a degree in that way -and then when they are going along through the course of their administration the promises can be forgotten. They are not in as tough a position as the politician. The politician does have to go back to the electorate. All the broadcasting stations have to do is to go back to the C.B.C. and now to the B.B.G. I should like to think that the
Supply-C.B.C.
B.B.G. is going to be as tough on the broadcasters as the electorate have been on the politicians and their promises.
It seems to me that this particular regulation is the heart of the attempt, the continuing attempt-and I will give credit to this government for the continuing attempt-to keep Canadian broadcasting Canadian in character.
The question raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate about Granada Film introduces another element into the question of Canadianism. I took it from his remarks that he feels there is nothing intrinsically valuable in material from British sources.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. member wants to put words in my mouth. I said no such thing, implied no such thing and meant no such thing; but I do not think we want to turn our Canadian broadcasting over to any other country except Canada.


George Clyde Nowlan: You never will with this government.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Granada Film is a very successful organization in Great Britain. It seems to me they will have available for this particular station, and probably for this private network, a very great deal in the way of film. I should like to know from the board what the views are on the relationship of British material to Canadian content. I know they have already given it, but in the light of those developments, which may mean that we get much more British material than perhaps we can stand, in the light of our general Canadianism, is the board prepared to make an adjustment? What are its views if we should be subject to a flood of British films? I personally do not think it is likely to come about because most Canadians will find that British fare is pretty limited to their taste.
I see the hon. member for Kootenay West looking around, and realizing that the sturdy yeomanry in Kootenay West have a different appreciation of this sort of thing than the Canadians in my part of the country, probably I should conclude here by saying that we gave very serious consideration, just as a gesture of disapproval, to moving that the estimates of the board of broadcast governors be reduced to one dollar. We thought this would underline our dissatisfaction with the way the board has gone about awarding these licences. However, in the long run, in view of the fact we desire to get through with this matter as quickly as possible, we decided to let that procedural flourish go and just re-emphasize our concern over the awards

Supply-C.B.C.
that have been made and our interest in finding out more about why they are made and how the future is going to go.
I should like to repeat that we would very much like to have some evidence that the board of broadcast governors is not going to pat private broadcasters on the wrist but that occasionally they are going to punch them on the nose.


James Aloysius McGrath: I should like to speak very briefly on these estimates for the board of broadcast governors. I should like to say, particularly in the light of what has been said this afternoon, that I want to pay a well deserved tribute to the board of broadcast governors for doing an excellent job under most difficult circumstances. The hon. member for Port Arthur did not put it quite that way. He said, a difficult and dirty job. I do not believe it is a dirty job. I think they have brought a new sense of honour to the industry and they are doing an excellent job.
If we were to follow the argument of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate then the board of broadcast governors would have no alternative but to immediately preclude two of the most capable, most knowledgeable groups in this country from the television industry. I am thinking of those people who are associated with the newspaper business and those people who are considered to be Conservatives.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want to misrepresent what I said. I never took the slightest exception to anyone who is a Conservative being granted a licence. I pointed out that we gave a licence to the London Free Press, a notoriously Conservative newspaper.


James Aloysius McGrath: I think you will find that was the only television licence that went to anybody who was known as a Conservative.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about Thomson?
Perhaps the hon. gentleman should learn a little history.


James Aloysius McGrath: All I can say is this: When the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate gets up moaning and groaning, as he has been, about the skulduggery that went on in Toronto in connection with the application for a T.V. licence in that area, he perhaps ought to bear in mind that one of the directors connected with the successful applicant is Mr. Joel Aldred. I might say that Mr. Aldred counts amongst his many personal friends Premier Smallwood of Newfoundland. I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would not want to leave a wrong impression about his views on this matter.
As I said, the board of broadcast governors is comprised of very capable people from all walks of life in Canada. They have received praise and approval from the broadcasting industry, including the private broadcasters. Perhaps if the hon. member made himself familiar with the literature put out by the private broadcasters he would become aware of this fact. Then, too, the C.B.C. approves of the board of broadcast governors which is doing an excellent job under most difficult circumstances.
In conclusion I would say as a private member of this house, if there is one thing this government has done that we can look to with pride, it is the forward looking legislation on broadcasting and the establishment of the board of broadcast governors.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise to speak very briefly on a matter of local concern. I shall not range into the wider field of the functions of the board of broadcast governors because I think that has been very well covered by other speakers. I do want to make a suggestion to the minister and the board of broadcast governors. While the responsibility for certifying the suitability of equipment for these small satellite television broadcasting stations rests on the telecommunications branch of the Department of Transport, the responsibility for actually granting licences to operate is, I understand, that of the board of broadcast governors.
This matter is of some importance to the people in the Kootenay district and, no doubt, in other country areas, who are denied the opportunity of receiving the usual television programs because of the physical features of the surrounding country. These small community satellite television stations, therefore, are absolutely necessary if a number of people in isolated places are to obtain any television at all. I understand that has been the experience of a number of districts throughout Canada.
I am informed that at the present time there are a number of these community satellite broadcasting stations operating under the ownership of small incorporated local companies, some under co-operative societies and some owned by individuals. I find, upon inquiry, that they are performing a very good service for these small communities practically on a non-profit basis. The suggestion I want to make, and I make it as a result of some experience with two or three groups who have been trying to establish community stations of this type, concerns the publication of a small pamphlet.
These groups often lack experience, a knowledge of the law and regulations, which

leads to wasted effort, misunderstandings and things of that sort. I am quite sure that as more and more people find out about the success of some of these stations operating in other districts they will want to obtain television for their areas. I simply make the suggestion that it would be a good idea if the board of broadcast governors published a small manual containing information with respect to application procedures, with respect to the certification of equipment by the telecommunications branch of the Department of Transport, and the general principles upon which the board of broadcast governors acts when examining applications for these licences. This information could be given to these groups as a result of the experience of the officials in the telecommunications branch and the experience in the administrative aspects of the situation of the board of broadcast governors. I make that suggestion because I think something could be done in that way to assist these people in more readily obtaining what they require, what they are entitled to, without a waste of effort or, in some cases, a waste of money.


Douglas Mason Fisher: There is one further point I wish to raise that relates to something completely separate from anything else I have said. It relates to what is, in effect, perhaps an apology. When the matter first came up on June 21 I was speaking about the Toronto application and making a point about the Toronto Telegram application. Someone shouted, what about the Star. Just in passing, I said, well everyone knows that the Star's is not a serious application, or words to that effect. The Star has supplied me with a full transcript of their proposals and their rebuttals, and in fairness I should say this was a serious application.
What I really did have in my mind when I made that passing remark about the seriousness of the application was that the Star was forced into making an application because the Telegram was feet first into the field. In that sense they felt and I believe that they admitted before the hearings that they had been primarily interested in the licence but that in order to protect themselves they felt they should get into the field and make an application and in order to make their application as pointed as possible and as consistent with their principles which had been against this marriage of television and newspapers, they were prepared to set up their station ownership on a basis that would be of a non-profit kind and that any incomes or revenues above the cost aspect would go into some kind of foundation, as I understand it. Therefore any comment that it was not a serious application was unfair to the time and
Supply-C.B.C.
the effort that the Star put into trying to put forward both a kind of programming and an ownership that they thought would appeal to the board. I should like to apologize if in that scant remark I did the Star an injustice. In using those words I should not like it to be read that I would have liked to see the Toronto Star get the licence, although relatively perhaps the Star over the Telegram and perhaps relatively the Globe over the Star but preferably no newspaper should get a television licence.


George Clyde Nowlan: I shall take only a few minutes of the time of the committee, with the committee's permission. I am, of course, in the hands of the committee. Naturally we will deal with any points that are raised but I think most of them are within very short compass. In starting out, the hon. member for Laurier read the statement of Lord Bennett with respect to the principles which should govern the allocation of the air. He said that the air was in the public domain. I agree with that statement entirely and so does the government. I am sure that the board of broadcast governors in all of its actions have shown that they accept that principle and that they have carried it out.
I should perhaps deal with these things seriatum. I understood the hon. member for Laurier to refer particularly to the Ottawa station as being under foreign control or at least I think he said 33J per cent of it.


Lionel Chevrier: I said "outside capital", which is different.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, outside capital. I inferred this from what he said. If he did not intend it, then I am sure he will correct me. From what he said I gathered that the outside capital was going to be in control of the corporation and there was much reference to Granada and N.T.A. telefilms and there have been many rumours floating around from every disappointed applicant. Every one of them, of course, feels that he was the one who should have had the laying on of hands, that he was the one who was especially favoured by heaven or by God or whatever it may be and that he was the one who should have had the application granted to him and that everyone else was defected, mentally, financially or in some other way. There have been a great many biased stories told about this Ottawa situation. I received a letter the other day from a disappointed applicant pointing out that there was foreign control here and a great many other matters, most of which are entirely baseless.
The act makes it plain that there can be no more than 25 per cent of the shares owned by anyone outside of Canada. That is the

Supply-C.B.C.
fundamental principle. If the hon. member for Laurier said something about 33J per cent, as I gather he did, or as I recall it although I did not mark it down at the time, then obviously he was misinformed on the matter.
The hon. member also referred to the voting trust and suggested there was something sinister about that voting trust and that there was again outside foreign control. May I say this about the voting trust. All this, of course, was disclosed in evidence. All this was sworn to. I wonder how many of these critics attended any hearings, how many of them read the briefs or how many of them read the evidence or how many of them have seen or watched the briefs being presented and then are prepared to come in here and criticize.
One of the most shocking things I have heard in the years I have been in this House of Commons is the casual statement made by our good natured friend the hon. member for Port Arthur who said that they seriously considered moving to reduce this vote to a dollar; he was not sure about the amount. As I said earlier, he has always had dissatisfaction, worries, cares, misapprehensions and suspicion. But the thought of responsible men and women who are taking part in a public service in this country, many of them at great sacrifice and the thought that moving to reduce the estimates would be a casual matter is something that I cannot understand. I cannot conceive of anything more insulting to the board or anything that would show greater irresponsibility than any such action. Perhaps he was only being facetious and I hope that was the case. However, if that was intended as a serious step, it is one which I think is a reflection on those who consider that course of action and is one which is absolutely unwarranted by the facts.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask the minister a question?


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Is it not a fact that one way of showing dissatisfaction in this house with the performance of any organization that comes before the house with estimates is to make such a motion? We have expressed our dissatisfaction with the board. What could be more natural than that we should consider this course? I told the minister we decided not to do it.


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member has not expressed dissatisfaction with the board. He expressed some rumours. He fears. He suffers from apprehension. I do not know how he can sleep at night. He suffers from his dreams, hallucinations and worries. Not one word has been said this afternoon by him or
[Mr. Nowlan.l
by anyone else except what was based on rumours, and 90 per cent of the rumours are false.
There was a reference to the voting trust. If there was any misunderstanding on that, I do not know what my hon. friend's information is with respect to the voting trust. There is a voting trust. As disclosed in the evidence, it was to keep control here in Ottawa. There are three trustees, namely Mr. Ted Beament who was solicitor for the applicant. Mr. Landriault and Mr. Bushnell. Those are three Canadian trustees residing in Ottawa. The trustees would be here within this company. This is the break-down of stock. We have heard about N.T.A. Telefilms, a dreadful thing, of a United States firm coming in to take control, Granada to take control. According to them we are really faced with a disaster.
This is what was sworn to in evidence and this is what I am advised by the officials again today, namely that Granada and N.T.A. Telefilms together own 24.9 per cent of the voting shares and that the other 75.1 per cent are owned by Canadians. In connection with this Ottawa company, as with all the other companies which have been approved by the board, there has not been more than 25 per cent of the shares owned by people outside of Canada nor can there be under the act. The board has made that matter abundantly plain and has inquired into every applicant. There is the sworn evidence there as to the financial breakdown and everything else.
I know my hon. friend would not mislead the House of Commons under any circumstances but I think that possibly he has obtained some misinformation, as many other people do, from biased people who have been disappointed and who make rumour for fact. The recent decisions of the board, the Ottawa decision and the Halifax decision, have not yet been approved by the governor in council. There is all sorts of political pressure being exerted and propaganda being spread in the hope of influencing the government to repudiate the decision of the board in this matter.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister a question?


George Clyde Nowlan: Certainly. Whether or not I can answer it, I do not know.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure the minister does not want to misrepresent what I said. When he started to reply he used the words "sinister agreement". I took it down. I think he will have to look very carefully into the blues and into anything I said which would indicate the use of those words. I did not use it. I said that I had been informed there was an agreement to the effect and so on. The minister

has replied in part to what I said and I would like to ask him this question. Is it so that each of the shareholders of the Ottawa television company have abandoned their right to their one share and transferred it in favour of the voting trust?


George Clyde Nowlan: I cannot definitely answer that question, but I do know that on sworn evidence which is a matter of record whatever they may have transferred to these trustees was disclosed to the board in every way, shape and form and there is no possibility, unless someone has committed perjury, in which case the situation can be easily rectified because the board has disciplinary powers-


Lionel Chevrier: May I be permitted to intervene here. I thank the minister for the explanation but if it is the fact that each shareholder has transferred his right to his vote in favour of the voting trust, then it changes the position which the minister has explained very materially.


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not follow that. There are three local residents in Ottawa who constitute the voting trust and full details of it were disclosed to the board. A careful examination was made with respect to it, but the fact still remains that the shares are owned by Canadians with the exception of 24.9 per cent which are divided between the U.S. company and Granada. I am informed again this afternoon, so that there is no question in anyone's mind listening to the debate today, that the control of this firm rests entirely in Canadian hands, with the one exception of the 24.9 per cent. I am sure that is the situation.
The hon. member for Laurier referred to the practices which used to be carried on in his department when he was minister, and either he or the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked me to outline briefly the procedure followed in dealing with these applications. I do not think there is anything different from the days when the hon. gentleman presided over the Department of Transport. As he knows, the applicant has to make application to the Department of Transport. There is a large file of correspondence and documents, and ultimately after many consultations and much study the officials of the Department of Transport approve, if they do, the technical phases of the application.
Then that having been done and upon D.O.T. advising the board of broadcast governors that it is clear technically-I am not quite sure of the chronological order-perhaps the two can proceed together to appoint-the applicant appears before the B.B.G. and has
Supply-C.B.C.
to file his brief, the advertisements and all the documents in relation thereto. Ultimately the board of broadcast governors holds a hearing.
There is a slight deviation now because of the fact that we do have the B.B.G., although under the act the Minister of Transport is responsible for the technical clearing of it and under the Radio Act that has not changed. Then when it comes from the board I, as Minister of National Revenue having been designated by order in council as the minister to whom the B.B.G. reports, present the board's recommendation to the cabinet where it is dealt with by the government and then an order in council is issued and the mechanics of the whole transaction are then complete.


Lionel Chevrier: One question which I asked was whether the Ottawa recommendation had been approved by the government and what other of these six or eight applications had not.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am coming to that. The Ottawa application has not been approved by the governor in council; it has not yet been submitted to him. As the hon. member knows, it takes some time. Having the background necessary he would know it usually takes a few weeks from the time it goes to D.O.T.
I should have said that after the hearing the report follows to D.O.T. and the technical documents concerning the granting of the licence are prepared in D.O.T. and they then come to me. They have come forward but I have not yet presented that application to the cabinet, nor have I the one for Ottawa, nor have I the one for Edmonton. They are the three, plus the one at Pembroke, which are still outstanding.


Lionel Chevrier: All the others have been recommended?


George Clyde Nowlan: Halifax, Ottawa, Edmonton and the one at Pembroke. They are the television applications which have been recommended, and my parliamentary secretary says that there is the Calgary one too in the background which has not come forward yet.


Lionel Chevrier: He would not know about the Edmonton one.


George Clyde Nowlan: There has been a lot of pressure on the cabinet. With the house sitting in the morning the hours are very short and it has not yet been dealt with. I think that clears up the mechanics of the matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister has forgotten but I asked him a question which he said he would prefer to answer at this time concerning C.B.C. applications, which of course never went to the board in our

Supply-C.B.C.
day. I asked him to give us the ABC of where they originated. What I am interested in is the point at which the government decides.


George Clyde Nowlan: The situation there is exactly the same as that of other applicants. The C.B.C., if it desires to make application, has to get that application cleared by the Department of Transport so far as the technical aspects are concerned. It has probably already made an application. I am not sure what the schedule is but I presume they make application hoping that D.O.T. clears it, and then after D.O.T. gives clearance it comes to the board of broadcast governors to be heard. The same procedure as I outlined a moment ago is then followed.
I know what the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate has in mind because he suggested it very forcibly the other day. I am prepared to go along with him on the fact that there is a difficult area there, one which was certainly not foreseen when the act was drafted. Whether or not something should be done with that, I agree it is rather unfair to have private applicants making application at the same time as publicly owned applicants, particularly if the publicly owned one gets the application in the end.
We must all remember here that the C.B.C. also applied for Pembroke in the same way as it applied for Edmonton. True, Edmonton is a big oyster and Pembroke a relatively small one, but the B.B.G. refused the application of the C.B.C. for Pembroke and granted it to a private firm, but did approve of the C.B.C. application for Edmonton. I must say that I was the most surprised man in the world when that happened, but there was certainly no understanding whatsoever about it in any way, shape or form.
From the suggestions we have heard this afternoon it is amazing how many conflicting viewpoints one can get if you want to build up a case. I have heard suggestions of political rewards this afternoon, political rewards in connection with Halifax, Toronto and Ottawa. If there are any political rewards which could be recognized, if this board is an organization which considers politics at all, I cannot conceive of any applicant who might be more deserving than some of the applicants in Edmonton in view of their records of service and co-operation with the Conservative party throughout the years. So if there is any merit in the argument about politics entering into this thing then I should think that argument is shot pretty badly by the board's decision that the Edmonton application should be granted to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I can assure hon. members opposite that there are probably
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
quite a few staunch Conservatives in and around the city of Edmonton who, to say the least, would not express any paeans of praise about this board, and if they thought there should have been political recognition and they found that there was not I suspect that their expressions of loyalty and devotion would be more pleasing to the ears of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate than to my own.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to ask a question at this point. As the minister has pointed out to the hon. member for Laurier in the case of the Ottawa station, a private applicant has to satisfy the B.B.G. that he has the financial competence to carry out and perform. Now surely the minister is not telling us, as he seems to be, that the C.B.C. can blithely make an application to the
B.	B.G. without satisfying the B.B.G. that it has the financial competence to carry it out? It has no financial competence until it has a categorical, unqualified assurance from the government that if it gets the licence the government is prepared to put up the money. That is the whole point, and I have never been able to get it straight up to now. I ask the minister with respect to this Edmonton station: did the government give this assurance to the C.B.C. before they made that application that the money would be made available before they got the licence?


