1960-07-08

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that there will be a meeting of the standing Canada-United States ministerial committee on joint defence on July 12 and 13 at Montebello, Quebec. This committee was formed some two years ago. As constituted, the Canadian members will be the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Defence Production. The representatives from the United States will be the secretary of state, Mr. Herter; the secretary of the treasury, Mr. Anderson; and the secretary of defence, Mr. Gates.
The discussions will cover a broad range of questions affecting the joint defence of both countries. This will be the third occasion on which the committee has met.
As the house knows, it was established following discussions which I had with President Eisenhower in July, 1958. It was set up as a forum for periodic consultations on all matters affecting the joint defence of Canada and the United States. It reviews not only military questions but also political and economic aspects of joint defence problems. In the short period of its existence it has proven itself to be a valuable instrument for discussion of these problems at the ministerial level. It provides for that personal contact and better understanding which as a result have characterized meetings between representatives of our two countries.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I think all members of the house will welcome the announcement by the Prime Minister that this intergovernmental committee is to meet next week on mutual defence problems. There is no doubt that there are such problems, especially, if I may mention it, the problem of the use of nuclear weapons for defence and many others. If some of these problems can be cleared up at this meeting I think everybody will appreciate it very much.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I think this meeting has become most essential, because there has been evidence that 79951-0-376J
Canada and the United States have been differing with respect to a number of aspects of international defence. I can only express the hope that at this conference the government will take a position in the interests of Canada and will show a measure of independence that I think is very greatly required.



CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-36 (from the Senate) to amend the Criminal Code.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains a provision to make the possession of a Hornet rifle illegal, and also provides for the use of recording machines in criminal cases in courts where their use is authorized by the province.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RATIFICATION OF PROTOCOL RENEWING AGREEMENT WITH RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motions:
July 6-The Minister of Trade and Commerce- The following resolution:-
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the ratification by Canada of the protocol, signed at Moscow, on April 18, 1960, renewing the agreement on trade between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, concluded in Ottawa, on February 29, 1956, and that this house do approve the same.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to proceed with the committee stage and third reading of the bill of rights
5954	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry after the committee that has been set up to consider this subject has heard those witnesses who wish to appear, and has completed its work?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government, of course, to proceed with third reading. The committee will meet and decide on the course it will follow, to the end that the bill in its form as accepted in principle may receive the fullest consideration by the committee.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT-INQUIRY AS TO AMENDMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his capacity as house leader whether it is the intention of the government at this session to introduce a bill to amend the Canada Elections Act?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution pertaining to that bill will appear in the Votes and Proceedings that will be published tonight.



INDIAN ACT-INQUIRY AS TO AMENDMENT THIS SESSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration based on the report of the joint committee on Indian affairs and the recommendation therein that the government introduce amendments to the Indian Act to remove discriminatory features, and ask whether the minister could indicate if this might be done this session?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the session I do not think it is possible, but as the hon. member knows I have repeatedly stated that it is my intention to have such amendments prepared.



REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF FINANCE ESTIMATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in view of the accumulated evidence, particularly this morning, that this session will not conclude before the federal-provincial conference meets, could I ask the house leader if he could arrange to have the estimates of the Department of Finance come up next week so there would be an opportunity for the representatives of


the people to discuss the question of federal-provincial finances before that conference takes place.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion will be taken into consideration.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not even sympathetically?



INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED FALL SESSION OF HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising from an item in the most recent issue of the Financial Times which says that the government will call another session in the fall, and implying indirectly that this will mean two salaries in one year for hon. members. Is the government giving consideration to the calling of a special session of the house this autumn?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there has been no consideration given to that matter.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question arising from the question raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur. Is it the intention of the government to adjourn the session during the summer so the committees of the house could proceed with consideration of the bill of rights and other matters, and have the house reconvene in the fall?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question of the business of the house in that respect has been discussed on numerous occasions within the last two or three days.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Not this question, Mr. Speaker. The papers have stated that there will be a reconvening of the session. This is very important for us to know. Some of us will have to spend the summer in committee work.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received a telegram from Mr. E. P. O'Neal, secretary of the British Columbia federation of labour, protesting the action of the Vancouver office of the national employment service in dispatching men to the hardware firms of Mac and Mac and Marshall Wells, which have locked out their regular employees? Can the

minister say what action, if any, has been taken as a result of this telegram?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I received notice of the hon. member's intention to ask this question, but I only received the telegram about ten or fifteen minutes ago, which puts the hon. member at an advantage over me in that he received his telegram before I received mine. However, I have already dispatched a long distance telephone call to Vancouver to get a full report on the matter. I wish to point out to the hon. member for Assiniboia that in all our offices there is strict adherence to the rule that where there is a dispute, whether it be a strike or lockout, the referral slips given to people referred to jobs have noted on them that the particular plant or place of business is involved in a dispute. It is left up to the applicant for the job to use his own judgment.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I just tell the minister that I do not think that the telegram to me was dispatched any earlier than the one to him. I was in the office until midnight when mine was delivered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO AVAILABILITY OF STORAGE SPACE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Now that a 6-bushel quota has been established at most points, and some areas will have all their wheat delivered at this level, is it the intention of the wheat board to declare these points open delivery points or will the available space be reserved for the 1960-61 crop deliveries in these areas?


Gordon Minto Churchill: In reply to the hon. member may I say that he is accurate in stating that most points are now on the 6-bushel delivery basis. The latest information I have on my file, as of June 27, is that 1,354 stations were on the 6-bushel quota and only 179 on the 5 and 8 on the 4. In some areas, numbering 467, the 7-bushel quota is in effect. I will get in touch with the wheat board and draw to their attention the suggestion contained in the hon. member's question, namely that space be reserved for the delivery of the 1960-61 crop.
Inquiries of the Ministry UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE



GLACE BAY, N.S.-REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF REGULATIONS RESPECTING COAL MINERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received representations from the united mine workers in Glace Bay, asking that the unemployment insurance regulations be amended so that benefits may be obtained by some 450 coal miners out of work owing to cutbacks in the coal industry? If so, what reply has been given to such representations?