George Clyde Nowlan: Categorically, the answer to that is, no. There was no discussion between the government and the C.B.C. with respect to that application. It was only after that application was made-I do not know how many days later-that the president of the
C.	B.C. informed me in conversation that he had made an application for this Edmonton licence. It was included in the capital budget of the C.B.C. which had been passed months before. There was a fairly substantial item there which would cover any expenditure which would be needed this year under capital development. I am told that the chairman of the board of broadcast governors asked the C.B.C. if they had enough money available, and the board was told they had sufficient moneys in their budget to proceed with the expenditure which would be necessary this year. That is the situation with respect to that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a further supplementary question about that? This, in view of the treasury control which the minister has told us exists, does seem to me to suggest that the board of broadcast governors was either naive indeed, or taking parliament for granted. I return to this fundamental point: surely it is shockingly unfair

to private applicants who come into this competition with the C.B.C. without an absolutely clear knowledge of whether in fact the government really intends to put up the money.


George Clyde Nowlan: The chairman tells me that he was advised by the C.B.C. that they had the money. No specific reference was made to the estimates, but in reply to questions asked by the board when the president of the C.B.C. was before the board the information was given that funds were available. I perhaps interpreted it by saying, as I found out afterwards, that there was an item in the estimates which would be large enough to cover the expenditures for this year and it was on that the C.B.C. based the information they gave the board.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Did the board give any consideration to the fact that the money spent by the C.B.C. in a capital sense upon the Edmonton station might be money which could be used to expand the television service there? I understood that this was part of the board's role as leader in this field.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not sure whether the board made inquiries on that score or not. I assume they did. The chairman has just indicated to me that they did make such an inquiry. They would be very properly told by the C.B.C. that the moneys available for this year were such that the acquisition of this licence would not interfere with other extensions which the C.B.C. planned to put into operation. Perhaps this should be pointed out: there has been a great deal of talk here-perhaps I would be saying the same thing if I were sitting in some other place-to the effect that this spending of money in Edmonton was showing neglect of the back areas, the rural communities. A superficial case could perhaps be made out on that basis. However, it should be borne in mind that the C.B.C. has no transmitting facilities between Winnipeg and Vancouver. If this is to be a national system, then certainly the corporation needs transmission facilities somewhere on the prairies over this vast expanse of 2,000 miles, and Alberta was the logical place where such facilities should go.
In addition to that, the internal estimates of the C.B.C., which are usually fairly accurate, proved conclusively to the corporation that the expenditures in Edmonton could be recovered entirely and financed on an amortization basis because the commercial revenues would be more than sufficient to carry the financial load imposed on the corporation. That is a position entirely different from that which exists in these outlying rural areas where the corporation has to operate and
Supply-C.B.C.
where, I agree, it should operate. But the corporation has to get money either from the government or from its own revenues in order to carry out these extensions, and the argument which the C.B.C. would make, if you were sitting around the table with their officials and having a friendly discussion on this matter, is that by getting this station in Edmonton and its commercial revenues they would be able to extend their facilities in the rural areas more rapidly than would otherwise be the case. I may add that a substantial representation came to appear before the board of broadcast governors from the rural areas in the province of Alberta with a view to opposing the application, but when the argument of the C.B.C. had been explained to them they turned round and supported the C.B.C.'s case before the board. Thus, those who came to scoff remained to pray.
I do not wish to detain hon. members for too long this afternoon. They have already spent a great deal of time here and, in fact, I would not mind getting out myself, but the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate raised the question of newspaper control. He deprecated it, and I think that on philosophic grounds I would be inclined to agree with him. But he produced enough examples of what had happened in the past to show that there was no fixed pattern. Indeed, if there was a pattern it showed that newspapers did receive licences, whether there was one applicant or not. We do not know all the factors which existed in those days-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister says we do not know all the factors that existed, but I spent a great deal of time in finding out what those factors were. They are very well known; they are all in the records of the old board of the C.B.C., and I asserted that in all the cases mentioned in the Toronto Telegram, except one, as far as I could find the station connected with the newspaper was the only applicant. In one case there was one other applicant.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not questioning that for a moment. But how did they get one applicant? What pressures went on up to that point? This was years ago, and the fact that there was only one applicant means nothing today. The fact remains that under the previous government newspapers were awardee' television licences. I am not saying that was wrong, but I do say it shows a blind sense of criticism to criticize this board-the board, not the government, because the government has had nothing to do with this board in any way especially with regard to any of these applications; I want to make that perfectly clear-when under the former government television licences were granted to newspapers

Supply-C.B.C.
or when, on occasions, T.V. licences were denied which the C.B.C. thought would be awarded to them that principle was established.
There has been a great deal of reference to the Fowler report when it suited hon. gentlemen to quote from it. I wonder if hon. members opposite have read the paragraph in that report dealing with the granting of television licences to newspapers. The following is found at page 109 of the Fowler report:
It is not a matter that should be subject to rigid rules of general application, but should depend on the discretion of the minister and his advisers including the board of broadcast governors.
This was in the old days when the minister had some discretion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Which he still has. It is exactly the same; there is no change whatever.


George Clyde Nowlan: He has not. I continue:
The test should be the practical one of ascertaining the best immediate and long term interests of the particular community concerned, rather than the private interests of any of the individual applicants.
With that I quite concur. We find that with the approval of the Fowler commission there is no merit whatsoever in the general proposition that newspapers should not be entitled to receive a television licence. I would be inclined to agree with the hon. member though, and would personally deprecate the assemblage of too much power, information or propaganda-call it what you will-in the hands of any one group whether it be newspaper people, television people or anyone else.
I think I have dealt sufficiently with the matter of the Ottawa application. There have been references to Toronto and to the fact that there were some unsatisfactory matters there. There were rumours of some kind to the effect that someone had said he had it in the bag. That statement has been denied since. I do not know what anyone has said about having it in the bag but I know he did not have it in the bag because, as I said a moment ago, I am the minister who reports for the board of broadcast governors and I am the only connecting link between the government and the board. Anyone who says that any of those television licences was in the bag is using pure rumour and simple propaganda and such statements are completely without foundation in any way, shape or form.
In one case it was said we made a political payoff in Toronto, rewarding a politician. Who were we rewarding in Ottawa? What is this pay off thing in Ottawa? There was the myth about United States control which we

have exploded, a terrible thing. Statements about political control are without foundation. As I said you would not dare stand on the street in Edmonton and say that there has been any political control over the board of broadcast governors there. I do not think you could convince Grattan O'Leary and the group in Ottawa that there is any political control over the board of broadcast governors. When Dr. Stewart the chairman of the board was first contacted by telephone I remember that a former colleague of mine who is now dead, when I told him I had called Dr. Stewart, made a bet that we would not get him. But, he went on to say, if you get him you will have the best man in Canada. I accepted the judgment of Doctor Sidney Smith then and I am more convinced of it now than ever before.
Dr. Stewart and I talked on the phone and then he came to Ottawa. He said to me, "I have only one question. May I run this thing as I see fit with the assistance of my colleagues or is there to be any political control whatever?" I gave him my assurance that there would be no political influence used on the board in any way, shape or form and to the best of my knowledge and belief there has not been any used from the day the board first sat until today nor will there ever be as long as I, at least, am the minister who reports to parliament for the board of broadcast governors.
Those are the facts of the situation. I do not even know the names of the applicants in Ottawa. I knew that Grattan O'Leary was making an application because I was naturally interested in the activities of an old friend. Ernie Bushnell asked me a year ago whether I thought he should make an application. I told him that he was as free to make as many applications as he liked but that I did not think he would get it. He said, "Have you any influence?" I said, "I have not any influence and I have never attempted to use any but I will tell you frankly, Ernie, if I had any I would use it for Grattan O'Leary rather than for yourself." That is a discussion I had with Ernie Bushnell and those are the facts of the case. The same thing applies to Toronto.
Snide little remarks were made with respect to Halifax, too. The C.C.F. members who are particularly prone in indulging in remarks of this type regard the estimates as something of a joke. The other day the question was asked whether the E. L. Bushnell in Pembroke was the same E. L. Bushnell who had been granted the licence in Ottawa. The other day we also had questions about whether the Finlay MacDonald who was concerned in the application in Halifax was the

same Finlay MacDonald who chaired the Conservative party breakfast at the annual meeting last winter. I am very glad to say that he is exactly the same Finlay MacDonald. I think we of the maritimes put on the best show at that breakfast that was put on in any province in Canada. It is going to be a very sorry day if the mere fact that a man happens to be a Conservative and a good one should result in denying him the right to make an application of this kind.
I think it was my friend the hon. member for Laurier who said that if the application was granted to Finlay MacDonald in Halifax or to the person in Toronto then it was obvious this would be political consideration and would wreck the functions of the board or something of that kind.


Mr, Chevrier:: Make sure you have it right.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am only paraphrasing very roughly.


Lionel Chevrier: You are paraphrasing very wrongly.


George Clyde Nowlan: I think that was the inference my hon. friend attempted to take. I jotted down the words the hon. member used and according to my notes the hon. gentleman said that the board would be open to a change of partisanship if the governor in council grants a licence to Ottawa or Toronto applicants according to the report which they now have. As I said, if we are open to a charge of partisanship because the odd Conservative in this country is able because of merit and on the basis of the facts of the situation to achieve some recognition, then it is a sorry day. I do not think hon. members opposite should be too deeply troubled and they should not be heard to say anything critical on this score, either. I have dealt with the applications and the rumours which were baseless.
The hon. member for Port Arthur raised a question about station CKLW and asked whether they were being slapped on the wrist. That is the station at Windsor where the Canadian content of programming is low. The hon. gentleman wanted to know what was being done. I am told by the members of the board who are present that their officials visited that station and communications have been going on between them. It is true that the Canadian content there is low and they have been ordered to increase it. It cannot be done overnight. They have been instructed that there must be a Canadian content of 45 per cent as at the year ending March, 1961 and following that they will have to raise it still further. There is no question in my mind but that when the board slaps you on the wrist you know that you are dealing if not with a mailed fist at 79951-0-393
Supply-C.B.C.
least with a very firm hand. A very firm approach is adopted in any contact there may be with the board.


Douglas Mason Fisher: In connection with that may I ask what the situation is with respect to ownership. I know that this station and the station in Montreal were provided for in terms of foreign control under the act. Is there a range in the amount of foreign ownership?


George Clyde Nowlan: I can answer that generally, Mr. Chairman. It is true, as the hon. member has said, that the stations in Montreal and Windsor were exempted from the provisions of the act because they had previous licences and so forth. I am told that the Montreal situation has not changed at all, that the ownership is exactly the same as it was. In Windsor, as the hon. member has said, there has been a slight increase in the United States purchase of shares but I am advised that there is no change in the situation, namely that control has always been vested in United States hands. There has been no lack of control as far as the national interest is concerned and I think that is a matter the board is watching very carefully.
There has been some reference to editorial comment in newspapers, some of them biased and some of them disappointed. We have also had references to various articles that have been written. Even these can sometimes be biased. I have known men who were promised jobs by an applicant station and when the applicant station did not get the licence they have been most biased in their writing. Without being too personal let me say that at the moment I can think of an article which has been quoted here today. I know very well why there is the bias and the venom which appears in the article. It is because of the expectations which were perhaps disappointed as a result of the decision which was made.
Certainly, as the hon. member for Port Arthur has said, the newspaper reaction has not been too considerate of the board or the government in recent days since the board of broadcast governors' decision regarding Toronto. The B.B.G., as hon. members know, is planning to conduct studies preparatory to laying down the ground rules for a new network, if a network is justified.
I wish to commend to all hon. members an article on this subject which appears on the editorial page of the Globe and Mail of July 9, 1960 which speaks in most laudatory terms about the board of broadcast governors. After referring to the possible establishment of the new network and the danger arising from domination of the private network by

Supply-C.B.C.
Toronto and Montreal, making it local instead of national in its policy and presentations, the editorial concludes:
The B.B.G. rulings are designed to avoid this; they would spread control across Canada, and so encourage television production across Canada. The B.B.G. is to be applauded for its foresight. It has gone the full distance to ensure that the new network will not only be national, but will serve the national interest.


Mr. Hanbidge:: What date is that?


George Clyde Nowlan: It is the Globe and Mail of Saturday, July 9, 1960. I think an editorial in such strong language coming from the Globe and Mail, in view of the very objective attitude it has taken towards other matters, is praise which comes almost from Caesar.
There is nothing more that I propose to say except this. As the hon. member for St. John's East said a moment ago, this government-I do not think it has received enough credit for it, not that one looks for credit in this world-has been accused of this and that and the other thing; but there is one pledge we made before we came into power, namely that we were going to separate the C.B.C. as a program organization from one in control of licensing, and so on. We have done that. I think we have done it to the advantage of the C.B.C. I think the C.B.C. is a better organization today because it is divorced from that other responsibility. We brought in the board of broadcast governors. I want to say that to my knowledge, which I think is as great as anybody's in this chamber on this matter because I am getting letters every day, as the hon. member for St. John's East said, the board of broadcast governors has done an excellent job.
I was shocked at the irresponsible proposals considered by the C.C.F. party. I can understand how one can be disappointed, but this board has the confidence of Canadians, and the only ones who are disappointed in it, and they sometimes give expression to their grief among themselves, are those who have failed to get licences. They say, among other things, "We have to be disappointed about it but I am glad you did not get it" and so on. The only ones who are disappointed are those who made applications and have been refused on legitimate grounds.
The great majority of the Canadian people know and realize that this board has done a remarkably good job. This is true of the C.A.B. itself and the private broadcasters. You should hear them express their views about the fairness of the rulings which they say are too tough. They say they are tough but they are fair, and there has never been a sign of partisanship in any action which they have taken. I have had that from a score of members of the C.A.B. who come into my office and discuss these things.

I stand here this afternoon and say that Canada can be very proud of its board of broadcast governors and the fact that we have Canadian citizens like Dr. Stewart and his associates on that board who are prepared to assume the responsibilities that they have assumed, and who deserve some credit and praise, although they never expect to get it, rather than criticism based on misleading rumours and propaganda.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister would have been much more convincing if he had refrained from the insinuations that he indulged in with respect to the activities of the board of governors of the C.B.C. in the case of the earlier applications. I was surprised that the minister should have said that influence or pressure was brought to bear on applications in the early days of television.


George Clyde Nowlan: If the hon. member will permit me, I never meant for a moment to reflect on the board of governors of the old C.B.C. He said this was a matter of pressure. If there was pressure it would come from the government and not from the board. I have the highest opinion in the world for the board for which I had the responsibility of reporting for a short time, and I certainly would never say anything to reflect on any of them in any way, shape or form.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister said that, I think, and misrepresented very much what I said. The only decision that was made by the previous government, as the minister knows full well, was what place would have public television and what place would have private television and the applications, as the minister himself pointed out to the hon. member for Laurier, came in to the Department of Transport in exactly the same way in those days as they do now. They were forwarded in exactly the same way only they went to the C.B.C. board rather than to the board of broadcast governors.
The plain fact is that, as these records I have on my desk show, in a good many cases where newspapers applied and in some cases where other applicants came forward they were deferred because it was hoped another application would turn up. Very far from rushing these things through when there was only one applicant, every effort was made to see that another applicant would come in any doubtful cases and, notwithstanding that fact, in that list that the Toronto Telegram undertook to produce to refute the argument that I made, they were able to find only one case where there was any other applicant at all that I can discover, and in that case the other applicant was reported by the C.B.C. board to be unsatisfactory.

It does happen that there were, I think, one or two other newspapers that the Toronto Telegram did not get on its list that I happen to see here, and in one of those cases there were two applications and the newspaper got it. I think anybody who would look for two minutes at the information that is given here would see why; but I think that anything that I said from the start in relation to this is not in any way inconsistent with what is in the Fowler report at all.
Of course, one has to take account of all the circumstances and one very important circumstance is that you are not going to give a licence to some fly by night person who has not the capacity to run a station and deny it to a newspaper, or a newspaper publisher, and prevent a locality from having decent television. That, I repeat, was not the case in Toronto. There were nine applicants there, of whom six had no connection with newspapers or no connection that I know of with newspapers. At least there were a considerable number that had none and the board itself, according to the newspaper reports- that is all I have to go on-said they had a hard time distinguishing among the applicants. I feel they should not have considered the three big newspaper applicants. I say again that as a matter of principle I think this was a thoroughly bad decision in the light of the facts as they existed there and quite unprecedented. The minister's attempt to make a precedent out of these other cases falls absolutely flat on its face because in all these other cases there were no other comparable applicants at all.
With respect to the Edmonton case, I must say that I come from Missouri. If two years from now the minister can show me that Edmonton C.B.C. station is making money for the C.B.C. I will apologize to the minister publicly; but I will need a lot of convincing and I will want to go over the figures very carefully, but I hope he is right.


George Clyde Nowlan: I said 1 was told that by the C.B.C. Certainly it cannot happen in two years because it will take two years probably before the station comes into operation and it would have to be an immensely lucrative station if it starts to pay for itself at the end of six months.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will give the hon. member two years after it comes into operation.


George Clyde Nowlan: All right we will make a private bet on it outside. I would like to have a celebration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I realize that gambling typifies the activities of the present administration but it is something that I do not indulge in; but I do undertake, if two years
79951-0-393J
Supply-C.B.C.
after the Edmonton C.B.C. station comes into operation, the minister succeeds in persuading the Minister of Finance to agree to the approving of this application and allows it to have this money this year, all of which will have to be borrowed, incidentally, at very high interest-I will look at that interest rate, too, in making my computation- but if this station has paid everything, not just the axle grease, but everything else, two years from now I will certainly make a public apology to the minister and I will be astonished. I will say he should not be wasting his time as minister; he should be running the C.B.C.


George Clyde Nowlan: A good suggestion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I come back to this other matter which I think is a very much more serious question of principle. I know what the minister has done, as he so often does when he is in tight corners. He spoke philosophically; he would be inclined to agree; but here was a case where you did not have to be philosophical. There was a good practical reason for taking a different course, apart from any other consideration.
Here is a city with a million and a half people-I refer to metropolitan Toronto-and only three newspapers. The concentration of the sources of information is already too great, in my view. Of course, the capital that is required today is so great that it is hard to avoid these concentrations. Here was an opportunity, though, to bring in another independent source of information for the public. Instead of that, it was given to one of the three newspapers and that, in turn, is bound to upset the competitive picture as between those three newspapers. I hold no brief for any of these newspapers. I would have liked to see none of the three get it. While privately, perhaps, this would have been my third choice if I had to choose amongst them, I do not believe it should have been a choice amongst them. I think it was a wrong choice.
There is another matter I should like to mention, and here I must confess I am not properly informed. I understood that at the time these other applications were before the board for the Toronto station there was an application from the station in Hamilton for certain technical changes which would enable the Hamilton station to be more effectively viewed in the Toronto area. I should like to know whether or not the board has made a decision about that and, if not, when they expect to make a decision about that. I should like to say that, speaking for myself, I was really quite shocked to find that every one of the nine applicants opposed the application from Hamilton. I remember,

Supply-C.B.C.
not so many years ago when these people were talking about private enterprise. Here was a case where it was suggested there should be more competition in this field, yet all these applicants publicly opposed the entry of Hamilton into this field.
It does seem to me if we are going to have this competition in television which the government has decided, following the recommendation of the Fowler commission, this gift to one station in Toronto should not be made even more lucrative by preventing effective competition from the only other channel that apparently can reach Toronto at the present time. I do feel we ought to be told about this. The other thing is that I believe the minister ought to tell us, in an authoritative way, just what in fact has been decided by the board, if anything has been decided, about a private television network.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am advised by the board, Mr. Chairman, that the decision has not yet been rendered on the Hamilton application. There were technical problems so the board referred the matter back to the Department of Transport before the board can make a decision.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I was pleased to have one assurance from the minister that the board would not be just patting wrists. I am concerned, in the light of that, at the number of employees the board has for 1960-61. According to the estimates, when you take away all the Indian chiefs, there are not many people left to look after the checking. I wonder if the check is only to be a log check or does the board plan to have a more thorough, occasional spot check on the ground of these various stations.
The other thing I should like to know is, are the services of the audience research division of the C.B.C. going to be used? It does seem to me that if the board is going to be the regulatory master of these stations, especially these new stations, this is a very small staff with which to do an adequate job. I should like to have some more details on that particular point. I should like to know also from the minister something about the board's views or its policy for seeing that we get further television coverage in Canada in those areas that do not have it at the present time.


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not know to whom the hon. member refers when he mentions "Indian chiefs". He mentioned something about doing away with Indian chiefs.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I did not mean that in any nasty sense. In the details listed on page 127 there are at least seven or eight people whom

I assume are senior in the organization. Then, there are a number of stenographers, and I am trying to find in there the people who are going to be doing this checking on logs and on programs to be sure that the job is done adequately.


George Clyde Nowlan: Part of the work of examining logs is being done by the Department of Transport in co-operation with the board. Two of those listed as clerks are also checking logs. There are four others doing it as well.


Douglas Mason Fisher: That makes a total of how many people that are employed?


George Clyde Nowlan: Six with the board and some from the Department of Transport.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Are there any plans to expand that staff or will that be the staff in that particular field?


George Clyde Nowlan: This will depend on experience. After all, as I have said, this board is really just getting under way in its administrative work. It started just about a year ago last January and it has been conducting public hearings, formulating rules and regulations, so it really has not settled down to exercise the regular, administrative control which is part of its function. It has not had too much experience in this field because of other pressures. A year from now I think the board will be able to say exactly how many people will be required to do this work. At the moment, as I have said, they have six working on it but it may require more.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I thank the minister for that answer. Has the board ever made a statement on its position with regard to the question of further television coverage in those parts of Canada that do not have it? If they have, could they just give me the reference? If they have not, do they contemplate doing so?


George Clyde Nowlan: The board, of course, has no authority to extend television services in any way. It has no money with which to do so. Any extension has to come either from private sources or from the C.B.C. The board certainly looks very favourably on any application, particularly one which would extend the services in what we call the rural areas, I may say the board is working with the Department of Transport in trying to simplify the rules and restrictions which heretofore have been employed in connection with those relatively small stations, attempting to make it easier to get applications through. They have spent a good deal of time on that. They have issued no paper with respect to it because, of course, it is something they have to deal with when somebody makes an application. They cannot initiate it.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The reason I raise it is, as the minister knows, that during the time we have been debating this subject the most recurrent topic has been the question of extending television coverage. I should like to get in my mind what the minister feels about this. Is the board of broadcast governors one of the places to apply pressure? I am thinking of citizens groups in my own constituency. Should they chase the board of broadcast governors in this regard or where should they go to apply pressure?


George Clyde Nowlan: I think the first place they should go is to the bank. When they get bank credit whereby they can finance a station then they go to the Department of Transport. There is certainly no point in going to the board of broadcast governors. They deal with the applications that come before them and lay down the regulations governing them. They have no initial authority with respect to that in any way, shape or form. It has to come from private sources or the C.B.C.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am talking about pressure groups. All of us are aware, as members of parliament, that there are community organizations that feel the government or some government agency should be working on this. I just wanted to check as to whether or not the board of broadcast governors was a pressure point for this sort of thing. I take it that it is not. The answer is one that still leaves many of us interested in this matter up in the air.
There is one other question I should like to ask the board of broadcast governors, and that is about its plans for a permanent headquarters. Have they given any consideration to that, and where do they plan to establish it? Is it going to be in Ottawa?


George Clyde Nowlan: Ask the Minister of Public Works when his estimates are before you. The hon. member knows that the board of broadcast governors is not a separate corporation. It has not any money; it is obliged to get it from parliament. Any accommodation which is provided for it will be provided through the Department of Public Works.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I asked the minister whether he would tell the committee what had already been decided with respect to a private network.


George Clyde Nowlan: Did the hon. member see the press release that went out? Perhaps he did not see it. I took it for granted that everyone had seen it. It is a long document. I do not want to read it all. However, there will be public hearings on September 1 and 2. What I mean is this. Discussions have been going on with the private broadcasters and with the
Supply-C.B.C.
C.B.C. Indirectly they have been kept advised. The executive members of the C.A.B. have been here. On September 1 and 2 the board is to hear oral representations on the briefs and the recommendations set out in the briefs. That is the matter to which the Globe and Mail was referring. They are having this preliminary meeting on September 1 and 2 to hear representations from public and the C.B.C. criticising or approving or whatever it may be. After that hearing and when representations and briefs are in the board will proceed to draw further regulations on a definitive basis for the setting up of this network, if it decides so to do.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the minister can say this. It may all be in this document. However, I have only so many hours in which to read.


George Clyde Nowlan: So have I. That is why I have not read it carefully.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister and I are probably in a similar situation with respect to this matter. Perhaps if I talk for a minute or two it would give him a chance to read a few lines.


George Clyde Nowlan: I will pass it over to the hon. member and he can read it on Sunday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it would be useful to have one or two points about this matter on the record. I take it, of course, that the board has no thought that the only people who will be heard at this hearing are the private television stations but that any citizen or group of citizens interested in this problem will be afforded every opportunity to be heard.


George Clyde Nowlan: Very definitely. Steps are being taken to that end.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very much concerned about this matter and I am sure the minister is also concerned about it. Perhaps I should say briefly that I think it is a very sensible thing to have a private network if we are going to have this competitive group of stations. I know all the objections there were in the old days of radio to a private network and that it was prohibited for many years. But after all, as the newspaper points out tonight, we are supposed to have 17,814,000 people in this country. I think that is an increase of two thirds over what there were when the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was established in 1936. Once we are going to have these stations, I cannot imagine that it would be possible for them to sustain themselves at all without some kind of network. We know something about the cost of producing television shows.

Supply-C.B.C.
I think it is quite sensible but I think there are two considerations of which account should be taken. Perhaps because I am a penny-pincher and always have been all my life, the first thing I think about is the treasury, that is to say the taxpayers. I am somewhat concerned that we should make quite sure that we protect adequately not only the actual revenues but the potential revenues of the C.B.C. from advertising so that we are not going to take too much directly out of the treasury. I am sure the minister also is concerned.
The other thing about which I am also very much concerned is that we should not do what I said earlier about this Granada business and I am not much reassured by what the minister said on this matter a little while ago. I am very much concerned lest private television should become a kind of television Reader's Digest, if the minister understands what I mean; in other words, that stuff on which the main earnings have been made in another country will be brought out here cheaply and more or less dumped and used to attract advertising which would otherwise go into things produced in Canada by Canadians for Canadians. I should like some reassurance that these matters are really seriously in the minds of the board in connection with these hearings.


George Clyde Nowlan: I can assure the hon. member that all these points are seriously in the minds of the board or at least of the three permanent members of the board. As the hon. member knows, there are now only two for the moment; one resigned yesterday.
Applications for the establishment of a private television network must be received by the board not later than August 1 in order to file an appearance and to be there at the meetings on September 1 and 2. That was the original plan and then it was modified to give them more time. I am told that the press release has been handed out. The hon. member, if he has time on Sunday to read it, can get there all the details dealing with it. There will be a full opportunity for representations from organizations across Canada in order to make known their views with respect to this matter. It will only be after the most careful investigation and study that the board will finally promulgate, shall we say, these ground rules and regulations.
I have no doubt in my own mind-and of this I am assured by the chairman of the board-that adequate steps will be taken to see that the Canadian content of the films or whatever there may be will be maintained at a very high standard. I do not think we need to worry at all about this becoming a sort of grandiose Reader's Digest of films
fMr. Pickersgill.]
which have made earnings perhaps in some other countries and which just come in here to be sold rather cheaply to the Canadian public. If this network is authorized, and it may be,-I think, as the hon. member says, there is some justification for it-then steps will be taken to see that it performs an adequate Canadian service. Already steps have been taken, as the hon. member will see if he reads this press release that has gone out, that no station can have control of it. It has got to be divided across the country. That is the matter on which the Globe and Mail was commenting in their editorial, the very firm attitude which was taken to prevent any one station or any group of stations from getting control of the network.
As to the impact on the advertising revenue of the C.B.C., I remember that question was raised last year and I said it was impossible to give an estimate. We have had much larger revenues this year than we had last year. With the population increasing, as the hon. member points out, I think there is good reason to hope that the initial impact-and certainly there will be an impact -will not be as severe as some people have suggested, and I hope that will be the case.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is just one other point I should like to make before the item passes. I think it is a relatively non-controversial one. I have been amazed, as I think have been a great many other Canadians who worried about this matter in 1952 and in
1953	when television was first being started in this country, at the success of many of these television stations that have been privately operated in small places. The hon. member for Port Arthur a little while ago mentioned the station at Sault Ste Marie. I have never been there to view their programs. Although I am not much of a viewer of television, I have seen a few programs in a few places, notably, of course, in St. John's, Newfoundland. However, I think that one of the things that is most gratifying and most encouraging is that in many places where we had grave doubts and where investors had grave doubts in 1952, 1953 and
1954	that television stations could be operated at all, in many cases these stations have shown extraordinary enterprise and extraordinarily good sense in getting local programs often of an extremely high quality and of a more than local interest. I know there is a feeling in some of these stations that sometimes their efforts are perhaps not sufficiently appreciated by the people in charge of the C.B.C. network and that there could perhaps be a little bit more attention shown

generally to the work of the private television broadcasters. If there is a private network, presumably in some places they might have access to it; but most of the stations I referred to are stations in small places which will continue to be on the C.B.C. network and therefore would not have access to the new private network.
I think this is one field in which the board of broadcast governors could very usefully make some investigation. I know there is a feeling amongst some of the small station operators that they are treated rather like children by the C.B.C. and I referred to that incident a little while ago in connection with the opening of the Confederation building in Newfoundland, the film having been offered for showing on the C.B.C. station at Corner Brook, and according to the information I have it was not accepted and I think that was too bad. But I am told this happens quite often.
I know what the pride of authorship is and I would imagine that quite often programs which a local station think are of great national interest would not in fact be of great national interest at all. But I think the B.B.G. should prod the C.B.C. a little to see whether some of these local programs when they are good and would be of national interest are encouraged and given the encouragement of a national exhibition from time to time.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, may I just again reiterate that while we appreciate the minister's confidence in the B.B.G. and the magnificent job he thinks they are doing, to coin the phrase of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, we are from Missouri and are still waiting to see.


John Whitney Pickersgill: One thing I meant to ask the minister but forgot. He mentioned Pembroke. I have the feeling I would have been as much in favour of the C.B.C. getting the Pembroke station as I was against their getting the Edmonton station, but that is in large part because I think there would have been television in Pembroke a lot earlier. Could the minister find out from the B.B.G. officials in front of him whether Pembroke will get this television just as soon from the private station as it would from a satellite of the C.B.C.?


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not think we can tell exactly within a month or two, but generally speaking it will be about the same time, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-C.B.C.
Charles Edward Rea: That completes the estimates of the Department of National Revenue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering whether you could not see that it was six o'clock by the clock? It has been a very long day.


Charles Edward Rea: Perhaps I can call the next department first and then I can see that it is six o'clock.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
420. Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals. $2,299,000.
Charles Edward Rea: Order. House in committee of supply on the Department of Transport, vote 420. This item is to be found on page 75 of the blue book, the details on page 530.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Charles Edward Rea: We were considering item 420 of the estimate of the Department of Transport. Shall that item carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
425.	Construction or acquisition of auto-ferry vessels and equipment as listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended upon individual listed projects, $3,090,000.
Mr. Carter:: I should like to ask the minister what stage has been reached with regard to the construction of a ferry for the east coast of Newfoundland.


George Harris Hees: A committee of officials is studying this matter in conjunction with the C.N.R. and we expect to have a report this autumn.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
426.	Newfoundland coastal services-construction or acquisition of passenger-cargo vessels and equipment, and harbour facilities, $4,340,000.
Chesley William Carter: This is the item under which two coastal vessels are being provided for the C.N.R. service in Newfoundland, and I should like to know what progress is being made on these vessels and when they will be ready for service.


George Harris Hees: Two vessels will be ready for operation next year and we expect to call tenders on a third vessel this winter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport
429. Maritime Freight Rates Act-payment to the railway companies operating in the select territory designated by the Act, of the difference occurring on account of the application of the Act, between the tariff tolls and normal tolls under approved tariffs (estimated and certified to the Minister of Transport by the Canadian National Railway Company and approved by auditors of the said company respecting the Eastern Lines of the Canadian National Railways and in the case of the other railways by the board of transport commissioners for Canada) on all traffic moved during the calendar year I960 $14,225,000.
Lionel Chevrier: I think the minister should give some explanation of this item. It is a large item amounting to upwards of $14 million having to do with maritime freight rates, and I think the minister should tell us if the government has anything in mind with reference to an increase in the amount to be paid by way of subsidy in the select territory. I think the minister might be good enough also to explain to the committee what portion of this is paid in respect of a subsidy out of the select territory and what, if any, is paid into the select territory.


George Harris Hees: This appropriation provided for the payment of the amounts accruing to railways for loss in revenue on account of the 20 per cent reduction in the tariff of tolls under the provisions of the Maritime Freight Rates Act as amended, and the 30 per cent reduction effective July 1, 1957 on all outward traffic referred to in paragraphs (b) and (d) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the said act as authorized by vote 668 of the further supplementary estimates (1), 1957-58. The proposed payments are based on the estimated volume and class of traffic to be handled during the calendar year 1960 in the territory fixed by the act.
The amendment to the main act, chapter 6, statutes of 1949, the Statute Law Amendment (Newfoundland) Act, provides in part that the Maritime Freight Rates Act applies to all lines of railway in the island of Newfoundland subject to the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada.
The basis for the inclusion of the statutory item in the estimates is chapter 79 of the act, section 9, paragraph 3 which provides that the minister of transport shall submit such amount to parliament as an item of the estimates of the Department of Transport.
The increase in the amount provided for C.N.R. is to cover an anticipated increase in traffic in 1960, and the increase in the requirement for railways other than Canadian National is because of a realignment of requirements based on traffic at September, 1959 and the anticipated trend in 1960 as estimated by the staff of the board of transport commissioners.
Regarding the first question asked by the hon. member for Laurier as to whether any

change in the rate is contemplated, the answer is that we feel we should await the report of the royal commission on transportation. Would the hon. gentleman repeat his second question?


Lionel Chevrier: It had to do with what portion of this, if any, is attributable to movement into the select territory.


George Harris Hees: I am advised that it is all inbound and that none is outbound.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a final question? I note that the amount is on the increase and I suppose that this is due to the increase in the cost of transportation and so forth. Can the minister give some indication of what the amount is likely to be in the next fiscal year?