Michael Starr: Yes, I have received such representations; but section 152 (b) of the regulations provides that benefits may be waived if the claimant's aggregate earnings in the last two weeks of the old period of entitlement are not more than one week's benefit plus allowable earnings. For this reason, of course, this request could not be complied with, since this requirement was not met.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED LOSS IN FUND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Minister of Finance a question. In view of the fact that we will soon be discussing the estimates of the Department of Labour, will the Minister of Finance, either today or at the earliest opportunity, say whether it is a fact that the unemployment insurance fund reveals an actual loss of $10 million and a book loss of something between $40 million and $50 million?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: On what? What period is the hon. member talking about?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The last fiscal year. Last year we were given an indication that during the fiscal year 1958-59 there was an actual loss of $10 million and a book loss of $70 million. I am now asking for the latest fiscal year, whether the book loss is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $40 million or $50 million and if there is an actual loss of $10 million. The minister knows what I am asking.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I suggest to the hon. member that he is asking for statistical information and should follow the proper course by putting a question on the order paper, so that we will have an opportunity of checking the facts against his sources of information.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is one to which the minister has taken exception. I appreciate

Inquiries of the Ministry that the hon. member asks it because he wants the information urgently. However, it is a question requesting statistical information, and I daresay the hon. member would meet with a proper response if he were to put the question on the order paper.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not catch the last part of the minister's answer, but will you agree-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. I simply want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that after having passed the bill of rights, I ought to be allowed to say something.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair accepted the suggestion that the question was an appropriate one for the order paper. If another point of order or some other matter arises, of course the hon. member has his rights, as has every hon. member.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure that with Your Honour protecting my rights as a member of this house they will be well safeguarded. What I want to know is this. In view of the fact that the estimates of the Department of Labour are to come up at an early date, possibly next week, according to information received last night, I was simply asking the Minister of Finance, in a very friendly way, if he would take my question as notice and give this information, which is very vital to parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Minister of Finance and the house appreciate that the hon. member was asking his question in a friendly way.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In that friendly spirit may I suggest to the hon. member that evidently this subject has taken on an unwonted urgency, when he thought about it only today. If he puts the question on the order paper it will be dealt with very promptly.


Mr. Speaker:: While I am sure the house is interested in the comments from both sides, this is strictly out of order.



OIL-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON MARKETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Having in mind the continuing

difficulty of the western producers in marketing their oil, may I ask the minister whether the government are yet in a position to make any declaration or statement on the marketing of crude oil as a result of the conclusions in the second report of the Borden royal commission?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The second report of the Borden commission has been given close study by the government. The national energy board has been giving careful attention to the report and the recommendations therein following its comprehensive summary of the situation pertaining to gas reserves, Canadian requirements and export applications, which was settled in the spring of this year. I think the work of the national energy board in surveying the situation pertaining to gas was highly commendable.
Immediately following the conclusion of the present session of parliament the subject of the marketing of Canadian crude oil will be a priority task in so far as I am concerned, along with my colleagues. In preparation for consideration of the problem I have already asked the national energy board and officials of the department to prepare material for discussion and to bring up to date the statistical information supplied by the Borden commission. The government is fully aware of the importance of the problem and of the value to the economy in general of the petroleum industry. We intend to review all proposals and suggestions looking toward the development of that industry.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Transport whether a contract has been let for a new runway at the Vancouver airport and, if so, whether the contract was let to the lowest tenderer.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, that is a detail upon which I shall have to check and give the hon. member an answer.



HALIFAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, yesterday the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate inquired whether the new Halifax airport is now operating. I am glad to be able to inform the hon. member that the new

Halifax international airport, including the terminal building thereon, went into service on July 1. I am informed that aircraft have already landed at the airport.
The date on which commercial scheduled service is to be started by M.C.A. and T.C.A., the two scheduled air lines using Halifax, is a matter for determination by the air lines. I do not have detailed information on this point, other than the fact that T.C.A. expects to start its regular commercial use of the airport before the month is out and has in fact already landed commercial aircraft on the field.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister advise the house whether the Finlay MacDonald of CJCH, Halifax, who was recommended to operate a privately owned television station in Halifax, is the same Mr. MacDonald who was the chairman of the so-called "Meet the Maritime Members" breakfast at the last meeting of the Progressive Conservative Association in Ottawa last December, and who stated on that occasion-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: -"we have with us transport minister Hees"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I did not hear the concluding part of the hon. member's question, but it does not appear to me that the identity of the individual in question is a matter of urgent public importance.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he can comment on a report in this morning's press which has just been brought to my attention, that draft notes have been exchanged between the governments of the United States and Canada regarding the storage of nuclear weapons at Goose Bay, Labrador, and Harmon field, Newfoundland, for United States interceptors based there?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secreiary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I presume this refers to the negotiations which have been going on and which have been announced in the house on different occasions.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; my question refers to a report that draft notes have already been exchanged arising out of these negotiations.


Howard Charles Green: As the Leader of the Opposition knows very well, this procedure is followed in working out an agreement between our two countries on the external affairs and state department level.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question. May I ask whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs is taking part in these negotiations?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker; that was explained throughout, and there has never been any doubt about it.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Praif (Jacques Carlier-Lasalle):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I am sure that all citizens who live near airports will be grateful for the decision recently announced by the minister to ban all scheduled flights during normal sleeping hours, but would the minister consider extending this ban to cover all delayed flights as well, as it is manifestly unfair to force thousands of people to go without sleep merely in order to avoid extra expense to the air lines which should be borne by the general or travelling public?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the discussions which are presently taking place with the air lines at Dorval are designed to deal with the matter of jet aircraft flights after midnight generally, and include the problem of delayed take-offs as well as the establishment of schedules.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that we are to have a debate on external affairs next week, and in view of the fact that according to the Department of External Affairs Act the annual report of the department should be made available within ten days of the opening of the session, can the minister inform the house whether the 1959 report on external affairs will be made available before the debate?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I think the report to which the act refers was tabled earlier this session. At the moment I am not sure what is the situation with regard to the report for the calendar year 1959.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: A supplementary question.
Would the minister not inquire in his department to ascertain whether the answer given to me that the report had not yet been published is correct?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking offhand, but a report has already been tabled this year. I am not sure whether that related to 1958 or to 1959, and I will have to check.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether it is true, as reported, that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is planning to put or has already taken steps to put stiffer anti-discrimination clauses into National Housing Act mortgages, and if so, for what purpose is this being done.