George Harris Hees: We have not yet received the Canadian National Railways' estimate for the increase for next year, but if the present trend continues we can expect an increase of 10 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions and other benefits-
431. Railway employees' provident fund-to supplement pension allowances under the intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund Act so as to make the minimum allowance payable in the calendar year 1960 $30 per month instead of $20 per month as fixed by the said act, $8,600.
William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: I should like to say a brief word on this item. The amount involved, on the face of it, would appear to be relatively small as far as the Department of Transport is concerned. However, this item of $8,600 represents assistance to retired railway employees, and whether or not the committee appreciates it there are in Canada several thousand retired railway workers all of whom feel that they were at one time employees of the government of Canada. This comes about because of the fact that the railways in the maritime provinces, prior to 1922 when the C.N.R. came into existence, were government-owned railways under the complete jurisdiction of the then minister of railways.
I have had a great deal of correspondence with regard to item 431 since my election to this house. I have a lot of statistics on this fund, which is administered by the Canadian National Railways, and if my information is correct the cheques which go to the several thousand former employees are issued and distributed by the Department of Transport.
For example in 1958 the fund had a total payment to pensioners in the amount of $5.9 million. That amount came from three different sources. In the first place continuing

employees put in about $145,000. The C.N.R. under the act of 1922 had to put up $100,000 annually and did so last year and the years before. The government in 1958 under this same vote put up $9,400. This year it puts up less, $8,600. The balance of the pay-out, which amounted to nearly $5.75 million, was paid for out of the general revenue of the C.N.R. In my opinion the C.N.R. has done more than its share. I do not feel the government has done its part although I do not mean to criticize the present minister nor his recent predecessor in saying that. The mistake was made in 1922.
The amount voted in recent years has been going down at a rate of about $1,000 a year. As long as there are former employees of the Intercolonial railway it will remain in the estimates and be reduced to a nil figure perhaps in the next 20 years. The 6,000 people concerned reside not only in the maritimes but in the western provinces and indeed throughout Canada. I feel that they have not been fairly treated by the federal government.
The act was set up in 1913. The employees at that time were defined as employees of Her Majesty's railway. Many of those who stayed on after 1922 when the C.N.R. took over were not eligible to join the C.N.R. pension fund in most cases because of their age. Consequently they continued to contribute 1J per cent of their wages and ended up with small pensions. I have urged the Minister of Transport, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance since 1958 to consider these several thousand people as former employees of the government of Canada. The Minister of Finance brought in legislation on July 28, 1958 and granted increases to retired members of the armed forces and the R.C.M.P. and increased the pensions of retired civil servants. At that time I had hoped that these former employees of the government of Canada, these railway employees in the maritimes, would have been considered in the same category. However, they were not included.
When the legislation became permanent in 1959, once again they were neglected. I hope that when the estimates are prepared next year this small item will completely disappear and that a new and adequate and proper amount will be included for these retired citizens.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to bring to the attention of the minister and the committee the position of a group of employees who are unfairly treated by the Canadian Pacific railway. I refer to those employees who retired prior to January 1, 1953.
79951-0-394
Supp ly-Transport
I have had some correspondence with the officials of the Canadian Pacific pioneers' pension committee from which I shall quote two brief paragraphs to keep the matter fresh in the minister's mind. In a letter addressed to the Minister of Labour in January of this year the committee stated:
It is most unfair to grant increased pension payments to employees retiring on and after January 1, 1953, without likewise compensating those who were retired in prior years. It is like granting increases to a portion of any one class, such as trainmen, enginemen or sectionmen without in any way considering or compensating the others of the same class. The above principle was recognized by your government for such classes as civil servants, R.C.M.P., armed forces and old age pensioners.-
We feel strongly that an adjustment should be made without further delay to those retired before 1953.
The Minister of Labour wrote to Mr. Crump who replied at length stating the company's point of view. I will read the second last paragraph of his letter which contains a distinctly capitalist reason for continuing an injustice to these people:
If there is one thing clear it is that Canadian Pacific could not as is suggested by the first paragraph on page 5 of Mr. Keefe's letter, insure pensioners against inflation. The company also suffers from the inflationary cycle through which we have passed and no insurance company would be in business today if it undertook retroactive adjustment in benefits to relieve policyholders from the effects of inflation.
Mr. Crump did not mention that the company can take compensatory action in terms of increasing its freight rates. When the minister replies will he tell us if there is any possibility of action being taken to secure justice for these pensioners?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I have taken careful note of what the last two hon. members have said concerning these two most important subjects. I can assure them that I will bear what they have said in mind.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air services-
Administrative branch-
433. Air services administration, $1,470,637.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, this is a most important vote in the estimates of the minister not so much because of the amount of the item but because of its significance. The air services branch of the Department of Transport is really one of importance and there are two matters in this connection which I should like to bring to the minister's attention.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, could I draw to the attention of the committee the fact that we have missed a supplementary vote dealing

Supply-Transport
with the last item, No. 565-S. For the sake of order, should we dispose of it before proceeding?


Lionel Chevrier: It was passed.


George Harris Hees: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I did not realize that.


Lionel Chevrier: One of the two matters I should like to bring to the minister's attention has to do with the regional air services survey. Either the minister in answer to a question in the house or the chairman of the air transport board made a statement to the effect that there would be a survey of regional air services. What I should like to know from the minister is the position of that survey. Before getting the reply, however, I should like to premise my question with one or two statements.
I am informed that when the new chairman of the air transport board was appointed he found a backlog of applications from Canadian air carriers awaiting review and action by the board. I am not referring now, of course, to the applications having to do with T.C.A. and C.P.A. for transcontinental air services. This is an entirely different matter.
The chairman, wisely I understand, issued instructions for a regional air services survey to be made prior to any hearings that might be held in connection with any individual applications other than the two transcontinental carriers and international carriers that I have mentioned.
A Department of Transport economist was loaned to the air transport board and this survey has been carried out in recent months. The survey, I understand, has been terminated and the air transport board has made recommendations to the minister as to policy and hearings. The point I should like to stress now is this. Consideration should be given to holding public hearings in certain communities in this country relative to the economic air survey in the same manner as public hearings were held in connection with the other applications.
I have particular reference now to the isolated parts of Canada because I am sure that no matter how competent the board is, or how competent an economist might be, there is nothing like visiting the location where additional air services are required. I think now particularly of the province of Quebec; I think of a number of isolated areas on the north shore. I know the department has done a great deal in that area, and the former administration, as well as this one, is to be commended for what has been done there, but there are other isolated areas where it might be well to conduct public hearings.

I think, too, of other places such as the maritime provinces and the Niagara peninsula where steps might be taken by Canadian carriers to introduce themselves in those areas if following this survey it were found a profitable and feasible thing to do. I do not know whether the minister has given consideration to this but it would seem to me that if public hearings were held in the case of the two transcontinental and trans-Canada domestic air lines the same thing might well be done in certain public regions following the economic survey.
There is another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the minister and I shall be careful not to repeat anything I said in a previous debate. The minister will remember that there was quite a debate in the house in connection with fifth freedom rights and the like. As I said, I am not going to repeat what was said at that time but the minister will remember that his reply was categorical, that the policy of the government was to avoid monopoly and to make sure that by means of competition in this particular field of domestic and commercial air carriers, the position of the government was to avoid monopoly and favour competition. I have in my hand now an editorial which appeared in Canadian Aviation which completely refutes the statement made by the minister. I do not want to embarrass him but to ask him to comment on one or two portions of this editorial. It is entitled, "A Memo to the Minister of Transport", and appears in the July, 1960 issue of the magazine. The pertinent paragraphs are as follows:
First off, Mr. Minister, operating air lines-be they big or small-isn't a simple business. The sort of equipment that you would want to see in Canadian skies costs a great deal of money. The right sort of people to fly and look after them demand-and get-good pay.
Then they go on and complain about the fact that the policy in the Department of Transport is one which at the moment in the specific field that I have mentioned is encouraging monopoly rather than competition, and then they go on to say:
Take for example a carrier who for years had operated between five and 10 fairly small planes out of a remote northern base. Each year he carried all the people that wanted to move around in that area. Comes time to buy better planes and he has to raise money. Once upon a time he could go to the banks and say: "Here is what I am carrying now and here is my estimate of the future."
Today, thanks to your policies Mr. Minister, the banks are not satisfied. They reply: "Ah yes, but what happens if a new carrier comes in and cuts that figure by a half or a third. What then?"
Until recently the air transport board-a body that won and held wide respect-could be counted upon to study the situation and decide whether or not the traffic would stand competition. Where

blunt economics said it would we got competition. Where they obviously warned against it, new licences were refused.
The minister himself, in reply to questions which I put on the order paper and which I am not going to repeat now, made it quite clear that since the establishment of the new policy a number of services had been affected and there were a substantial number of bankruptcies in this field and a number of licences had been cancelled. Here is an editorial in a Canadian civil aviation magazine of this country which takes issue with the minister, and I should appreciate his comments on these two points.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman. First of all, the hon. member for Laurier asked about the survey which was carried out for me by the air transport board. That survey has been completed and is in my hands. As the hon. member for Laurier appreciates, this is a private document and not for publication.
The first result of this survey is the regional hearings that have been announced recently for eastern Canada. These are to deal with several applications for new services. These hearings are open for any application to be heard in the areas concerned and any general representations that might be made. These hearings will be followed by similar hearings in western Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: Where in eastern Canada will they be held?


George Harris Hees: The first hearings have been announced for Ottawa. I see the chairman of the air transport board coming down here and I shall give the other places in a few moments.
In the meantime, I might answer the second question dealing with the editorial from which the hon. member for Laurier quoted. I think I can best answer that editorial in the following way. The editorial suggested that the list of bankruptcies and suspensions of licences since the policy of freer competition in light aircraft was introduced was an indication of its failure. The record which I have indicates that from July, 1958 to May, 1960 about 41 licences were cancelled but 161 new licences were issued in the charter field. Only one cancellation and three new licences were in the large aircraft field, the net result being that in the field where freer competition has been permitted there were 118 more licences than had previously existed and a comparable increase in the service available to the public.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not too clear about the first question in connection with the survey. Is this going to be in the nature of
79951-0-3944
Supply-Transport
hearings for additional services? Is it going to be a survey in the nature of applications to be made, or is it going to be a study of the various regions in this country where additional air services might or might not be required?


George Harris Hees: The study has already been made by the air transport board and the report made to me. It is in my hands, as I mentioned a moment ago. It is, of course, a private document. As a result of this survey which has been made for me, hearings are being held, first of all, in eastern Canada and later similar hearings will be held in western Canada. The hearings for eastern Canada have already been announced and will be held in Quebec city, Montreal, Ottawa and then, moving westward the next hearing will be in Winnipeg.


Lionel Chevrier: What is the purpose of the hearings?


George Harris Hees: These hearings are for the purpose of hearing applications for new licences. The air transport board will also be open to hear any other matters which might be brought before that board.


Lionel Chevrier: They are public hearings?


George Harris Hees: They are public hearings, of
course, Mr. Chairman.


Chesley William Carter: I should like to take a few minutes to express my concern about the effects which the policy of the present government is having upon Trans-Canada Air Lines and the private transport companies. The minister has always been a very strong supporter of competition, both when he was on this side of the house and since he has moved to the treasury benches. Competition can be, and very often is, a very good thing. However, like many other good things it can be overdone and it loses its virtue when it becomes excessive. We can have too much of a good thing. In the field of transportation, excessive competition can do more harm than good. Then again, unequal competition is detestable in every field. It is very unfair when the small man has to compete with a giant, when small companies have to compete with large corporations. Under those conditions the little fellow has very little chance to survive.
The policy of the present government contrasts sharply with that of the former administration, so I propose to put it on the record so that the public can make the comparison which my hon. friends seem to desire and judge for themselves. The policy of the Liberal government was outlined by the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King on April 2, 1943 in a ministerial statement which

Supp ly-Transport
can be found on page 1776 of Hansard of
that date. The then prime minister began his statement as follows:
I should like to make a statement of the policy of the government on civil air transport. First with respect to domestic aviation:
Then, he went on to outline nine points of the policy which he summarized on page 1778 under the heading "Conclusion".
The policy of the Canadian government on air transport may be summed up as follows:
(a)	the government sees no good reason for changing its policy that Trans-Canada Air Lines is the sole Canadian agency which may operate international air services.
(b)	within Canada, Trans-Canada Air Lines will continue to operate all transcontinental systems, and such other services of a mainline character as may from time to time be designated by the government. Competition between air services over the same route will not be permitted whether between a publicly owned service and a privately owned service or between two privately owned services. There will remain a large field for the development of air transport in which private Canadian companies may participate, and, while preventing duplication of services, the government will continue to encourage private companies to develop services as traffic possibilities may indicate.
In the following year the Right Hon. C. D. Howe, on March 17, referred to this statement made by the prime minister on April 2, 1943, which I have just read, and elaborated that policy in these words found at page 1573 of Hansard for that date:
This statement of policy, I regret to say, failed to bring about confirmation to government policy in the development of privately owned air services within Canada, nor did it end intervention of private interests in the international field. It is becoming obvious that ownership of airways by our two competing railway systems implies extension or railway competition into transport by air. regardless of the government's desire to avoid competition between air services. In the old days, competitive railway building developed pressure methods	for	obtaining	new	franchises.	Suchmethods must not have a place in the development of	our	airways.The government desires	the	rapid developmentof air transport services in order, among other reasons, to offer post-war employment to Royal Canadian	Air	Force personnel.	Canada's	northland was pioneered by small operators who were content to enlarge their operations only as warranted by the development of the area they served. The government believes that feeder line operations, and pioneer lines into our northland, can best be developed as small operations. Our returning airmen will not be satisfied, in entering this new field of employment, to serve only as salaried employees. In this new medium of transportation, there must be a place reserved for small business enterprise.
Accordingly, after full consideration, the government has decided that the railways shall not exercise any monopoly of air services. Steps will be taken to require our railways to divest themselves of ownership of air lines, to the end that, within a period of one year from the ending of the European war, transport by air will be entirely separate from surface transportation. In the meantime, no new air routes other than government operated routes will be allocated to airlines owned

by any railway or other operator of surface transportation. The term "surface transportation" Includes railways, shipping companies, and highway transport companies.
That policy was designed specifically to protect the small, independent operator. In order to obtain a correct picture, it is necessary to go back to the days of the early development of civil aviation in Canada. When the former Liberal government decided to develop civil aviation in Canada, they were anxious to avoid having the competition between the two railway systems extended into the field of air transportation. Therefore, when they decided to set up Trans-Canada Air Lines in 1937, they envisaged a partnership between private enterprise and public enterprise, with private enterprise owning the air lines and the government providing airports, terminals and communications.
Accordingly, then, the Canadian Pacific railway, Canadian National Railways and Canadian Airways Limited were invited to provide the capital and to share equally in the ownership of Trans-Canada Air Lines. This corporation was to have a nine-man board of directors on which each of the companies would have two representatives. By reason of its capital investment in airports and terminals, the government would have three directors. The C.P.R. and the Canadian Airways withdrew then because they objected to the government having any directors on the board. This action left the Canadian National Railways as the sole owner.
In order to protect the small bush operators and to prevent cutthroat competition there was passed in 1938 an amendment to the Railway Act to allocate routes to the companies that were then in the field and to prevent competition in those routes through newly formed companies. Shortly after that time world war II broke out and along with that came a sharp curtailment in the gold mining operations which created most of the traffic for the independent operators. This curtailment of their business forced them in time either to find new buyers or to close down their operations. At this stage the Canadian Pacific railway entered the field of air transportation and bought up all the stock of the independent operators so that by 1941 Canadian Pacific Air Lines had obtained a monopoly in the air transportation field except for Trans-Canada Air Lines. A full account of this is given in Hansard of March 17, 1944 at pages 1571-72.
Then came the construction of the Alaska highway and it was fortunate for the Canadian airlines that this development took place in the territory which C.P.A. served. It was fortunate also that the United States

had a strong military interest in this project. That interest was such that the C.P.A. were able to get new and modern equipment from United States sources at a time when all other companies found it impossible to get new equipment.
Recent press reports of the effects of government policy on independent operators and activities of Bristol Aeroplane Company of Canada in buying up Spartan Air Lines Limited and negotiating for the purchase of other air lines would indicate that history is about to repeat itself. I would therefore ask the minister to take another look at his policy and to see whether competition has not been going perhaps a little too far.


George Harris Hees: In answer to that question I would simply say that the hon. member has compared today's events and operations with those of 1943. I would remind him that that is 17 years ago. In 1943 the revenues of all airlines were somewhere between $20 million and $25 million a year. Today T.C.A. revenues alone are over $100 million and the total revenue of all airlines is $225 million, or an increase of ten times over that former period. A great many changes have developed in the air industry since that time. Our policy of modified competition is, we believe, more in keeping with today's air needs and is designed to supply better and more service to the travelling and shipping public. We believe that is the obligation of the government in a matter of this kind. We believe that our policy is the one that is most suited to today's needs.


Lionel Chevrier: While the minister has given what appears on the surface to be an answer to the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, there is one point which the minister seems to have forgotten altogether and it is this, and I say this with deference to him. Neither has he nor have his officers yet put on the record a statement of policy of his department with regard to aviation in the international field and with regard to aviation in the domestic field. I am sure that was the object of the hon. member in showing that in the years gone by there was a policy of the government. The minister has not done that. In answer to questions in the house-which is certainly not the way in which to do it- two questions which were initiated unquestionably, and I say this subject to correction, by members from his own side of the house, the minister has made answers which are tantamount to government policy. It seems to me that that is not the way in which to announce government policy.
Then the other thing is that a report was made at the request of the minister. I am trying to think of the name of it. I refer to
Supply-Transport
the Wheatcroft report, which is that of a British expert and an excellent report it is. Following that report no statement of policy was made by the minister either in the one field or the other.
He has said here tonight that there is some question of competition. But in a field as important as is that of air service surely there should be a clear-cut policy either in agreement with what was done by the former administration or in contradiction to it because of changed circumstances.
I agree at once with the minister that circumstances are not the same in the air field as they were 17 years ago. Tremendous changes have taken place. It therefore seems to me that of necessity there must be a statement of policy. That statement cannot be made overnight. It takes time and study. It seems to me that is a matter to which the minister must give consideration in conjunction with the officers of his department. He may do it between sessions. He may do it before the end of the session. However, I think there must be an explanation of why we are having the operations and the actions which are taking place in the international field as well as in the domestic field.


George Harris Hees: I spoke in Timmins in February, 1958 and I gave what I considered to be a reasoned and full statement of this government's policy with regard to air operations.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister allow me a question?


George Harris Hees: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: Does the minister not think that a matter of this kind should be announced in the house.


George Harris Hees: To be quite honest, I may say that things were happening quite fast at that time. In all truthfulness I may say I had intended to make this statement in the house. I think the date on which I made it was February 8, 1958. As the hon. member will recall, the house was dissolved quite suddenly and quite unexpectedly on February 1, I believe, exactly seven days previously. I had the statement all ready. Naturally I was prepared to give it in the house and of course I would have done so but events caught up with me and I had a statement but no house to which to give it. Therefore, knowing that the hon. member and the air industry would want a statement as soon as possible, I made it as quickly as I could. I chose an opportunity when I had been asked to speak at a banquet in Timmins and gave the air statement at that time.

Supply-Transport


Mr. Smilh (Lincoln):: I should like to speak rather briefly on the question of regional airports. For a good many years I have been associated with the development of a regional airport and I fully appreciate the problems confronting municipalities in areas of that kind in connection with the provision of air services. Basically, the duty of a municipality is to look after the people in matters of education, health, welfare and things of that nature. The provision of large sums of money in order to put in the facilities for a regional airport is something that is beyond the ability of the municipality. I realize that there are certain benefits that come to an airport where they can provide a scheduled air passenger service; but in a community in which there is a density of population and also an accumulation of industry there is definitely a need for a regional airport in order to provide the facilities for non-scheduled flights for both industrial and passenger service.
I cannot help but refer to the riding I represent. In that riding we have quite a considerable amount of industry and many of those industries have executive aircraft. We have the facilities to keep them but we do not have suitable runways, which means that some of them are kept at Buffalo, New York, some at Niagara Falls, New York, some at Malton and some at Mount Hope. This is a situation we would like to correct, but unfortunately are not in a position to extend the runways.
I might also say that in my riding we have at least one industry and rather than build a great concentration of manufacturing in our area, plants have been built in Winnipeg, Regina and also in Calgary. They have planes which are flying back and forth all the time and we certainly need a place to keep them at our regional airport.
Another problem we have is that we have several plants there connected with auto parts. One of those plants has built warehouses at practically all the large airports across Canada so that they can fly the parts in in a hurry so they will be there when required.
That also brings me to the point that we need more services in our locality. I do not like to take up time talking about my own riding but I am sure that the conditions which prevail in Lincoln county are much the same as in many other ridings. If you happen to be located on a route where you have a T.C.A. airport close by, the problem is not so great, but if you are in an area which is too close to a large airport or too far away, then you have the problem of providing service.
I am just bringing these matters to the attention of the minister and I hope he will give them serious consideration. I have been
[Mr. Hees.l
very much pleased in the past by some of the speeches the minister has made when he has referred to the great possibilities of packaged freight being picked up and delivered by airplane, and that is just along my thinking. I feel that we have to march with the times and there is no doubt that the airplane is a popular way to travel today and is becoming more and more so as time goes on. As I say, any municipality which has a concentration of industry and a density of population has a definite need for a regional airport, which is a matter beyond the ability of most municipalities to provide.