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, as I explained to the hon. member for Essex East the other day, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation intend to insert in their mortgages an antidiscrimination clause. This applies to their direct lending.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister be good enough to give consideration to having that matter placed before the committee which will deal with the bill of rights? I am merely asking that this be considered, not that an answer be given at this moment.


George Harris Hees: We always give consideration.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has given the answer.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Is he your new parliamentary secretary?



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the difficulties being experienced by the


Uranium City community in Saskatchewan consequent upon the depression in the uranium industry. Have government representatives visited Uranium City and made a report to the government and is the government considering any specific action to help this area?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, representatives of the government have been in Uranium City on two occasions, and there have been communications on my part with representatives of Uranium City. A meeting with delegates from Uranium City will be held early next week here in Ottawa to discuss the problems affecting that community.


Hazen Robert Argue: The government has not yet decided on any particular action to help the community?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are looking at the problems confronting the community and are waiting to hear from them with regard to the various proposals they have in mind.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of a statement made on June 29 by the president of the Saskatchewan farmers' union and chairman of the western liaison committee, who stated that the Prime Minister had said that arrangements would be proceeded with at once for convening a meeting with this western liaison committee. May I ask the right hon. gentleman how these arrangements are coming along?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I expect to be in a position early next week to give a full answer to that question.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the government's policy announcement be made prior to the meeting?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have the announcement made when the government decides it is prepared to do so.



PORK-REPORTED COMPLAINTS RESPECTING DISTRIBUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister responsible for the distribution of

canned pork. I am not sure who Santa Claus is. Has the minister received complaints about the distribution and a suggestion that it be distributed through the Red Cross?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have received complaints at various times. Most of the complaints arise from the method of distribution used by the provinces or the provincial welfare organizations. The complaints in large part came from people who thought they should have participated in the distribution and did not do so. These complaints have all been referred to the provincial governments that are responsible for the distribution.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance if it is a fact that he received a delegation representing the corn growers and soybean growers of southwestern Ontario yesterday, and is the minister in a position to tell us what assurances he gave them with regard to the representations they made; or is it a fact that the minister finds this a very complicated subject?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that yesterday I received a delegation from the federation of agriculture who came to see me concerning soybeans and corn. They asked for a tariff against importations of soybeans and an increase in the tariff against importations of corn. They were assured that their representations would be carefully studied. The meeting was a very useful and friendly one.
If the hon. member as an exponent of higher tariffs is supporting requests of this kind in relation to motor cars, I think it would be interesting to know.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the constructive remarks made by the Minister of Finance may I assure him that whenever I wish to declare my views I shall do so, as the government does, in due course.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention at an early date to recommend the appointment of a parliamentary librarian, an office which has been vacant throughout the whole of this session?
Supply-C.B.C.


David James Walker: Would you like the job?


John George Diefenbaker: The question of appointments, of course, is always before the government, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I could not hear the Prime Minister's answer.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
41. Grant in respect of the net operating requirements of the radio and television services, $62,085,000.
The Chairman:: Order. House in committee of supply, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, item 41. This item will be found on page 11 of the blue book and the details on page 128.
(Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, in honestly discharging my duties as a member, it gives me pleasure to bring to the attention of the C.B.C. management a resolution sent to me by the Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste of the diocese of Joliette. It reads as follows:
Whereas, this year for the first time, the C.B.C. is promoting a country-wide contest for choral groups, a contest that will draw participation from hundreds of choral societies, involving thousands of Canadian residents,
Whereas the winners will be receiving only a small amount of award money,
Whereas such choral societies will include thousands of Canadian citizens who will have to put in several days work rehearsing the prescribed pieces,
Whereas although such choral societies will be amateur groups, we think the amount of the awards is ridiculous in view of the exorbitant fees being paid to performers who are not even Canadian residents and are in Canada just temporarily,
Therefore be it resolved that we, the directors of the Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Joliette Inc., on behalf of our thousands of members, urge the Canadian government to insist that the C.B.C. remedy the situation and that every member of those choral societies receive an amount comparable to the fee paid to foreign performers filling engagements in C.B.C. studios.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the C.B.C. management to take note of that resolution and act accordingly.
We all know that today, radio and television broadcasts reach into every Canadian home, and that the programs have a strong impact on the minds of the Canadian people.
I wish to refer now to a seminar held last year at the social centre of the University of Montreal, under the auspices of the Holy Name societies.

Supply-C.B.C.
Following this seminar, a few resolutions were carried:
X. That a member of the clergy act as adviser to radio and T.V. producers when religious subjects are being presented.
2.	That an ethical code be drafted for the guidance of radio and T.V. producers.
3.	That no programs for adults be shown at hours when children may be listening to radio or watching T.V.
4.	That newspapers publish moral ratings of programs.
5.	That Catholic universities give courses to acquaint producers and actors with Catholic teaching.
Those resolutions were carried for a well known reason.
Nevertheless, I am convinced that the C.B.C. has helped foster national unity in Canada and I strongly urge the corporation to keep extending its French network in all areas where there are French-speaking minorities, and to extend its English network in the province of Quebec where there are English speaking minorities.
Ever since I have been a member of this house, I have found, to my surprise and puzzlement, that whenever members want information about C.B.C. administration or expenditures, they just cannot obtain details as to salaries or anything else.
As representatives of the people, we have a responsibility. Mr. Chairman, how can we adequately discharge that responsibility unless we get information in answer to our questions?
Mr. Chairman, I believe that this policy of silence is basically counter to our democratic system.
As I said earlier, the C.B.C., as such, has been of great service to Canadians, but I am not prepared to say that the organization is faultless. It is a human institution, and has shown serious deficiencies in the past. I am sure there still are deficiencies in the C.B.C. now. Besides, everybody is aware of the corporation's large deficits.
For those reasons, I would be very glad if the corporation were allowed to answer the questions on the order paper, or verbally asked by hon. members.
In view of those C.B.C. deficits, and of the attitude of the management who often refuse to answer our questions, I wonder if there might not be some way to drum a little sense into the bureaucrats, so that they might be fair to the representatives of the people.
Because of its deficits and of the inadequate supervision at times in certain fields,

by those responsible for the corporation, the C.B.C. has some similarity with the tower of Babel. That is why members of parliament have good reasons for asking questions, and have a right to do so. They should enjoy more power than the bureaucrats. They should be able to get answers to their questions, and the corporation should be able to supply details with regard either to salaries, remuneration or fees that are being paid.
It seems to me that we are responsible to the people, and if we really want to make some constructive criticism, we should have that information.
Mr. Chairman, I made those remarks without any bad intent, merely out of a desire to honestly discharge my duty as a representative of the people.