Mr. Tucker:: Mr. Chairman, on June 23 last I asked the minister the following question, as reported on page 5287 of Hansard:
Could the minister say what steps are being taken to avert tragedies similar to that which recently occurred on lake Williams, Nova Scotia, when a boy was drowned because a pilot, taking off from the lake, failed to notice the sailboat in which he was a passenger?
The minister replied as follows:
Under the air regulations certain regulatory procedures aimed at guarding against mishaps of this nature are prescribed. We have not yet received from our district officials the formal report with respect to the tragedy referred to by the hon. member.
This accident was brought to the attention of the Department of Transport at Moncton, and on June 28, at 7.40 p.m., a seaplane bearing the affix "KSF" proceeded immediately from Halifax flying club down the extreme western end of lake Williams at an excessive speed and an accident would have happened if a swimmer had been in the water there or a boat had been backing out from the jetty. When it is realized that in the last fatal accident the pilot did not kill his motor and the propellor was in motion the feeling of the residents may better be appreciated.
I should be grateful if the minister would see that an investigation is carried out with the least possible delay in view of the anxiety of the people in the lake Williams area of Nova Scotia.


Mr. Henderson:: I hate to be a dead horse all the time, but I have an airfield which needs a strip. The minister wrote me a nice letter and I had it published in the paper, and when I was out there last Saturday everybody came along and said "Why, you big boob, what is wrong there? Can't you get anything from that government?" So I want the minister to build this strip for me. Dawson Creek is the centre of the oil country.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I wonder if the minister would tell the house whether or not his department carried out an investigation into the causes of the death of three men in the Nahanni

valley recently when an aircraft was to pick up a party some time in March but did not make the pick-up? As a result three men starved to death and two were fortunately saved sometime in May.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I have not seen the report from our investigation branch but I assure the hon. member I will ask for it and look into the matter right away.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: A supplementary question.
When the minister has the report I wonder if he would consider some sort of regulation whereby air operators, particularly those working in northern Canada in isolated areas, who accept charters to take men to the bush and have pick-up dates to return these men from the bush, in cases of break-up or freeze-up are required to notify the local R.C.M.P. detachment so that someone in the area at least knows there are people in the bush and can pick them up?


George Harris Hees: That would be an air transport board regulation rather than a Department of Transport regulation, but I would be very glad to recommend this to the chairman of the air transport board.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have only a couple of questions and I trust the minister will answer when he replies to the various matters which have been brought to his attention under this first item of the air services division. Will he inform the committee who were the directors of Trans-Canada Air Lines on January 1 of this year and whether there has been any resignations and appointments since and, if so, who they are?


George Harris Hees: I have not the list here because
the hon. member knows that the estimates of Trans-Canada Air Lines came up earlier in the year. Therefore I do not have that information available. I can tell the hon. member, however, that there was one resignation and one new appointment, the resignation of Mr. Frank Ross of Vancouver and the appointment in his place of Mr. Hackett of Vancouver.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: One further question. Would the minister consider that it would be proper for members of parliament to criticize the work of a director of the T.C.A. in this committee on the proper item?


George Harris Hees: I would think that would be a matter which would more properly be brought up when the estimates of the T.C.A. are considered, earlier in the session, at the same time as the Canadian National Railways. I do not know of any item on these estimates which would justify such a discussion.
Supply-Transport


William Arnold Peters: I should like to know what disposition is to be made, or has been made, of some of the small, auxiliary air stations which were built all across the country, most of them in the depression days. Most of them are now too small for modern aircraft. In the area which I represent there are five or six of these airfields which are no longer kept up. The bush is no longer cut, and weeds have been allowed to grow. It is true there are range lights on some of them, but I imagine the lighting equipment is insufficient.
I have had some correspondence with one of my constituents in connection with one of these airfields. As a matter of fact, he wants to buy part of it. I have been given to understand that the federal authorities gave it back to the province of Ontario, but the province says that is not the case and that the land is still registered in the name of the federal government. After considerable correspondence I am unable to find out how this property has been disposed of.
I should like to know whether these airfields are being returned to the provincial governments so that use may be made of them. Perhaps it is the intention of the department to retain these auxiliary fields, in which case I think some work should be done on them so that they might serve their purpose adequately. We have been receiving many complaints that weeds have been left to grow uncontrolled and so on. If these places are no longer of any value I suppose we should begin to dispose of them.


George Harris Hees: Each individual case is dealt with separately, and if there is need of an airfield it is kept in operation. Should the municipality wish to take over any particular field we are glad to allow the municipality to do so, and we are prepared to assist the municipality to develop it. We have a definite policy in this regard, and we can co-operate on a cost-sharing basis up to a contribution of $100,000. As hon. members may know, if a scheduled airline indicates its desire to make a regular call at a particular field in a given locality the government will develop that airfield on its own. Each case is dealt with on its merits, and if the hon. member or any other hon. member has a particular airfield which he would like to bring to our attention we will give it close consideration and let him know what can be done with regard to that particular field. If airfields are not likely to be needed in the future we are very glad to turn them back to the municipality, or sell them, or make the best disposal of them that we can.

Supply-Transport


Osias.-J. Godin: In the riding of Nickel Belt we have an airstrip which needs a little attention. The minister may recall that we have had some correspondence concerning improvements which seemed to be required in order to permit civilians to use an airstrip which had been constructed by citizens or corporations in the vicinity of Gogama. Recently I had occasion to fly over that area, using a seaplane, in order to inspect the floods in Foleyet. The strip is visible from the air. Although the letter I received from the minister indicated that he was renewing an investigation into the possibility of assisting those interested in this airstrip to bring it into such a condition that it could be used by tourists from the United States, that letter is now nearly a year old. I realize that the minister may not be in a position to give an immediate and clear answer with regard to this question of providing assistance so that the airstrip might be adapted for a certain degree of commercial use. However, I feel that the investigation which he has promised should be carried out so that proper information could be furnished to the people of this great area of northern Ontario who would undoubtedly benefit if this service could be provided through an extension of the existing airstrip. At the present time the facilities are limited.


George Harris Hees: I shall be glad to look into that particular case.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Before this item carries I wonder if the minister could tell me if there are any regulations in his department restricting in any way the participation of airline pilots in activites in connection with reserve squadrons of the R.C.A.F.


George Harris Hees: Not that I am aware.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say a few words about this question of policy which was opened by the hon. member for Laurier and spoken to by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. It seems to me in so far as one can discern the policy of the government from the rather excited election speech that the minister made in Timmins on February 8, 1958, which he did not think it worth while in the two years since to repeat in the house, and from one or two answers he has given to questions, that the policy which was followed from 1944 onward by the previous administration has been abandoned for something which we have to try to formulate for ourselves because the government, which I suspect does not really know what it is doing, is unable to explain.
In so far as one can discern, it is a precise contradiction of what the Minister of Justice is trying to do in another field. In the retail

field we have this government trying to eliminate competition. At the same time we have the Minister of Transport professing to increase competition. In itself that may not necessarily be something to condemn, because there are some fields in which it is perfectly clear that competition is neither desirable nor, in fact, in any real sense, possible. We have never had a competitive post office in this country and I do not think anybody would ever argue for one. On the other hand I hope the efforts of the Minister of Justice will never get to the point where the retail outlets are limited and prices are dictated by a few manufacturers.


An hon. Member:: Misinterpretation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems to me that is what this government is trying surreptitiously to do in another field.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Edwin William Brunsden: On a point of order, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is seeking to bring into this debate an item which is at present before the banking and commerce committee, and I think that is improper in these circumstances.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, I am sure the committee will be of the view that it is not out of order in discussing a matter under	air services	to make	acomparison	with another	matter	eventhough that	other matter	is under	discussion in	another place,	provided	the
member does not deal in toto with the matter which is under discussion by the committee. It seems to me that has been the practice in this house from time to time. All that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was doing-


Mr. Nesbitt:: We know what he was doing.


Lionel Chevrier: We certainly do not know what you are doing most of the time.


Mr. Robichaud:: Sleeping.


Lionel Chevrier: All that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was doing was comparing the position in this field with that in another field.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not suppose that you wish to rule on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, but if you do I shall be glad to take my seat. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the bill of rights has not passed yet, but I suppose we still have freedom to make analogies in this committee-


Mr. Drysdale:: If they are accurate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -or even to point out the most extraordinary contrasts. That is all I was trying to do. From the expression on the

face of the Minister of Transport I suspect that he wishes to restrain the freedom of speech of some of his friends. I can understand his feeling.
I want to get back to what is, after all, a very serious matter. I am not talking about the transcontinental air service or the international service but about the local services, the kind, in so far as I have been able to discern from what has happened, that have been decontrolled by the government where-[DOT] I forget what adjective the minister used but he described it as some kind of competition- competition now prevails. This is a field which like the telephone field, the taxi field and many other fields where obviously there is in a sparsely populated country like this only a relatively limited amount of business. Buying air services is not like buying potatoes. The average person can judge a potato just as well as the Minister of Transport or the air transport board can but the average person is handicapped in judging the safety and reliability of an air service.
It is for that reason, and for that reason alone that this parliament years ago felt it necessary to set up the board of railway commissioners to regulate railways in this country. It was for the same reason that the government in 1944 felt it necessary to set up the air transport board which I believe has served this country well ever since and I think would continue to serve it well if it were allowed to do so but it has not been allowed to do so in the last couple of years.
The result has been that far from increasing competition in certain sections of the country what this is doing is enabling one or two carriers to gobble up their competitors or to put them out of business. If the present trend continues we are going to have happen exactly what was happening in western Canada just before the war and in the early years of the war. We are going to have only one or two carriers left in this whole field and they are going to be centralized in one or two places in central Canada and possibly in Vancouver, and we are not going to have any local services left. I do not believe that will be more economical for the people of Canada and certainly it will not give us better service.
Those of us who have some experience of the remoter and more sparsely settled parts of Canada know what a tremendous advantage it is to have a local airline where the pilots, the management and everybody concerned know the local conditions and where you can get the kind of service you cannot possibly get when the management is centralized thousands of miles away. It seems to me that what the government has done is a very retrograde step indeed. It is resulting
Supply-Transport
in driving a number of people out of business and in consolidating other businesses in a way that is going to prove to be wholly detrimental to the Canadian air industry. In fact it has already proven to be detrimental.
From the history of what has happened in this field in the last two years one cannot escape this suspicion. Perhaps even more one cannot escape the suspicion that this decontrolled policy will not be of long range advantage to the people of this country. Perhaps the reason it has never been enunciated in this chamber is that it is not a policy at all but merely an attempt to favour one or two particular companies such as Autair and Georgian Bay about whom my friend the hon. member for Laurier has told us a good deal already.
When the minister replies I should like him to tell us this. The minister is such a champion of the little people I should like to have him tell us what little people are the shareholders of Georgian Bay. I think it might be quite illuminating to the committee if we could have an explanation. What is clearly happening is that decontrol is taking place so that one or two wealthy companies can gobble up the rest. If this continues we will cease to have the network of local services which has served this country so well, advanced transportation in the remote areas so much and been such a benefit to the people over the last 15 years.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member laid quite a stress on what he claimed was the gobbling up of the air services so that there would be only one or two air services left in the country, I believe he said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said that would be the end result.


George Harris Hees: That is what I said you said. Perhaps the hon. member was not present in the early part of the discussion when in answer to a question asked, I believe by the hon. member for Laurier, I said that the net increase-and again I stress the net increase -of licences issued during the past 22 months was 118 new licences.


John Whitney Pickersgill: To commercial operators?


George Harris Hees: Yes. These provide new services and much more adequate services to the travelling and shipping public. This, Mr. Chairman, I claim is no diminution of services in Canada. It is a tremendous increase in services to the travelling and shipping public, something which never could have occurred under the policy of the government of which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was a member.

Supply-Transport
The hon. member also said that there would be some detrimental effect on safety standards as a result of this new policy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say that at all.


George Harris Hees: Then I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I understood that is what the hon. member inferred.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I did not.


George Harris Hees: I wish to assure the hon. member that there is no diminution in safety standards. Our safety standards are for all aircraft flying.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope they are.


Lionel Chevrier: I said that with reference to Autair and the minister has never replied to that statement.


George Harris Hees: At the request of the hon. member for Laurier I looked up the accident record for Autair and as I indicated to him privately the accident record of Autair is neither at the top nor at the bottom of the scale but just about the middle-


Lionel Chevrier: It is pretty bad.


George Harris Hees: -of the accident record of all companies operating in Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: It is pretty bad.


George Harris Hees: If the hon. member for Laurier says that the accident record for Autair is pretty bad then he obviously thinks that the average performance of all aircraft companies in Canada is pretty bad, or certainly the average company in Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: I said that the operations of Autair were pretty bad.


George Harris Hees: I said that the operations of Autair were just about average so therefore the hon. member is saying that the operations of the average aircraft carrier in Canada are pretty bad.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or else the minister's
arithmetic is pretty bad.


George Harris Hees: No, the minister's arithmetic is not bad in this particular case.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate drew attention to what he claimed was a difference of opinion between myself and the Minister of Justice in legislation which the minister is introducing. I would say there is no substance in that. This government believes in reasonable, sensible competition and I believe that all hon. members would agree that that is a good objective. That is what we are after in all fields of endeavour and that,
I think, would find commendation among the general public.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to put a specific question to the minister. I am afraid

I do not know this terminology very well. Not counting C.P.A. or T.C.A. would the minister say how many companies there were engaged in operations in 1957 and how many aircraft they had, and how many companies there are in operation today and how many aircraft they have in the commercial field?


Edwin William Brunsden: Order paper.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, there is certainly an increase but the hon. member would not expect me to have those particular figures at my fingertips. I assure him I will get them as soon as possible and see that he receives them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is quite wrong when he says that I would not expect him to have them. I would not come into committee to put through my estimates without having such information. When the previous government was in office and my hon. friend from Laurier was where the minister is he did have such information and he supplied a lot of iti. as I recall very well.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat surprised by the statement which the minister made. I have made certain charges in the house with reference to Autair and I have no recollection of the minister ever replying to them save and except what he said tonight. The question that comes to my mind now is, what is the present position of Autair? I asked the minister on the orders of the day repeatedly whether they had sold their interests; whether they have been taken over by Bristol Air Services and the only reply I got from the minister was, "Well, oh, the hon. member for Laurier knows the answer to that question", and he sat down. The minister has the habit of answering questions in that way and he gets away with it on the orders of the day but he cannot do that nearly as easily on his estimates. The minister should tell us what is the position of that air company which had seven accidents in 1959 and six in 1960, and which did not reply to the air transport board in so far as proving financial responsibility is concerned, which refused peremptorily to reply to a letter from the air transport board asking it to file financial responsibility with the board, which disregarded the instructions of the board and for that reason the board turned down its application.
Does the minister still think that this is the kind of air service or aircraft company that should be operating in this country and getting very large contracts from the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys? Not only was its insurance cancelled but it had difficulty getting insurance from other companies. My

information is that the air transport board is not satisfied to this day with the financial responsibility of that company.
Will the minister tell the committee what is the position of the company; whether it has been sold; whether it is still in operation; whether it is still in good standing? Surely, we ought to be able to know what is happening in that field. Notwithstanding the many statements I have made in this house, this is the only time, unless my memory fails me, that the minister has made any attempt to reply to these charges.


George Harris Hees: Perhaps the hon. member does not recall but I recall it very well. We walked out of the chamber together and between that door and the elevator we discussed this matter. As I remember it, I told him what the particular safety standards required of Autair had been, and he appeared quite interested at the time. Perhaps he was busy and no doubt he has forgotten about it. I assure him the conversation did take place. I am sure he did not think that I had told him because otherwise I would have written him a letter. I think he will agree that when he asks questions I do give him an answer.


Lionel Chevrier: May I interrupt the minister to say that he is quite right; he did speak to me privately as we went out of the chamber but the point is that these charges have been put on the record. Although the minister did give me an explanation which, in my opinion, was not satisfactory, I think the explanation, if there is one, should be put on the record. The explanation which the minister has given tonight, in my opinion, is not satisfactory. I think he should reply to the questions I have asked him.


George Harris Hees: The hon. member feels that the answer I have given him is not satisfactory; I feel it is. An investigation was made into the safety record of Autair, as I have told him tonight, and we were satisfied with the report we got regarding the safety standards of Autair. They were not at the top of the list, nor were they at the bottom of the list; they were somewhere around average.
With regard to the present position of Autair, an application has been made to buy out Autair by another aircraft company and that application is before the board at the present time for approval.


Lionel Chevrier: I understand that that application has been before the board now for at least two months. Can the minister say why it is not being disposed of?


George Harris Hees: My information is it is only recently that the application has been received by the board.
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: I asked the minister that question on the orders of the day at least one month ago, if not longer.


George Harris Hees: I am advised that the offer was made about two months ago, but I am also advised that it was not submitted to the board for approval until recently.


Lionel Chevrier: After the air transport board heard the application of Autair to be relieved of certain restrictions it declined the application. Can the minister tell the committee the reasons why the application was declined by the air transport board?


George Harris Hees: This happened some time ago when the board was bound by the regulations set up for it by the previous government. On looking into cases of this kind I came to the conclusion that these restrictions were too rigid and that the aircraft industry generally and the travelling and shipping public would benefit if those restrictions were made less rigid and that a general easing up of this policy should take place, and that was done. I believe that results have been good.
As I have said, during the 22 months since that time a net increase of 118 new commercial licences have been issued, and this is supplying greatly improved and increased service to the shipping and travelling public. I think that is the kind of thing that the government should do for the taxpayers of the country which it serves.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister has twice used the figure of 118 additional licences. Of course, that by itself means absolutely nothing. What would mean something is to know how many aircraft it represents and what increase there has been in the number of aircraft, the classes of aircraft and so on. Just to give a figure like that pulled out of the air means nothing whatsoever. Because the minister tossed that figure out as a kind of airy reply to a serious question that I put, I asked him how many companies were operating in 1957 and how many there are today; how many aircraft did they have and what is their carrying capacity, and these other things, so that a valid comparison could be made.
I have a view as to what is happening as a result of the minister's policy, but I do not pretend to be an expert in this field; I am merely a representative of some of the taxpayers seeking information.