Mr. Deschatelets:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm allow me a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Certainly.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The point raised by the hon. member is of great interest to all of us. I wonder therefore if, at this stage of the proceedings in committee, the hon. member could not appropriately ask all questions he wants answered, since he has just indicated that he has been unable to obtain any answer from the present administration to the questions he had asked.
I therefore suggest to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montealm that he ask all his questions right now.


Mr. Tremblay:: The hon. member should be addressing the chairman of this committee.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I am surprised to hear the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) ask me that question. As a member of the opposition he is certainly not in a position to answer on behalf of the corporation. I in turn suggest that he direct his comments to C.B.C. authorities.
Mr. Chairman, every hon. member knows that, last year, at the committee meetings, we were unable to get answers to the questions we asked with regard to certain commentators. When we asked what salaries or fees were being paid to some C.B.C. commentators, we were quite unable to extract that information, and the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont is perfectly aware of this fact. That was precisely the reason for the remarks I have just made.

(Text):


Mr. Batten:: Mr. Chairman, when the house rose on Wednesday evening we were discussing this item, and the minister had made a statement and given an explanation of the increase of approximately $3J million. At that time I asked him to give us a breakdown of the $62 million under item 41. Is he in a position to do that now?


Mr. Nowlan:: The budget was tabled in
March, with all of the particulars in the form of a break-down which the hon. member has requested; at least, all that have ever been given before.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I was not here the other evening when the estimates of the C.B.C. were first discussed, and in a few minutes this morning I have been trying very hastily to find out what has already been said so I will not waste the time of the committee by repetition. The minister knows how much I hate repetition, but I think there are a few things that are going to need repetition before these estimates are completed.
It will not surprise the minister if I do not embark upon any general statement at all, because I want to deal with something which I regard in the first place as a shocking affront to parliament and, in the second place, as a clear breach of the law made by parliament. I intend at this stage of my intervention to deal exclusively with that subject. Since I have found that the most succinct account of what I have to say is contained in an editorial in the Toronto Star of September 12, 1959, it might avoid a certain amount of repetition if I simply read the editorial. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that the editorial is not written about any debate that is going on in parliament. It is entitled, "Government Flimflam with C.B.C.", and reads as follows:
The Star understated the truth in writing last June 24 and subsequently that the threat of government domination of the C.B.C. endangered free speech on that network. There was then no longer a mere threat. The domination was a fact.
This was concealed by an elaborate government flimflam, disclosed only yesterday by a dispatch from Bruce Macdonald of the Star's Ottawa bureau. On June 24, Alphonse Ouimet was squeezed out as chairman of the C.B.C. board of directors and Ernest Bushnell as vice chairman; Robert L. Dunsmore was made chairman, and Charles Leeson vice chairman. Parliament was grossly misinformed about the switch, for as late as July 10 revenue minister Nowlan told the house that Mr. Dunsmore was acting chairman while Mr. Ouimet and Mr. Bushnell were on sick leave; and in its July 16 report, the commons broadcasting committee's report still took for granted that Mr. Ouimet and Mr. Bushnell were chairman and vice chairman respectively.
Supply-C.B.C.
When Mr. Nowlan did finally announce August 17 that Mr. Dunsmore had become chairman, he omitted the date of the appointment. To do otherwise would have revealed how he had misled parliament.
On June 24 mass resignations of the C.B.C. talks department were in full swing, protesting the cancellation of Preview Commentary's reports of parliament. Testifying to the broadcasting committee, the C.B.C. rebels said the threat "heads will roll" from high government quarters had brought on the censorship of that program.
Now we find that even while Mr. Bushnell was denying to the committee July 1 that he had ever been threatened that "heads will roll", his own head was off. Everything indicates that the dismissals of Mr. Ouimet and Mr. Bushnell from the board were a government power play, designed to bring the C.B.C. under its thumb. And the appointment of Mr. Dunsmore, with no visible qualifications, indicates the same.
Mr. Nowlan evidently has pummelled the C.B.C. into submission. For the fact is, Mr. Nowlan was not appointed as minister of the C.B.C.; he was appointed to report for the C.B.C. to parliament. It is parliament itself, and not the cabinet or any of its ministers, to which the C.B.C. is responsible.
Or should we say, was responsible? For Mr. Nowlan appears to be running the C.B.C. as if it were a department of government and under his direct orders. When a system of public communications such as television and radio is under domination of a government, then Canadians had better be on guard that it is not transformed into an instrument of official propaganda.
Now, sir, I want to review-


Mr. Johnson:: More Liberal propaganda.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member who is licking his wounds over there can get up and speak in his own time. I would recall to the minds of members of the committee, and especially the minister, that prior to July 10 of last year I had asked a question of the acting minister, the hon. member for Greenwood, because the minister was not in the house. The hon. member for Greenwood took the question as notice, and I want to emphasize the fact that the minister had notice of my question. He was not or ought not to have been taken by surprise. On July 10 of last year, as will be found on page 5777 of Hansard, I asked the minister this question on the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker, I wonder If I could put a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Could the minister tell us who at the present time is performing the statutory functions of the president of the C.B.C. as chairman of the board of directors?
The minister replied:
Colonel Landry is, as I said, chairman of the management committee, and Mr. Dunsmore is chairman of the executive committee of the board of directors and in the absence of the vice president is acting as chairman of the board.
That is the information that was given to the house in response to a question of which

Supply-C.B.C.
due notice had been given to the minister. Then on August 17 there was an announcement that Mr. Dunsmore and Mr. Leeson had respectively been chosen as chairman and vice chairman of the board of directors of the C.B.C., but the date on which that had been accomplished was not given. I must say that until Mr. Macdonald published his story in the Toronto Star, or until he was preparing that story, it had never occurred to me that this act was other than something that had taken place in August or very shortly before. But it was drawn to my attention that in fact this election of Mr. Dunsmore and Mr. Leeson had taken place on the 24th of June, at the very height of the crisis in the C.B.C., when the committee was sitting and when surely the committee, in its investigation of this corporation, was entitled to be told what was happening at the very top, to be told that heads had already rolled at the very top.
Yet the whole of this information was kept completely secret from parliament; indeed, so secret that when the committee made its report to parliament it recommended as a change which it would be desirable to make in the future that the president should be relieved of his duties as chairman of the board and a separate chairman appointed. That was a recommendation the committee made which shows that, unless there was even more flimflam than we yet know, the members of the committee did not know anything about what had happened on June 24.
When I learned what had happened I was really very angry, as I think any member of parliament had a right to be, and as I think I had a special right to be because I was the person who had posed the question. I issued a statement to the press, and in order to be completely fair to the committee and the minister I intend to put it on the record now. I gave this statement on September 11 to the Toronto Star, which asked for it:
I do not object in principle to having a chairman of the C.B.C. board who is not the executive head of the corporation; in fact, 1 indicated on the last day of the session that might be some slight improvement. But I do object, anyone having any regard for the rights of parliament will object, to the C.B.C. board of directors making bylaws which change a law made by parliament, I object even more strongly to the fact that the Minister of National Revenue not only failed to disclose the truth to parliament in response to a direct question but gave an answer which was not true.
This is just the latest example of the contempt of the Diefenbaker government for parliament, about whose rights they were so insistent when in opposition. Obviously, they did not dare to tell parliament that heads had already rolled in the C.B.C. Nobody will believe that the CJB.C. board acted on its own in setting aside the law made by parliament and substituting its own bylaw.
[Mr. Pickersgill.j
Now, sir, we have had some very strange developments indeed. We had the minister saying that he was never told about this. I have a press clipping to this effect. It is from the Ottawa Journal of September 12, and the heading reads, "Didn't tell Nowlan of Top Level C.B.C. Changes".
Revenue minister Nowlan said Friday he was not advised by the C.B.C. board of directors at the time the directors changed their chairman.
This is in quotation marks, and my statement was issued on the 11th. I had not seen the minister's statement when I made my statement or I do not believe I would have put the last sentence in the categorical language which I did. I would have put in everything else, but not the last sentence. The minister said:
I don't know why they should have.
Well, I think I will tell the minister before I am finished why I believe they should have. He described it as a matter of the internal management of the board. Here we were with a committee which was going into the internal management of the C.B.C. and the minister felt the C.B.C. should not tell him of a fundamental change that was being made, indeed, a breach of the law.
Mr. Nowlan, who reports to parliament for the C.B.C., was commenting on a story in the Toronto Star that the public was denied information for eight weeks when C.B.C. president Alphonse Ouimet and vice president Ernest Bushnell were replaced as chairman and vice chairman respectively of the C.B.C. board.
The newspaper said that at a C.B.C. board meeting June 24 two C.B.C. directors, Robert L. Dunsmore of Montreal and Charles Leeson of Stratford, were named chairman and vice chairman. The appointments were not announced until August 17 when Mr. Nowlan issued a statement on the change.
Mr. Nowlan said Friday he did not learn about the change until he was asked.
Well, if the minister quarrels with that statement I would be happy to have him quarrel with it at once. If he does not, I assume that is the statement he wishes us to accept.
What did spokesmen for the C.B.C. have to say about this? Their public relations man made a statement in Halifax, and this appeared in the Ottawa Journal of September 12 also, the same day as the minister's statement. It reads: "C.B.C. Denies Board Hid Appointments". Well, I had better read the item, because we know that sometimes headlines are not entirely an accurate reflection of what appears under them.
Halifax, (CP):-Public relations director R. C. Fraser said Friday night the C.B.C. "emphatically denied" any implication that "something nefarious" occurred at a board meeting in Toronto June 24. Mr. Fraser was commenting on a Toronto Star story which said news of removal of president



I860

[Stage Direction]
Alphonse Ouimet and vice president Ernest Bush-nell as chairman and vice chairman respectively for the C.B.C. board of directors was withheld from the public for eight weeks.
Mr. Fraser said on June 24 Mr. Ouimet was recovering from a heart ailment and an operation and Mr. Bushnell, who had been acting president, was "on the verge of exhaustion."
Because of the necessity to have a presiding officer, Mr. Fraser said, the bylaws were changed to provide for the election of a chairman and vice chairman from among nine of the eleven directors.
Robert L. Dunsmore and Charles Leeson were elected to one-year terms on June 24.
Note that, sir; one-year terms; yet we were told on July 10 that they were merely acting during the incapacity of the president and vice president, which the board had a perfect right to do; that I do not question. What I do question is the board's usurpation of powers which were not given by parliament and, as I will show in a few moments which parliament did not at the time intend them to have.
The Star also said the June meeting followed by one day the levelling of charges of "clandestine political interference" against the C.B.C. and added that the election of Mr. Dunsmore and Mr. Leeson was not made public until August 17 by revenue minister Nowlan.
"The charges of political interference had nothing to do with the meeting," said Mr. Fraser. "The date had been set months before".
Mr. Fraser said the June changes were not considered news "because they made no change in the operating policy."
"If the Star had called us the next day we would have told them the story," Mr. Fraser said.
"There certainly has been no suppression."
I am not saying at the moment that there is a direct contradiction between that statement and the statement made by the minister, but I must say that when one takes these two statements together they seem to leave an implication that ought to be removed. What is even more serious, if possible, than that is that this whole possibility was envisaged during the debate on the bill. I wish to put on the record now from Hansard of August 26, 1958, at page 4139, an exchange which took place between my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of National Revenue, which reads:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, whether it is the intention-I have not been able to find it in the provisions of this bill although it may be there-to provide that the president of the corporation should be the chairman of the board and preside over the meetings of the board? The minister has referred to him merely as the executive officer. But is he not also the chairman of the board and the one who presides over the board of directors?