George Harris Hees: I think the hon. member will readily appreciate the fact that this discussion should properly take place on item 451, which deals with matters that come under the air transport board, and when the chairman of the air transport board is at the table I shall be able to give him those figures.

Supply-Transport
Neither of the gentlemen at this table has them in his head and certainly I have not either.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be quite happy to defer the discussion until that time. Would the minister prefer to wait until then to answer the question I put to him about Georgian Bay?


George Harris Hees: Yes, I shall be very glad to give the hon. member the information.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to ask the minister how many planes there are in the Department of Transport. I understood some time ago that since the minister took over there has been one new Viscount purchased. Then later on I think there was an additional one purchased, unless I am mistaken. Now I am informed that the fleet has been augmented by the purchase of a 550-mile an hour Lockheed Jetstar plane to carry eight passengers and a crew of two and that delivery of the new aircraft is scheduled for next year. Is that correct?


George Harris Hees: Yes, that is correct.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister tell the house what the cost of the new plane will be, and how many planes there are in the Department of Transport?


George Harris Hees: The cost of the new plane will be approximately $1 million. We have 15 helicopters and 35 aircraft, most of which are in regional stations.


Lionel Chevrier: How many are in Ottawa?


George Harris Hees: We have that information here. There are two Viscounts; four DC-3's; four Beechcraft; one PA-23; one Beaver and 11 helicopters. The Beechcraft and the DC-3's are aircraft reserved for use in the various districts.


Lionel Chevrier: The only point I desire to make in connection with that is that on an earlier occasion when we were discussing vote 419 a great deal was made of the fact that one of the railway cars had been taken off and a substantial saving of money had been obtained-


George Harris Hees: I do not believe I said a substantial saving of money had been obtained. I just mentioned that we had taken off one car and were considering taking off another car.


Lionel Chevrier: I am saying that a substantial saving of money must, of necessity, follow the cancellation of the operation of a railway car. However, what that amounts to is infinitesimal in comparison to the cost of the additional Viscount that has been purchased, and still more infinitesimal in comparison

with the new Lockheed Jetstar plane to carry eight passengers and a crew of two.
The question, of course, that arises is that taxpayers have a reason to wonder why, with the services of Canadian Pacific Air Lines and Trans-Canada Air Lines available, the Department of Transport finds it necessary to provide additional air transport at considerable public expense. There are today facilities in Canada, both through Trans-Canada Air Lines and Canadian Pacific Air Lines, to handle any amount of government air travel that may be required and duplication of the services of regular carriers by a department of government sometimes lacks sense.
I would not have raised the question had there not been such stress laid upon the fact that one of the railway cars was being cancelled. As opposed to that here is not only tremendous capital sums of money being spent but the operational costs of an aircraft in comparison to those of a railway car, are great. I know, and I do not in the slightest degree complain, about the necessity of a minister of transport being able to move around fast in this country. No one, certainly not myself, will ever raise that question. But surely one Viscount, which is a fast plane, with several additional planes, a Beechcraft, a Lodestar and a DC-4, I believe-


George Harris Hees: No, a DC-3.


Lionel Chevrier: A DC-3, not a DC-4; the minister corrects me. There are plenty of aircraft to allow the minister to fulfil his responsibilities, which are important, all of us know, in the light of modem transport problems. I bring this to the attention of the commitee, and compare it with the saving accomplished by the reduction of one railway car.


George Harris Hees: The DC-3's and Beechcraft are used almost entirely for calibration purposes. The additional Viscounts which were added to the Viscount which the government of which he was a member previously purchased were purchased for departmental use, and perhaps the committee would be interested in hearing something about this matter.
The department in addition to its fleet of helicopters for marine use and conventional reciprocal engine aircraft, ranging from single-engine Beavers to twin-engine DC-3's, operates two turbine-propeller Viscount aircraft and has recently placed an order for a Lockheed Jetstar, a small ten-passenger pure jet type civil aircraft.
The reasons for acquiring turbine-powered aircraft were explained by the parliamentary assistant to my predecessor in office on April 6, 1955, in a statement he made to this house. The highlight of this statement, to my mind,

was his emphasis on the fact that the Department of Transport is responsible for setting and enforcing standards for flying in Canada, whether in the field of personnel licences, route operating certificates, air traffic control or other matters. In order to set adequate standards and to maintain a continual check on these, departmental personnel must be fully competent and up to date, and it is impossible to maintain competence based only upon the use of the older type piston engine aircraft. The flight experience that we are gaining from the turbine engine aircraft, which we actually own and operate ourselves, is worth far more to the department and to the standards of aviation safety as a whole than the price we have paid for this aircraft.
To give an example, quite apart from better experience and better training of personnel, in future the flight checks on ground aids to navigation, such as radio guiding devices, must be performed at a much higher altitude than hitherto, and this work cannot be done by the older type piston engine aircraft.
While it is the case that upon occasion this plane may be used to provide special transportation for ministers of the crown or foreign heads of state in a fashion that is entirely appropriate to the twentieth century, the primary requirement of my department is in accordance with the reasons that I have given in this statement. I might add that wherever commercial air lines are available, government personnel travel by these commercial air lines.


Mr. Badanai:: I should like to ask the minister if his department is giving some consideration to the improvement of the facilities at the airport at the lakehead, Fort William airport. I have received complaints from a number of people concerning the inadequacy of the departmental facilities at this airport. I asked our airport manager if he had any instructions to enlarge the departmental facilities at the airport and he replied he had no such instructions and he was not authorized to enlarge the accommodations because such instructions had to come from Ottawa.
I merely wish to point out to the minister that the need is apparent to anyone who visits the airport at Fort William. I should like also to ask the minister if the department contemplates the extension of the facilities at the airport, such as the terminal building. It is only seven years old, but it is already too small to handle the traffic which is increasing at a great rate, just as it is at most airports in Canada. Will the minister give a report on that?
Supply-Transport


George Harris Hees: As to the lakehead airport, may I say that we have in the planning stage an expansion of the lakehead air terminal.


Hubert Badanai: Following up the answer given by the minister, may I ask what is the expansion? What would it mean? What is the contemplated expansion? Will it be an administration building?


George Harris Hees: It includes an administration building and facilities for departmental personnel.


Hubert Badanai: Is that for the near future? Is it for the immediate future?


George Harris Hees: Yes. Plans are not ready at the present time but it is authorized for a start later in this fiscal year and we hope to be able to make that start.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I just want to reinforce the interest of the hon. member for Fort William in this particular matter and to mention particularly that regional chambers of commerce and labour councils have been interested in it. I did not hear the hon. member for Fort William say it specifically, but it is a means of providing winter employment. I just remind the minister, in case he does not know, that we have one of the highest unemployment situations in Canada. If plans could be pushed to have airport construction going next winter it would perhaps be a small but important measure in helping to relieve the situation and I hope he will keep that matter in mind.


George Harris Hees: We will do everything possible to get this program going so that it may provide winter employment. I am well aware of the situation at the lakehead with regard to employment which the hon. member has just mentioned.


Mr. More:: I just want to say a few words here. In Regina, because of the foresight of the present administration, expansion plans were adopted and they have been going ahead very well. The question raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur with regard to a building seven years old being too small rather indicates the lack of foresight of the previous administration. In Regina the question raised by the hon. member for Fort William was taken into consideration. Our expansion program was started. It went on through the winter and provided jobs for winter employment. We hope it will be finished soon and that there will be an opening of these facilities later this year. On behalf of my constituency may I say that we appreciate the attention and foresight of the department and the minister and we look forward to having our new facilities very shortly.
6252	HOUSE OF
Supply-Transport


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the vote carries, will the minister give us the latest target date for the completion of the Winnipeg airport?


George Harris Hees: It has not changed. Once we set a target date we stick to it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister say what it is so that it will be on the record?


George Harris Hees: Yes; I said previously, and I say it again, that we will have it ready by 1964 at the latest and we hope to have it ready considerably before that time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about Dorval?


George Harris Hees: I am very glad to advise the hon. member that it is ahead of schedule.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Which schedule?


George Harris Hees: The only schedule; the schedule that will complete it this year.


Frank Howard: The schedules and deadlines the minister is talking about must be something like the schedules of many of the unscheduled air lines out on the coast of British Columbia-they are subject to change without notice. I want to say that we have not been so fortunate in Prince Rupert as has the hon. member for Regina. I wonder whether the minister could perhaps outline to the committee, even though he has done this by correspondence with myself, for the benefit of city council and interested parties in Prince Rupert, just what is taking place with respect to the airport at Prince Rupert. What are the schedules or deadlines for completion of the various projects there and when will the airport be fully completed?


George Harris Hees: We are now proceeding with plans for that air terminal. We will get them going just as soon as we can. We hope to get them going later in this fiscal year.


Frank Howard: Will the minister indicate what the deadline or schedule for completion is?


George Harris Hees: It will take, we expect, about a year after the start is made.


Frank Howard: There is no definite deadline or schedule as there is in the case of Dorval and Winnipeg?


George Harris Hees: No. We do not make any deadline until we are sure of it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister say whether architectural plans for the Winnipeg air terminal are completed yet?


George Harris Hees: Yes. The first three contracts have been let for that air terminal. We expect to call tenders for the final contract in August or September.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That was not a direct answer to my question but from it may I draw the inference that all of the architectural plans are complete in every detail?


George Harris Hees: They will be complete by the time we call the final tender.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Then the architectural plans the minister said were completed last year were just some pencil sketches on a piece of paper; is that correct?


George Harris Hees: No. Those were not plans for the finishing. They were layout plans.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Those were for the foundation?


George Harris Hees: No. They were layout plans.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder whether the minister could say what the schedule is for the new Toronto air terminal and when he expects it to be completed?


George Harris Hees: Roughly, the same as for the Winnipeg air terminal. We will finish it by 1964, we expect, and sooner if possible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did I understand the minister to say that he was calling at least three different contracts for the terminal in Winnipeg?


George Harris Hees: Yes. There are separate contracts for the foundation work, the steel work and general finishing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the minister consulted with the senior builder of the government, the crown prince from Rosedale, who told us in the public accounts committee a couple of years ago that the greatest mistake a government could make was to let several contracts for the same building, that the plans should all be completed first before any contract was called and a firm estimate should be obtained in advance as to what it would cost? Will the minister consult with the hon. member for Rosedale and ascertain whether the government can reach a concerted policy in this matter?


George Harris Hees: As the hon. member will be interested to hear, the building of an air terminal building is quite different from the building of an ordinary public works building. There are a great many technical features, as the hon. member for Laurier well knows, that must be incorporated in an air terminal building and the construction program is one that has different requirements from those of a straight public works building. In calling for the tenders for which we are calling, we believe this is the best and the most efficient way of getting the job done in the quickest and most efficient manner.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is too complicated for the Minister of Public Works.


Lionel Chevrier: I know the minister will be pleased to hear me say that I agree with what he has just said in connection with airport terminal buildings. That was the position so far as Dorval was concerned; it was the position so far as Uplands was concerned and it was the position in so far as many other airports were concerned. But the point my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was making was that the hon. member for Rosedale, now the Minister of Public Works, pooh-poohed all of that, and said there was no substance to it, when we made this statement in the committee on public accounts.


David James Walker: We all enjoyed it.


Lionel Chevrier: He made it quite clear that any of us who maintained that was the position which should be taken should have his head examined. He maintained that the construction industry made it quite clear that the planning should be completed before the terminal building should be initiated.
Then there is another thing which I should like to bring to the attention of the minister and which was often brought to my attention by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he sat on this side of the house. He felt that it was silly to have two construction departments, one in the Department of Public Works and another in the Department of Transport. He said that was duplication and that it was overlapping. "We must do away with that; it will cut costs," he said. I would get up and make the best possible defence I could under the circumstance, but no, the Secretary of State for External Affairs would insist. Therefore I would like either the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Public Works when his estimates are before the house to give us some indication whether or not there is any tendency in either of these two departments to do away with that duplication so that there will only be one construction branch.
But I did not rise with that in mind. I rose with something else in mind and it was the statement which just knocked me off balance which the minister made in connection with Dorval airport. He announced this and said "Once we set a target we stick to it". He set a target in connection with the Dorval airport several times but he never stuck to it. That happened on at least three occasions.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They are stuck with it.


Lionel Chevrier: That looks very much to be the case. Does the minister remember that
Supply-Transport
on August 26, 1957 there emanated from his office a press release, part of which reads as follows.


An hon. Member:: Read it all.


Lionel Chevrier: No; it would take too long and I would like to assist the committee in passing these estimates to the extent I can. It reads in this way:
Tenders for the general contract for the interior of the building have been invited and these will close early in October, a transport department official stated. The contract will likely be awarded late in October.
That was 1957. Then it goes on further to say:
It is estimated that the building will near completion late in 1958 but it will take some months after that before installation of the complex operational equipment can be finished. Tentative opening date for the terminal is spring 1959.
And the cost at that time was estimated at $12 million. Then the minister on Saturday, September 7, 1957, speaking before the Canadian international air show dinner in Toronto made the following statement:
In two more years the demand for greatly increased airport facilities will be upon us. In these two years we must complete the construction of the six terminals now underway, namely Ottawa, Montreal, Gander, St. John's, Windsor and Quebec city, and start construction on six to eight new terminals.
That would mean that the construction of the Dorval airport should be terminated by
1959.
Then finally-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not finally.


Lionel Chevrier: No, perhaps not finally, but on November 19, 1959, in accordance with a statement appearing in the Montreal Gazette, it is stated that:
Transport minister Hees led a troupe of M.P.s and departmental officials to the partially completed terminal at Montreal airport yesterday and said the new building would be ready next year- "as I always claimed it would be."
So there you have three different statements in connection with Dorval; one in 1957, one in 1959 and one in 1960.


Edwin William Brunsden: You will still have a good airport.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. The airport which I have seen will be a credit, I am sure, to Canada, and I am happy to take this occasion to say that it will be one of the finest airports in our country. I have seen it on at least two occasions. The minister has not liked the fact that although I was invited I did not join the troupe of M.P.s on the occasion in question. I did not join them for a very obvious reason, because had I joined them and I had

Supply-Transport
been asked for my opinion in connection with the progress of the work, I would have criticized it bitterly. Because at the time I rose in the house, and I rose on several occasions, there was no doubt that the progress of the construction of that airport had bogged down tremendously.
I am happy to see that that position has changed substantially, and if that is so I am positive that it is due in some measure to the constructive criticism that came from this side of the house. I am also happy to be able to say that it is going to be a tremendous advancement for Montreal, but I do hope that the minister will not again say "When we make statements about target dates we stick to them", because in this case that did not happen.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I certainly made that statement in the form of a press release on September 7, 1957, and as the hon. member realizes that is about two months after we took over. At that time I had not realized really how much this airport had bogged down under the previous administration. It really took several months before I realized what a catastrophic state the whole thing was in. After that we were able to make a proper forecast, and that forecast I have stuck to. I certainly did make the statement in September 1957, but I have no recollection of making any statement in 1959, as the hon. member said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In 1958, at the dinner.


Lionel Chevrier: May I recall the occasion.


George Harris Hees: In 1959 I do not -remember when I took the tour around the airport with members of parliament.


Lionel Chevrier: The dinner which the Minister of Transport addressed was the Canadian international air show dinner at Toronto in 1957.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, when I said that in 1957 I still had not had nearly enough time to find out what an unholy mess the previous administration had got this airport into. Once I did we revised our thinking and set a sensible schedule and we have stuck to it ever since.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister says that he discovered that things bogged down during the previous administration, but did it take him three years in which to discover that? Because after all when the criticism was directed toward him and toward his department this year and last year the present government had been in office two to three years respectively and nothing had been done.

The criticism which was levelled at the Department of Transport was in 1959. That is less than a year ago and the Montreal Gazette quoted the minister as saying the following.


George Harris Hees: In quotes?


Lionel Chevrier: In quotes. Let me put it on
Hansard again:
Transport minister Hees led a troupe of M.P.s and department officials to the partially completed terminal at Montreal airport yesterday and said the new building would be ready next year-"as I always claimed it would be."
It is now 1960 and that is the minister's statement. I am not making this up; it is a direct quotation from the minister and I can send it over to him. So that if the position was as the minister claimed it was, it took him three years to discover it and to do something about it, and he did not get out of the bog until the criticism came from this side of the house.
I did not say that was the only reason. I know that another reason was due to the officers of his department who, faced with a critical situation not only at Montreal but at Uplands and Winnipeg and other airports, decided to bend every effort toward progress in construction of the airport. But there is no doubt that there was a tremendous bogging down so far as Montreal was concerned judging from the report the minister made, because here in the Gazette appears the statement:
Those who accompanied the official party-the minister, the deputy minister, the chief architect, the chief engineer-and the M.P.s on the tour were struck by the few workmen visible on any of the floors.
I could go on and read how disappointed the group was with the slow progress made at the airport. At that time the minister announced that the cost of the facilities had now reached $30 million, although as late as the previous year-that was 1958-the minister had said in the House of Commons that the cost would be $15 million.


George Harris Hees: As I said earlier, it took a few months to realize that this airport could not be completed until the end of 1960. That was obvious when I took the members on the tour of the airport in 1959. There is no statement that I made at that time, of which I am aware, which indicated anything but that the airport would be finished by the end of 1960. I have never yet claimed that I have been misquoted. I simply say that I have no recollection of ever saying it would be finished earlier, because it was never in my mind at any time that the airport could be completed before the end of 1960. There seems to have been some misunderstanding.


Mr. Chambers:: Perhaps the minister could be excused for thinking it had already been

completed, because on November 7, 1954 the previous minister, Mr. Marler, announced that it would be completed early in 1957, and I know that the hon. member for Laurier had previously announced that it would be built- I have not got my file with me at the moment but the hon. member could perhaps tell us the prediction he made at that time. When the present minister came to office he might well have thought the project was completed, since Liberal ministers always kept their promises.


Lionel Chevrier: Let me tell the hon. member now that when I made an announcement there was no statement as far as I can recollect, and I have to speak from memory now, in so far as a completion date was concerned. I think that goes for Mr. Marler, too, but again I may be mistaken. However, there were three definite statements here by the present minister as to the date of completion and still we are waiting in Montreal for the final opening which, I hope, will come in 1960.


Mr. Nixon:: Is the minister now in a position to say if tenders have actually been called for the terminal building at Sault Ste Marie? I am concerned because the appropriation for terminal buildings may be used up before tenders are called for the Soo.