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not think there is a section spelling that matter out in detail in the bill. But I think it was taken for granted that where someone was not named chairman or if there was not a definite designation, the chairman would be the president.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is true with regard to the board of governors; he is designated.
Supply-C.B.C.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is nothing in this bill to designate any member of the board of the corporation as chairman of the board?


George Clyde Nowlan: That is right.
I want to be utterly and completely fair about this matter. I know that language is ambiguous, but there is a very important and very compelling precedent in connection with this matter. It so happened that a few years ago one of the chartered banks wished to choose one of its officers other than its president to be chairman of its board. The government of the day felt it necessary to ask parliament to amend the Bank Act expressly to provide that a bank could have a chairman of the board who was not the president. When these circumstances are taken together, the clear inference from the words of the minister in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, the clear inference that the president of the corporation was to be the chairman of the board, and the fact that parliament and the government of the day felt it was necessary to amend the Bank Act to provide specifically for a chairman of the board who was someone other than the president, there does not seem to be any room for doubt that this was clearly an infringement of the law.
I do not know whether Mr. Dunsmore or Mr. Leeson have received any special emoluments as chairman and vice chairman, but I think we are entitled to be told whether they have or not. I think we are entitled to an opinion, if they have, from the law officers of the crown as to whether that was a proper payment to be made out of the treasury.


George Clyde Nowlan: They have not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister, I understand, says they have not. Well, if they have not, that point does not arise. I think we are also entitled to have from the minister before these estimates are concluded, an opinion from the deputy minister of justice on the point that has been raised. If this point had not been raised at all in debate, if the inference had not been made, if the committee last year had not found it necessary to recommend a change in the law, thus indicating clearly what the intentions of parliament were at the time, there might have been some slight room for argument, although I suggest that in the light of the precedent in the case of the Bank Act there is not any real room for argument. There is nothing of which over the years, parliament has been more jealous, and properly so, except the independence of the judiciary and the courts, than the independence of the C.B.C. In view of the minister's denial in the press I am not asserting that

Supply-C.B.C.
the minister did know at all about what went on at that time, because I have never asserted that the minister-


George Clyde Nowlan: I just received a note from Mr. Dunsmore saying that he did not know for some time either, because he was not at the meeting.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say that the minister has certainly not increased my confidence in the competence or the sense of the responsibility of the present directors of the C.B.C. by the statement he has just made. If at a time when there was a crisis all over the country about this matter, the C.B.C. board had so little sense of responsibility that it regarded this as a routine matter that did not even need to be reported to the minister, at a time when a committee was sitting and parliament was sitting and if, as I assume, the C.B.C. like other state agencies has someone who does read Hansard-and if they have not, they ought to have-and who is aware of what goes on, surely if they had any sense of responsibility they would not have left the minister in the position in which he found himself after he gave that answer on July 10. I would almost go so far as to say that if I had been the minister I would have thought whatever head was responsible for that situation ought to have rolled.


George Clyde Nowlan: There would have been another head roll, eh?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is certainly a display of a shocking sense of irresponsibility if the facts are as the C.B.C. and the minister have said they were, namely that they regarded this matter as pure routine; that when a question was asked in parliament they allowed the minister to make a statement which was not true and did not inform him of the truth so that he could correct that statement. I say that it gives us very scant ground for confidence in the competence of this board. I say moreover that when the situation was as it appeared in September, my view is that the board of the C.B.C. should have repaired the error and should have repaired it promptly. They should have announced that fact publicly and said they had made a mistake, that they were sorry for that mistake, and should have reinstated the president, who according to the statute passed by this parliament was intended to be chairman of the board, in the position which was rightfully his. It seems to me that this is not a trivial matter particularly in relation to the C.B.C. and in relation to broadcasting. Neither broadcasting nor the C.B.C. is an agency of the government. It is an agency of the state responsible directly to parliament and having a spokesman here.

I must say that in this particular respect, if I accept the minister's word, as I do, there is no way in which we can really hold the minister accountable. But that is all the more reason why we should know just what other things the C.B.C. board is doing that it regards as matters of routine that do not need to be reported to the minister and about which parliament can be left in the dark, such as deposing the president of the corporation and putting somebody else in his place who was never intended by parliament to be there.
Here we have this government, the members of which when in opposition ranted and roared about the rights of parliament and ranted and roared about adherence to statutes. Yet this is the kind of record we have. It seems to me that in the face of this kind of record we should be told by the minister, and told now, just what was done about this matter after September 12, when it certainly came quite forcibly to the minister's attention; what the present situation is, and whether the minister has any view from the law officers of the crown that the board had the power to do this act which on the face of it, and on the face of the minister's statement and on the face of the precedent I have cited, there does not seem to be any ground for suggesting that they had.
It surely is for parliament and not for the board of the C.B.C. to determine what shall be the constitution and structure of that board. If we are establishing boards that have so little regard for parliament and such an exalted view of their own functions that they think they can set aside the statutes and make other arrangements that may seem to them more convenient as a mere matter of routine, what else is happening?
Having put the case as bluntly and as accurately as I can from a factual standpoint, and having stated my position on it, I think I should allow the minister to reply.


Jacques Flynn: I recognize the hon. member for Churchill.


Mr. Simpson:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity-


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the minister is not going to reply, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I have some more time left. I had hoped that the minister would reply at once on this matter, which is a very serious one. I yielded my place to the minister, not to the hon. member for Churchill.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: At the end.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the minister does not want to reply until the end, I think I will use the rest of my time.


George Clyde Nowlan: Go ahead.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are a good many other things I want to say about the estimates of the C.B.C. One of them-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I do not know whether one must interpret the fact that the hon. member resumed his seat as an action permitting the minister to answer. If the minister chooses not to answer, inasmuch as the Chair has recognized the hon. member for Churchill I think he should be allowed to continue.