George Harris Hees: They have not been called yet, but I can assure the hon. member for Algoma West that his airport will not be forgotten. We shall be calling for tenders later this year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister one question pursuant to the starred questions which were asked today. I should like to know if the minister could say when it is expected that work will start on this new runway at Vancouver, and when it will be completed.


George Harris Hees: I believe work has actually started. If it has not, it will be started very soon and we expect completion next year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister probably does not recall the number of work days that he gave today.


George Harris Hees: The number I quoted today was
200.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I wonder if the minister could tell me whether or not there is an amount entered this year to build a terminal and administration building for Yellowknife and replace that two by four chickencoop we are using their now.


George Harris Hees: It is not in the estimates this year, but I hope to get it into the estimates next year.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: That is not what you people were telling the voters there in the campaigns of 1957 and 1958.
Supply-Transport


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the minister could give the committee the date on which the terminal at Stephenville was opened.


George Harris Hees: I think the hon. member asked that question earlier. I believe he indulges in the same practice as the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King who never asked a question unless he knew the answer first. I think the hon. member mentioned this date before. It was just before this government took over, and it was opened, as I think the hon. member also drew to the attention of the house, by Mr. St. Laurent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was opened by Mr. St.
Laurent. I just wanted to get this firmly on record because the minister, in one of those fits of exuberance earlier in the session, claimed this airport as one which had been built by the present administration, just as it is the practice of hon. gentlemen opposite to claim the credit for everything which was done and paid for out of Mr. Harris' last budget, as being done by them.


George Harris Hees: No, we just speeded it up and brought it to a satisfactory conclusion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly not Stephenville.


William Moore Benidickson: I thought the minister was making a joke, although he was not smiling, when he said that when the government gave an assurance they always stuck to it. I should like to direct his attention to the situation at Winnipeg airport. On August 30, 1958, as reported in Hansard on page 4369, the minister, in reply to a question I asked him about Winnipeg airfield plans, said:
We have worked our way through four different sets of plans to date, and we hope that we are working now on the final set of plans.
That was in 1958 in a discussion of the estimates at the stage we have reached now. In the following year the minister told us with respect to Winnipeg airfield, as reported in Hansard of June 12, on page 4666 that the vote contained $3 million for the Winnipeg air terminal. We know, of course, that practically no progress was made in spending that money in the fiscal year 1959-60.
Now the minister refers to another type of target, a target of final completion which he suggests will be in 1964. I do not need to tell the hon. gentleman that in the city of Winnipeg the administration has a newspaper which is normally very friendly to the Conservative government, but it does not think very much of the minister's target dates in so far as the airport at Winnipeg is concerned, because on June 4 of this year

Supply-Transport
an editorial which appeared in this friendly paper in Winnipeg commented as follows:
George Hees must think he is a medieval cathedral builder and that it does not matter whether the job is finished this century or next.
If Prime Minister Diefenbaker cannot persuade Mr. Hees and his department to give Winnipeg a modern airport building within two years he should fire the lot of them.
That, of course, is the comment of a friendly newspaper, and I suggest that the target date of 1964 is not one that is pleasing to the people of Winnipeg.


George Harris Hees: If the hon. member would read a little further back in those editorials he will And that the thing which got the people of Winnipeg really annoyed about this whole matter was that the former Liberal government began promising this airport in about 1944 and had promised it every year since then, so that by the time 1959 came along, after ten years of frustration, one can well understand their feeling of anxiety coupled with hope that at last a government had come into office which really would build them this fine terminal building. Of course they have found that this is the case, and now everybody is happy in Winnipeg.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telecommunications branch-
Radio aids to air and marine navigation-
435. Administration, operation and maintenance, $17,617,753.
Lionel Chevrier: There is a great deal of discussion going on at I.C.A.O. in Montreal in connection with the various radio equipment for aircraft. I do not remember the technical terms that are used, but I am sure the minister has them or, if not, his officials will have them. Can the hon. gentleman say what the position is and where the matter stands at the moment?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have now had a chance to review the documentation relating to adoption by the council of I.C.A.O. of DME as a world-wide standard, and can add nothing to my previous statement of April 11 except that this does not, in any way, affect the continued implementation of the VOR program in Canada. In fact, recent action taken by the council of I.C.A.O. ensures the continued use of this type of facility until at least 1975. There are already 20 of these facilities in operation in this country and 35 more are either in the process of being built or are planned for implementation in the near future.
The VOR/DME adopted by I.C.A.O. actually consists of the addition of DME or distance measuring equipment to the already adopted VOR equipment, which provides azimuth information for the navigation of
[Mr. BenidicksonJ
aircraft. We are not, however, considering any plans for implementing DME in Canada for use by civil aviation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph and telephone service-
439. Administration, operation and maintenance. $229,050.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, on this item I cannot resist putting on Hansard some of the choice expressions and statements employed by a number of the minister's colleagues when they sat on this side of the house. The committee will remember that in 1956 the Telegraphs Act was approved and adopted by parliament, known as chapter 49 of the Revised Statutes of 1956. It was very severely criticized by the then members of the opposition. I intend to read quickly a few of the expressions they employed on that occasion:


George Harris Hees: The aim of this measure is obviously the protection of another crown corporation against competition.


John George Diefenbaker: If this bill is passed in its present form, the only regard that needs to be had is at the caprice, if you will, of the order in council, regardless of the public interest.


George Clyde Nowlan: The effect of those regulations, I think the minister will admit, would be to create a monopoly___We do not know who will be exercising the responsibilities under this legislation. I think it is not in the public interest. I think it is unfair to those who have been engaged in this business in the past.
Those statements were made when the bill was being considered in the committee of the whole house and may be found at pages 6736, 6744, 6749 and 6750 of Hansard of July 31, 1956. On third reading of the bill the following statements were made by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs as reported at pages 6755-56 of Hansard of that date:


Mr. Green:: The official opposition are very much concerned about this bill because we believe a
step is being taken which is very unsound____We
have made our position clear. We think the government is making a great mistake.
On third reading the same opposition was expressed to the amendment to this act. But what happened? Lo and behold, quietly and unknown to anybody, this is what happened. There appeared in the Canada Gazette, part II, for Wednesday, March 9, 1960 at page 267 a proclamation of the Conservative government proclaiming the Telegraphs Act which was adopted by parliament in 1956. I am sorry the Minister of Justice is not here. He likes to place us in contradiction with statements we made when on the other side of the house. Where could there be any greater contradiction than that found in the statements made by the four ministers to whom I have referred when they spoke

against the bill to amend the Telegraphs Act which, when they were in office, they proclaimed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, would the minister tell us what the present situation is with respect to telephone cables? Is the second telephone cable being laid?


George Harris Hees: The joint Canada-United Kingdom telephone cable is being laid and it is expected to be ready next year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has it got the same partnership arrangement as with the cable that was opened a few years ago?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Chairman, the first cable had a majority United Kingdom ownership. This is a Canada-United Kingdom partnership on an equal basis.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I wish to remind the minister of something to which I have referred in the past. As I review the reference to federal responsibility in the matter of telephones and telegraphs it seems to be contained in a relatively short section of a very large act, the Railway Act. I think it is time that this should be looked at with the possibility in mind of having more clearly set out what is the federal responsibility with respect to the control and regulation of telephones. It has been my experience that where there is a possibility of a clash between an independent telephone company that may have its jurisdiction with the province on the one hand and a federally incorporated telephone company on the other there is a great deal of uncertainty and havoc in the area concerned. You sometimes have two people trying to operate in the same area. It is my view that a revision of the legislation is required. Consideration should be given to the suggestion that under certain conditions telephone companies can receive some direction and control and regulation from the board of transport commissioners although frequently the board says their only concern is with a federally incorporated company. I believe this requires review.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, one question occurred to me as I was reflecting on those interesting quotations which were read by the hon. member for Laurier. Is the minister at all troubled that the amendments to the Telegraphs Act which he shared the responsibility for proclaiming will come into conflict with the bill of rights?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Chairman, it just shows that when a party which for many years has been denied vital information from a government which refused for years to give it acquires that information when it forms the
Supply-Transport
government then it can carry on in a much more enlightened way and bring in good legislation like this government has done for the past three years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, the minister is saying that he did not understand the bill when he spoke against it?


George Harris Hees: On the contrary, Mr. Chairman, I understood the bill as well as I could on the basis of the very limited information imparted to us by the previous minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Meteorological branch-
441. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's assessment for membership in the world meteorological organization, $15,210,370.
Mr. McQuillan:: Mr. Chairman, has the minister been able to come any closer to supplying the requested assignment of meteorologists to the forest fire forecasting service in British Columbia? Perhaps the minister is aware that we are now being plagued by various serious forest fires there. For several years there has been a request for an assignment for meteorologists for this service. I notice there is quite an increase in the vote and I wonder if the minister has any information concerning whether the department can make that assignment?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Chairman, we are still short of meteorologists. We will not be able to do what the hon. member wishes until our recruiting program has been completed. We will carry it out as quickly as possible but we do not expect it will be possible to meet that request until next year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, can the minister say anything encouraging about the recruiting program? Does he still have to go outside the country to recruit meteorologists or has the pay been increased to the point that would make it an attractive occupation for Canadians?


George Harris Hees: The main trouble has been the salary scale. That question is before treasury board at the present moment and I am very hopeful that it will be satisfactorily resolved in the very near future.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the department still recruiting outside the country?


George Harris Hees: Only if it is impossible to find meteorologists in Canada. We have recruited a small number from outside the country.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask if the headquarters of the meteorological service are still at the University of Toronto?


George Harris Hees: Yes, and likely to remain so, Mr. Chairman.

Supply-Transport


Frank Howard: I have a question I should like to raise with the minister under this vote. I have had extensive correspondence over a couple of years with the office in Toronto, which I understand is the head office of this branch. I forget the name of the individual with whom I was corresponding. It seems to me he was the chief or director of that branch. In any event it had to do with the weather forecasts given for the north coastal region of British Columbia. Unfortunately, Kitimat and Terrace are lumped in with either Prince Rupert, the north coast forecast, or with Smithers and the interior forecast. Up until the time that Kitimat started to become a large industrial centre there probably was not too much desire or pressure to have that area localized in the weather forecast. But there are some 10,000 to 12,000 people in that area and unfortunately the residents of Kitimat are not sure into which weather forecast they fall. I think they would fall properly into the weather forecast of the north coastal area, Prince Rupert and so on, because it is on the coast. I have been unsuccessful in dealing with this matter by correspondence with the director, or the chap in Toronto whose name escapes me, and I make a plea to the minister to have this area set apart as a separate area for weather forecasts so that the people will know when the weather forecast does come just which forecast applies to them. Whether or not the forecast is correct is another matter and can be dealt with at another time. I am merely talking about pinpointing it in so far as the weather forecast is concerned.


George Harris Hees: I am advised that the regional approach is all we can handle unless we double or triple or staff, although the request made by the hon. member is a reasonable one. We are limited at the present time by these considerations but I will agree that what he asks for is a desirable thing and we shall certainly keep that in mind as we are able to enlarge this operation.


Frank Howard: I do not think the physical inability to do this at the present time has anything to do with enlarging the staff. I had occasion to check statistical material on this when we were dealing with the Postmaster General and facilities in Kitimat. According to the climate statistics, Kitimat is in substantially the same position as Prince Rupert, and the weather forecast that would apply to Prince Rupert generally would apply to Kitimat. Both places are on the coast; both are on salt water, both have the same sort of wind conditions. The British Columbia department of agriculture does take weather samples and surveys in that area; that is, the amount of rainfall, precipitation,

sunshine and that sort of thing. I think all that would be necessary would be for the weather forecast just to mention the Kitimat and Terrace areas. I think the minister will find on investigation that it will be almost the same type of forecast that would apply to the Prince Rupert coastal area. That is all we are asking.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, we shall certainly look into the possibilities of doing what the hon. member asks.


Lionel Chevrier: I have just one question. Is there any new development by way of equipment in the field of meteorological services?


George Harris Hees: Yes; I am advised that many new instruments have been devised that are constantly changing the techniques, but it would be quite an operation; I am afraid I could not go into the details now.


Mr. Southam:: I have had a number of requests to have a weather forecast station set up in southern Saskatchewan. We find that we are now depending on weather forecasts from quite some distance away and owing to the complex and intricate nature of our farming operations-I am thinking now of flax cultivation-the farmers have been somewhat inconvenienced by the daily inaccurate forecasts they receive. Once the minister has the increase in staff he speaks of I should like to see this matter considered and have a weather forecast station in southern Saskatchewan.


George Harris Hees: I shall be glad to give that consideration, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When the hon. member gets that station I hope he will get better results than he got from the political forecast in Saskatchewan.


William Arnold Peters: Is there any way that we can get better forecasting for the general public? I read the ones that are posted every day in the elevators, and I think we get better results from "Chase's Almanac" on many occasions. The fronts that are given are so broad that they do not take local situations into consideration. If the type of report that is given to each one of the areas is the type that we get on the radio stations on a daily basis I can see very little value in them. I am particularly concerned with our lake and the fact that many of our people are going to have to depend more and more on these weather reports not only for planting crops but also for safety measures. It is a large lake and it gets very rough. Instead of there being only two and three large boats on it there are hundreds and hundreds of very small ones. I imagine this situation is

repeated all across the country. It information is to be given on the local radio station, then it must be a lot better than the general forecasts that we see. If it is not it is of no value. I say that because we have extensive facilities all across the country. We spend a lot of money maintaining these stations throughout the north and all over Canada. We should have a much better understanding of what the weather is going to be. I refer not only to long range forecasts of four or five days but particularly the short range forecasts. If we are going to go out into the country for a day we should know what weather conditions we are going to run into. We should be able to have a forecast a couple of days previously. If there is not this type of clear-cut forecasting, then I wonder whether something cannot be done to obtain that type of forecast?


George Harris Hees: I quite agree with the hon. member that inaccurate weather forecasts are very disturbing indeed. However, I hasten to tell him that weather forecasting still is not an exact science. We are doing our best to improve all along the line and to make those forecasts as accurate as possible. I again state that forecasting is not an exact science; we are doing our best to make it so.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to mention the boating accident last night on the Ottawa river. I would assume that a yacht club the size of the Britannia yacht club would probably follow the weather reports very closely and should have some method of warning that a squall is coming up. I would think it was not a completely localized squall; it must have blown in from somewhere. That type of information should be available to prevent calamities from happening.


George Harris Hees: I am advised that it was a very localized squall and occurred in only a very limited area.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a word of praise of the weather forecasts. I know that when I am in my constituency I always blame the weather on the minister but, in fact, the weather is not under the control of the government. I do believe that the meteorological service does a wonderful job, and that the forecasts over the radio are of enormous help to a considerable number of people. Anyone who spends time, and wishes he was spending it right now, on the Atlantic coast, appreciates how valuable these weather forecasts are.


George Harris Hees: I appreciate very much those kind words.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Transport Civil aviation branch-
443. Control of civil aviation including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder, $2,557,538.
William Alexander McLennan: I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that all the members from the lower mainland of British Columbia have been very interested in getting the light airplanes off the international airport and over to the Boundary bay airport, in view of the fact that there are so many heavy aircraft and jets going into Vancouver now. I hope the minister will get the appropriate officials to make up their minds just where they are going to move so that we can avoid a major accident resulting from light airplanes interfering with the operation of the jets that are coming into the international airport. This condition has existed now for several years, but we have not been able to convince either the Department of Transport or the Department of National Defence to vacate the Boundary bay airport and make it available for the use of light planes. I would hope the minister would get the appropriate officials to make up their minds before there is a serious accident at Vancouver's international airport.


William Moore Benidickson: This item deals with the control of civil aviation. It seems to me that all across the country there is increasing concern about the consequent expenses in connection with rescues made necessary as a result of lost civil aircraft, particularly small aircraft. I am wondering if there has been a substantial tightening up of the penalties when it is found, after a rescue, that common sense has not been used by the pilot or perhaps even a failure to observe the regulations on which his licence is based. 1 know it is often found that planes have not carried radios. Sometimes even the department's advice on the colouring of aircraft has been disregarded and this has made it very difficult for the search planes to find lost aircraft. Sometimes flight plans have not been registered at all. In consequence millions of dollars are spent by the public, through the department of defence, the department of civil aviation and indeed by private air companies who can ill afford these sums in connection with these humane efforts to rescue people who have made their rescue difficult by flagrant violations of the laws on which their licences are based.


George Harris Hees: We do everything we can to try to get people to observe safety regulations and to use common sense. All I can say is that we will continue to try.


William Moore Benidickson: Are licences cancelled
when it is found, after rescue, that a flight

Supply-Transport
plan was not filed which could have been filed or that the airplane was not painted in accordance with the advice of the department?


George Harris Hees: I am advised by my officials that they cannot remember any particular instance, but if such occurrences do take place we would certainly take punitive action.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
444. Airports and other ground services-operation and maintenance, $20,174,180.
Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: I hope the minister will permit me to say two or three words on this item. The minister will recall that last year and in 1958 the hon. member for Chicoutimi, with whom I am in full agreement for a change, spoke about the possibility of the establishment of an airport at St. Honore, which is close to Chicoutimi. This is not in my riding. I spoke to the minister privately about this matter lately. I also spoke to the hon. member for Chicoutimi. There is an area there containing nearly 100,000 people, many of whom are owners of private aircraft, who are deeply interested in civil aviation. I know the department has always stated they like to encourage civil aviation wherever it is possible. I know, too, that there are some regulations governing the establishment of airports across the country. I wonder if the minister and his officials would not send some representative to Chicoutimi or Jonquiere in my riding to study the situation and ascertain if there is something the department could do to remedy the situation.


George Harris Hees: Yes, I shall be glad to see that that is done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
446. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including construction work on municipal airports, payments to municipalities as contributions towards construction done by those bodies, amounts to be paid in settlement of claims for compensation by persons whose property is injuriously affected by the operation of a zoning regulation made under authority of paragraph (j) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Aeronautics Act and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $58,100,000, $52,000,000.
Lionel Chevrier: This is a vote for a tremendous amount of money, $52 million for the construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, including construction work on municipal airports and the like. I think the committee is entitled to some break-down of this large sum. I know that the minister, when he introduced his estimates, made a statement to which he
[Mr. Benidickson.j
attached a list, which I have before me, of votes in connection with air services and civil aviation. I feel that in view of the fact this probably represents-well, I cannot calculate it offhand-a tremendous percentage of the estimates of the minister's department we should be entitled to a break-down.
For instance, could the minister give some indication of the position in the transcontinental field; Halifax, Gander, Montreal, Malton, Winnipeg-perhaps I should mention the lakehead-Vancouver, Regina and Calgary? Of course, the two in which I am particularly interested are Malton and Dorval. What is the estimate of the cost of the new terminal at Malton? Is there a final estimate of the cost of the Montreal airport? The one I mentioned earlier was $30 million. Has that been increased because of the aeroquays that are being constructed in and around the building, on both sides, east and west of it?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the aeroquays at Dorval certainly did increase the cost. The cost will be approximately $30 million, but the final figures are not available. We estimate it will be in the vicinity of $30 million.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister give some indication, since the airport is likely to be completed before the end of I960, what his officers think the increase over $30 million is likely to be?


George Harris Hees: It could increase by up to $1 million.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry but I did not hear the minister's answer.


George Harris Hees: It could increase by up to $1 million, I am advised. We will not know until the final accounts.


Lionel Chevrier: Can I get some indication of what the position is at Malton? What is the estimate now? How far has it progressed? How many contracts have been awarded? When will it be completed?


George Harris Hees: The estimate for Malton at the present time is approximately the same as that for Dorval, namely about $30 million for stage one. That is the building and all related facilities that are planned at the present time. The first two contracts have been let for the foundation and field work. As to the third contract, the tender call will be made later this year. The terminal aeroquay will cost somewhere between $12 million and $15 million and the remainder of the $30 million is for the associated facilities.


Lionel Chevrier: How many more contracts will be required for Malton and what is the completion date at this time?


George Harris Hees: There will be one or more only for the terminal building but there will be four or live for runway paving and things of that kind and heating.


Lionel Chevrier: What is the completion date?


George Harris Hees: The target date is 1964; by 1964 or sooner, if possible.


Edwin William Brunsden: Speaking to item 446, may I say that we are moving into the jet age and that it is a happy coincidence that we have a jet minister to go with this particular age. The minister has an extremely difficult department to administer. It is now possible to step into an airplane in Toronto and be in Vancouver in something slightly over four hours. What a tremendous transformation this is from the days of the DC-3's, the days of the milk run across western Canada, from the days of the nine, ten, eleven or twelve hours from Ottawa to Vancouver.
My only purpose in rising to speak on this item is to express the hope that, in the development of the jet stage of transportation in Canada we will not forget the inland airports. I am speaking, of course, for my own constituency, but I could speak for several others. There is a situation that is climatic. There is a climatic hazard in air travel in Canada. My own city of Medicine Hat had an all-time record in the war period of free flying days. There has been occasion after occasion when planes directed to other airports have been forced to land in the city of Medicine Hat because this was the only place at which they could get down. I hope that under this item there will be due recognition of the need, not only for maintaining, but possibly extending the runways, in order to take care of the faster planes and the larger planes, and extending the runways in order that we would at least have between Winnipeg and Vancouver one sound haven in the event of emergency. I am not pleading for our local traffic; our local traffic takes care of itself. We go to Regina; we go to Calgary and we go to Lethbridge. But certainly there is a need for the preservation of a completely safe haven for the larger planes in the event of extremely bad weather. I am suggesting that this subject should be given consideration by the minister.


Ernest James Broome: I want to bring one item to the attention of the minister. I know the minister is quite aware of what I am going to say. It has to do with the Vancouver airport. The Vancouver city council has agreed to put up to the ratepayers of the Vancouver area the question of the sale of the airport to the Department of Transport to be operated as an international airport and this despite the fact that a previous sale had been voted down in a previous plebiscite because of the
Supply-Transport
short-sightedness of the previous government. There was first a token offer of one dollar; then there was an offer by the hon. member for Laurier, then minister of transport, of $500,000; then an offer by Mr. Campney of $1 million. That was the last offer.
I am suggesting to the minister that any offer made to the city of Vancouver must be based on the present value of the buildings and land and this offer must be on a fair basis which can be substantiated and which the people of Vancouver will recognize as being a fair and just offer. On that basis the city of Vancouver will vote for the sale of this airport but on any other basis they will not do so. It is absolutely essential that these factors be determined as soon as possible because it will take eighteen months to prepare plans and two years for construction, or a total of three and a half years for completion if started today.
The building is being used to capacity today. I hope that come December the Department of Transport will have something, such as a prospectus to put before the people of Vancouver, in order to show them what you are going to build there if they will turn the airport over to the Department of Transport. This is one of the most vital items that is coming up this year or next year as far as the Department of Transport is concerned. It is of major importance and I hope that action is taken immediately along the lines I have indicated.


The Chairman:: Shall vote 434 carry?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Chairman. I wonder whether the minister could tell us whether there is anything in this item for the airport at Frobisher Bay?


George Harris Hees: Yes, $100,000 for lighting and $54,000 for diesel electric stand-by power.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister tell us the total extent of the plans of the department in respect to the airport and its facilities at Frobisher Bay; the total estimated costs of all the work projected there for the next two, three or four-year period?


George Harris Hees: We do not have any future airport development plans for Frobisher but we may put in some buildings such as airport housing for staff and small terminal improvements.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Does the minister have any idea of the total cost of these proposed installations?


George Harris Hees: The major cost of the airport development has been borne by the United States air force.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister tell me what the total is with reference to all these strips

Sup p ly-Transport
on the north shore of the province of Quebec? There was a serious and successful attempt made by the former administration, the plans for which were carried out in large part and extended by the present government. I am told now there are strips at Natashquan and Blanc Sablon and one between Tadoussac and Murray Bay. There is a whole series of them, perhaps eight or ten. May I have a general statement on them?


George Harris Hees: Yes. The Murray Bay strip contract is just about to be let now for the field development. The other seven or eight strips have all received grants and they are all functioning at the present time.


Mr. Bourgei:: May I ask the minister if something has been done at the airport at Mont Joli?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that nothing is required at the present time at the Mont Joli airport, that it is fully serviceable.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I wonder if I could ask the minister this question in view of the answer he gave the hon. member for Trinity with regard to the airport at Frobisher Bay. He mentioned that the major portion of the money spent on the runway extension was paid for by the United States air force. Is this airport to be part of the S.A.C. base, or is it to be used by commercial aircraft? Where does the minister think he will get the money to operate it?


George Harris Hees: It is a Department of Transport civil airport but the United States air force has a refuelling base there.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Is the United States air force using the base at the present time, or will it be in the future?


George Harris Hees: As soon as the runway is completed it will be used by the United States air force.


Maurice Bourget: Is the Mont Joli airport operating now?


George Harris Hees: Yes, it is.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question with respect to Frobisher Bay. Is there an agreement between the Department of Transport and the United States air force regarding facilities installed there by the United States air force and their acquisition by the Canadian government at the end of the period for which it will be useful for S.A.C.?


George Harris Hees: There is an intergovernmental agreement between the Canadian government and the United States government.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Does the minister know offhand what the general terms of that agreement are?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that these arrangements have been entered into by the Department of External Affairs and the state department of the United States and were comparable to the arrangement entered into with regard to bases used by the United States in Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister say whether there was a team sent to Frobisher Bay by the Department of Transport in order to make an economic survey of that area?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that there has been a steady stream of officials up there making reports of one kind or another.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Since the minister has mentioned teams doing economic studies in Frobisher Bay can he tell the committee whether his establishment will come under the plastic dome northern affairs are pushing?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to ask the
minister if any thought has been given to changing the name of Frobisher to Vision?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Could the minister indicate how much traffic he expects at this airport by commercial carriers?


George Harris Hees: I am advised there is a very substantial volume of traffic at this airport, both laterally and north-south. I have not got the exact figures. I am advised there is a limited amount of international traffic at the airport also, but I will send the figures to the hon. member.


William Moore Benidickson: When this item was first before us I thought the minister was about to suggest to the committee that to save individual inquiries about individual airports he would table a break-down.


George Harris Hees: Everybody got one at the beginning and I will send one over.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Will the minister do something about the promise he made to the residents of Hay River about building a new airport there?


George Harris Hees: If the hon. member will send me a copy of the promise I made I will look into it, but I cannot remember it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You cannot even remember your promises now.


George Harris Hees: I cannot remember the ones 1 did not make.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Could the minister tell me whether there is an amount in this year's estimates to start construction of a new airport at Hay River?


George Harris Hees: Yes; there is a small amount for Hay River to start a gravel runway, $134,000.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Is that repairs to the present runway or is it for a new runway?


George Harris Hees: It would be repairs to the existing runway.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Anything in the estimates to look after the paving of the strip at Norman Wells?


George Harris Hees: Yes, there is a token planning item and there is a project now under study on the blanket list of projects.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
447. Grants for the development of civil aviation, in the amounts detailed in the estimates. $510,100.
William Arnold Peters: On this item I would like to ask the minister what assistance this has been in the past and the number of people trained under this scheme. Is the number continuing to be maintained at an acceptable level or is the amount granted by the department not enough to keep up the scheme?


George Harris Hees: I am advised it is increasing faster than we need it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.

Lionel Chevrier: Will the house leader indicate what we will be doing tomorrow and on Friday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There was some difficulty today with regard to the order of business for this week. Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding and may I take a moment or two to indicate that on Friday, July 8, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) asked me if I could arrange to have the estimates of the Department of Finance come up this week. I took that as a
Business of the House serious request and had a conversation with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) to see whether he would be available for this week. But apparently it might be more advisable now to carry on tomorrow as has been announced with the Department of External Affairs followed by the Department of Public Works. I presume those two departments would consume the time available for Thursday and Friday.


Lionel Chevrier: Could we get some indication of the business for next week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would prefer to wait until tomorrow night before doing that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege. The minister, who has brought my name into the discussion, is, of course, quite right. I asked the question on the orders of the day on my own responsibility, but the minister did contradict something that I said today and that was that there was an express understanding between the minister and myself that the Department of Labour, not being called earlier in the week, would be called on Friday. We made preparations for that and I still cannot understand why that undertaking should not be carried out.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We do not want to prolong this discussion, but arrangements have been going on all the time between the parties. The simplest way for me to do this would be to announce, as was done all through the session of 1956, the business for the next day and for the next day only, but this year I have preferred to do it the other way by negotiating and arranging with people for their convenience, and I hope we can continue to do it that way for the balance of this session.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes past eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
79951-0-395
[Stage Direction]
Questions

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

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 426
Ernest James Broome: 1.	What was the total value of crude oil imports, including all types of unrefined light and heavy
fuel oils, in each of the last five years and latest available figures for 1960 from (a) Saudi Arabia; (b) Iran; (c) Iraq; (d) Netherlands Antilles; (e) Trinidad; (f) any other' country except United States and Venezuela whose shipments of these products were in excess of $1,000,000 a year?
2.	What were total Canadian imports from these countries for the same periods?
3.	What were total Canadian exports to these countries for the same periods?
4.	What areas comprise the Netherlands Antilles?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
1.	There are no statistics on imports of "unrefined light and heavy fuel oils". The total values of crude oil imports and of light and heavy fuel oil imports were as follows:
Light and heavy fuel
Crude oil imports oil imports (classes 7156, (classes 7153, 7154, 7165)	7171, 7172, 7173, 7174)
1(a) from Saudi Arabia: (a)
Year 1955	
1956		
1957		
1958		
1959		
1960	(Jan.-Mar.)
not separately available-see (/) (i)
it	It
it	ft
a	it
a	it
$ 9,544,749	*

1(5) from Iran:
Year 1955	   700,243
1956		   463,937
1957		   154,120
1958		   264,957
1959		 10,936,462
1960	(Jan.-Mar.)	 4,110,889
1(c) from Iraq:
Year 1955
1956		   423,320
1957		
1958		 619,679
1959		   505,444
1960 (Jan.-Mar.)
1(4) from Netherlands Antilles: Year 1955	
1956		
1957		
1958		
1959		
1960	(Jan.-Mar.).
409,871	$19,350,047
129,584	25,635,483

	30,090,695

	27,964,278
-	34,451,580

	4,823,939
1(e) from Trinidad and Tobago:
Year 1955	 6,704,169	

1956		 7,386,860	

1957		 3,490,513	

1958		 5,045,104	

1959		 7,470,592	1,506,261
1960 (Jan.-Mar.)
1(f) (i) from Arabia:*
Year 1955	
1956		
1957		
1958		
1959		
1960	(Jan.-Mar.)
6,977,394	

24,695,595	

34,310,234	

68,017,332	

70,329,322	395,986
discontinued
1 (/) (ii) from Colombia:
Year 1955	 1,138,585
1956	 2,227,259
1957	 

1958		
1959		
1960	(Jan.-Mar.)	

Questions
1 (/)(iii) from Kuwait:
Year 1955	
1956		
1957		
1958		
1959		
1960	(Jan.-Mar.).
1 (/)(iv) from Lebanon:
Year 1955	
1956		
1957		
1958		
1959		
1960	(Jan.-Mar.)
l(/)(v) from Syria:
Year 1955	
1956		
1957		
1958		
1959		
1960	(Jan.-Mar.)
Light and heavy fuel
Crude oil imports oil imports (classes 7156, (classes 7153, 7154, 7165 )	7171, 7172 , 7173 , 7174)
not separately available-see (/)(i)
it	it

Supply-Items Passed [The following items were passed in committee of supply]:


BOARD OF BROADCAST GOVERNORS
[Stage Direction]
40.	Salaries and other expenses, $298,420.

[Stage Direction]
41.	Grant in respect of the net operating requirements of the radio and television services, $62,085,000.
42.	Grant for the capital requirements, including the replacement of existing capital assets, of the radio and television services, $7,647,000.
International shortwave broadcasting service-
43.	Maintenance and operation including authority to credit to this appropriation revenue from the rental of facilities in the Radio Canada building and at Sackville, N.B., to an amount of $331,500 and to spend these moneys for the purposes of the international service, $1,982,400.
44.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, including supervision, $25,000.

[Stage Direction]
Payments to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the company to the Minister of Finance, to be applied by the company in payment of the deficits, certified by the auditors of the company, arising in the operations in the calendar year 1960-
420.	Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals, $2,299,000.
421.	Newfoundland ferry and terminals, $5,410,000.
422.	Strait of Canso-transportation improvements and facilities, $15,000.
423.	Enlargement of dock and terminal facilities at North Sydney, Nova Scotia, $420,000.
424.	Construction of dock and terminal facilities at Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, $134,320.
425.	Construction or acquisition of auto-ferry vessels and equipment as listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended upon individual listed projects, $3,090,000.
426.	Newfoundland coastal services-construction or acquisition of passenger-cargo vessels and equipment, and harbour facilities, $4,340,000.
427.	Yarmouth, Nova Scotia-Bar Habor, Maine, U.S.A., ferry service-deficit, 1960, $209,000.
428.	Degaussing Canadian government vessels and Canadian-owned merchant ships, of 1,000 gross tons and over, of Canadian registry, or of United Kingdom registry if subject to re-transfer to Canadian registry under special inter-governmental arrangement, $191,000.
429.	Maritime Freight Rates Act-payment to the railway companies operating in the select territory designated by the act, of the difference occurring on account of the application of the act, between the tariff tolls and normal tolls under approved tariffs (estimated and certified to the Minister of Transport by the Canadian National Railway Company and approved by auditors of the said company respecting the eastern lines of the Canadian National Railways and in the case of the other railways by the board of transport commissioners for Canada) on all traffic moved during the calendar year 1960. $14,225,000.
Pensions and other benefits-
430.	Amount required to pay pensions at the rate of $300 per annum to former pilots: Arthur Baquet; Adelard Delisle; Raoul Lachance; Jules Lamarre; Wilhelm Langlois; Auguste Santerre, $1,800.
431.	Railway employees' provident fund-to supplement pension allowances under the intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund Act so as to make the minimum allowance payable in the calendar year 1960 $30 per month instead of $20 per month as fixed by the said act, $8,600.
432.	Supplemental pension allowances to former employees of Newfoundland railways, steamships and telecommunication services transferred to Canadian National Railways, $80,000.
Air services-
Administrative branch-
433.	Air services administration, $1,470,637.
434.	Construction services administration, $3,142,055.
Telecommunications branch-
Radio aids to air and marine navigation-
435.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $17,617,753.
436.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $12,252,353.
Radio Act and regulations-
437.	Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's share of the costs of the international radio, telegraph and telephone organizations listed in the details of the estimates, $2,729,198.
438.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $360,200.
Telegraph and telephone service-
439.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $229,050.
440.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $238,300.
Meteorological branch-
441.	Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's assessment for membership in the world meteorological organization, $15,210,370.
442. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $984,000.
Civil aviation branch-
443.	Control of civil aviation including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder, $2,557,538.
444.	Airports and other ground services-operation and maintenance, $20,174,180.
445.	Air traffic control, $7,156,005.
446. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including construction work on municipal airports, payments to municipalities as contributions towards construction done by those bodies, amounts to be paid in settlement of claims for compensation by persons whose property is injuriously affected by the operation of a zoning regulation made under authority of paragraph (j) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Aeronautics Act and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $53,100,000, $52,000,000.
447.	Grants for the development of civil aviation, in the amounts detailed to the estimates, $510,100.
448.	Contributions to municipalities or public bodies for construction and improvements of airports cn land acquired by such organizations including a contribution to an appropriate authority in respect of an airport at Lourdes-du-Blanc-Sablon, Quebec, $65,000.
449.	Contributions towards airport development and other airport projects on cost-sharing basis, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $252,670.
450.	Payments to other governments or international agencies for the operation and maintenance of airports, air navigation and airways facilities, including authority to pay in the amounts and in the currencies in which the assessments are levied

and to authorize a grant in the amount of $122,500 to the South Pacific air transport council; amount required in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1959, $275,894.
Railway and steamship services-
Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals- 564 Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $325,500.
565.	To authorize the write-off, as an adjustment in respect to prior years transactions, of the sum of $7,500,000 that was advanced to the Canadian National Railway Company in the fiscal year 1957-58 under the Canadian National Railways Financing and Guarantee Act 1957 and that has not been accounted for in the accounts of Canada, $1.
Air services-
Telecommunications branch-
Radio Act and regulations-
566.	Administration, operation and maintenance -further amount required, $75,000.
Supply-Items Passed
Meteorological branch-
567.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $148,000.
Civil aviation branch-
568.	Contributions to municipalities or public bodies for construction and improvement of airports on land acquired by such organizations-to extend the purposes of vote 448 of the main estimates, 1960-61, to permit the payment of the contribution provided for airport construction at North West River, Newfoundland, notwithstanding that the land was transferred from the province of Newfoundland to the federal government, rather than having been acquired by a municipality or public body, $1.
569.	Contributions toward airport development and other airport projects on cost-sharing basis, in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $44,100.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 14, I960

[Stage Direction]
Seventeenth and eighteenth reports of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. McCleave.