Robert Simpson: I should like to take this opportunity to once again bring to the attention of the minister the fact that there are a large number of people in northern Manitoba who do not yet have the services of television. I refer particularly to the people in the area of The Pas and Flin Flon. These people in both these areas are recognized as being in the higher wage bracket in relation to other wage earners in Canada and, as I have mentioned previously on other occasions, they are paying a higher income tax than most other wage earners in Canada. Of course this income tax is partially going to support the C.B.C.
1 doubt very much whether there is any other place in Canada with such a concentrated population as there is in the town of Flin Flon that is not served by television. In this locality there are approximately 15,000 people in one concentrated group. I do realize that many other areas in Canada have populations possibly as large or maybe even larger when you take into consideration outlying areas, farming communities adjacent to towns, and so on; but Flin Flon has its group of people, as I mentioned before, concentrated in one small area. At The Pas much the same situation arises, although there is a somewhat smaller population.
I also realize that some of the areas in Canada which are currently being serviced have smaller populations, but they are in closer proximity to present C.B.C. facilities and therefore can be serviced at a lower cost per household. However, I would like to emphasize the fact that people in northern Manitoba and the particular areas I am speaking of, Flin Flon and The Pas, have pioneered that area and made their homes there. They have brought up their families and are developing the north. I think all hon. members will agree that, taking into consideration those facts, they should be given every possible consideration that the government or the C B.C. can give them.
I might say there are one or two other areas in northern Manitoba which also suffer from lack of good radio reception. In particular I mention Lynn Lake and the new townsite
Supply-C.B.C.
of Thompson. I had the opportunity of going into Thompson the other day, and I found it to be a fast growing community. They expect to have 8,000 to 10,000 people there in the next year and a half to two years, and they tell me that radio reception in that area is very poor. I did hear some talk that the C.B.C. were planning to put some sort of satellite in there to improve radio reception, and I certainly hope this talk is not just idle rumour but that plans are under way to do this not only at Thompson but also at Lynn Lake. Possibly the minister could give me some information about that matter.
While in Flin Flon I found that more and more people are leaving the northern areas because television is not available to them. To the people in the larger centres who accept television as a natural thing this might seem a little out of place, that people should leave good jobs with good security to go to another place where television is available. But when you stop to consider the educational value of television for growing children, and one thing and another, it is not too difficult to realize that if we do not show a greater interest in these places we are going to find it very difficult to keep key men in them.
On other occasions in this house the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has made a few inquiries about television in northern Manitoba, and on occasion I have suggested to him that this matter is being kept constantly before the minister and the C.B.C. not only by myself but by other federal members from Manitoba. I would suggest to him again that it might be a good idea for him to look after his own constituency. He might be interested to know that the other day in Flin Flon three or four people asked me about the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, and their remarks were to the effect that he possibly did not have too much constituency work of his own because he seemed to be taking quite an interest in our problems up there.
There is one other point I would like to bring to the attention of the minister, and it is a point in which the people of this area are very interested at this time. It concerns a statement made by the president of the C.B.C. at Edmonton during the month of April, I believe, to the effect that the C.B.C.-[DOT] I am speaking from recollection-planned to include in their estimates for next year sufficient money to provide kinescope television for Flin Flon and The Pas. I know the people would be very interested if the minister could enlighten them to any further extent in this regard. The statement was

Supply-C.B.C.
made only recently, and possibly not a great deal of progress has been made so far; but if there has been any progress made in that respect or if there is any further information which can be given to these people, I am sure they would be very pleased to have it.
A great many of them undoubtedly feel that kinescope television is not going to be satisfactory as far as they are concerned. However, I am doing my best to convince them that this at least is a start in the right direction, and also to assure them that my attempts to get network facilities into Flin Flon will not cease as long as I am their representative. Kinescope recording is certainly a lot better than none at all, but the network facilities are really the thing which all the people of Canada wish to be able to use.
I would like to impress upon the minister that in the light of the announcement of the president of the C.B.C., he can be assured that the people of northern Manitoba are going to continue their requests and their battle to get network facilities for their area.
(Translation):


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is asking us today to vote a sum of $71,739,400, covering the operating costs of radio and television services, those of the international service, and capital expenditures. The corporation, in making this request, is being modest and discreet. It does not want to bother the representatives of the people with trifles. Therefore it does not supply any details. No explanations are given. Hon. members and the government are merely implored to approve the C.B.C. budget.
It no doubt considers this as some transitory ordeal, and that while it faces the obligation once a year, or having its moment of truth, it is only a fair price to pay for the tranquillity it subsequently enjoys when it no longer has to give an account of its management and is free to do what it bally well likes with taxpayers' money.
Today it is paying its tribute to that democratic institution, the government, knowing full well that tomorrow it can go on lambasting it, to reply insolently to questions asked by the representatives of the people, and to snap its fingers at taxpayers' representations.
Indeed, Mr. Chairman, why should it worry about those things, since our laws authorize it to ignore those representations, because the C.B.C. is sovereign, and seems to have the added assurance of impunity.

That Mr. Chairman, is precisely the anomaly I would like to denounce once again before approving, and not necessarily with a light heart, the C.B.C.'s budget. I bear no grudge against it; on the contrary, I have on many occasions praised its achievements, and I am happy to pay tribute at this time to the eminent services the C.B.C. is giving the citizens of Canada.
However, I do find it abnormal, and contrary to the principles of responsible government, that the C.B.C. should not be obliged to give the government a more detailed account of its administration.
Nor do I accept, by reason of the same principles, that the C.B.C. should be a private preserve where unfortunately too often, favouritism-and since the word is currently in vogue-political patronage, reign supreme. As I have stated in the past, the C.B.C. is not a crown corporation like the others, precisely because it operates in the field of minds and consciences. Each of the services it provides cannot be appraised solely by administrative and financial standards.
On the other hand, the responsibility with which the C.B.C., has mistakenly been invested in the field of education compels us to scrutinize its programs with the greatest care, so that we can determine whether it respects the patterns and objectives assigned to our society by the philosophical, theological and moral principles which constitute the structure of our social life and the traditional basis of our teaching.
The services rendered by the C.B.C. may be classified under two main headings: information and entertainment. A third function, and one which-in view of the specific provisions of Canada's constitution-I can unhesitatingly describe as an usurped function, is that of education.
I have always been of the opinion that to entrust public information to a state organization is a very risky thing. Indeed the objectivity of that information rests on the good faith of the individuals, on their training and on the principles from which they seek inspiration. For, as often happens, those who dispense information betray their convictions, their principles and, frequently too, their political allegiance. News reports are therefore inevitably coloured, and this is understandably objected to by people who do not share the views of commentators, journalists and reporters. Private information agencies are obviously not immune to this danger, but since they are not being financed by the taxpayers, any erring ways that they can be accused of cannot fairly be imputed to the government.

In the field of entertainment, the C.B.C. does not yet seem to be sufficiently aware of the fact that it is the taxpayers who must pay the bills piled up by artists, producers, and employees of all kinds. The C.B.C. spends handsomely.
Producers undoubtedly mean well. They are trying to improve the program quality, to introduce new angles, to achieve originality and constantly to extend the field of artistic experiments of all kinds. But there is extravagance. There seems to be a prevalent belief that, in this field, Canada can afford to spend as much as do much wealthier countries. There are an increasing number of programs requiring expensive travelling; costly productions are prepared regardless of expense. From past experience, the firm conviction is held that members of parliament and the government will approve the corporation's actions without a second look.
The intention of providing entertainment and opportunities for mental relaxation may be quite sincere.
However, it must always take into account the realistic fact that all this has to be paid for by the people of Canada, they are the ones who foot the bills for the expensive shows put on by the corporation. They have no choice. They have no say in the matter of programming, nor can they refuse to pay the bill. Programs are thrust upon them, which they have to pay for. Now, in show business, the patron generally has the privilege of choosing the shows he wants to see. Especially has he the great privilege of not having to pay for those he has not chosen to see.
It will of course be objected that the corporation is trying to multiply its offerings to present a greater variety of programs, so as to allow televiewers a greater choice, one more in keeping with the diversity of tastes. All that is true; but, nevertheless, there remains the obligation for the public to pay for the whole thing. That is why I am advocating a closer supervision of expenses in that field, a supervision which can only be adequately ensured in compliance with the demands of responsible government, by the appointment of an advisory committee of citizens representing various categories of society, that would examine the various projects for C.B.C. programs, and would assess the possible costs, for report to the government.
Supply-C.B.C.
This would have the advantage of enabling the representatives of the people to exercise a discreet control on the spending of public funds, and also on the preparation of programs. It would in no way hamper the freedom of those whose job it is to set up programs, to devise shows, and to put them on the air. It would perhaps sometimes remind creators and performers that the expression of their talents remains unfortunately and more particularly in the case of the C.B.C.-dependent of the financial means available to the taxpayer.
As to the so-called educational programs, I said before what I thought of them. I want to repeat that, to my mind the C.B.C. is usurping the responsibilities of the educator. I, for my part, maintain that if we have to tolerate, for the time being-and I do not know for how long yet-that the C.B.C., which is an organization of the central government, look after education, its programs should be entirely prepared in close co-operation with the council of public education and with the recognized institution of learning in our province. It is also to be hoped that the responsibility of those programs will be entrusted to people, who, besides being endowed with the necessary competence and experience in the fields of broadcasting and television, would moreover have the necessary qualifications on the academic level, which are required of those responsible for teaching in this country. Thus, what I have called before the perils of improvisation would be avoided and people who are not qualified for employment in the teaching institutions of our province and in our country would thus be eliminated.
I would like to come back to some suggestions I made on April 9 last in a speech in this house. I suggested at the time that a minister of this government be immediately responsible both for the C.B.C. and the national film board, as well as for all other cultural organizations of the government.
I insist on that point, and to reassure the timorous, let me add first that while I think the various government cultural agencies should be placed under a responsible minister, it does not mean that I recognize or approve in principle the jurisdiction of the central power in cultural matters. I am simply looking at the factual situation, which some day or other we shall have to improve or drastically change. That will not stop me, when the

Supply-C.B.C.
occasion arises, from urging the Ottawa government to hand over to the provinces whatever responsibilities they are entitled to under the constitution. Let me stress also, for the benefit of those who are always looking for a weak spot, that placing responsibility for the C.B.C. under a minister would not place the corporation in a strait-jacket and would not open it to political influence any more than the existence of a provincial secretary in Quebec places educational institutions in a strait-jacket or lays them open to the tyranny of politicians. Such a move would enable the government to examine the operations of the C.B.C. and, where necessary, to place financial limitations on its activity.
I have also suggested that the minister be assisted by a special deputy minister who would ensure liaison between the minister and the corporation. I think an English speaking deputy might be appointed for the English network, and a French speaking deputy for the French network. Incidentally, I think the practice of appointing two deputies, one for each language, should be applied to all departments. As to the French network, I consider it most important that a French speaking deputy minister be appointed. A man imbued with the French spirit, culture, outlook and with the basic principles of our French traditions, would be in a better position to understand the problems involved in the operation of the French network of the C.B.C. That would avoid the problems, misunderstandings and difficulties of all kinds arising from the impossibility for someone foreign to our language, culture and ideas to understand the particular conflicts arising within the C.B.C. French network.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to renew the other suggestions I made in the speech I delivered in this house on April 8 last. I add this: I urge the government to set up a royal commission to investigate the administration of the C.B.C., for the following purposes:
First, to consider C.B.C. finances; second, to stop unwarranted expenses; third, to examine the problem of salaries, security and stability of employment, and to define the duties and functions of every class of C.B.C. employee; fourth, to ensure objectivity in news reporting; fifth, to review the principles which should underly C.B.C. programs, and to bring about policies more consistent with the task originally assigned to the C.B.C.; sixth, to do away with all patronage and political interference.

Mr. Chairman, the suggestions I had put forward have been favourably received in the province of Quebec. In my own constituency, I have received many testimonials in that regard. I renew my plea at this time, and further, I urge the government to set up a royal commission as soon as possible, because I feel that the citizens of this country, whom it is our responsibility to represent, have for years been demanding such an investigation into the administration of the corporation.
The purpose of such an investigation, as I see it, should not be to place anyone in hot water, to hunt up scandals or to put people on trial for their opinions, but it should involve a close examination of the C.B.C. administration, so that once and for all, the people may find out in detail how the C.B.C. spends public funds.
Mr. Chairman, I would have hoped in this speech to examine certain other problems which I feel the government should look into. However, I shall let the matter rest.
In closing, I again urge the government, my government, to consider the possibility of allowing the taxpayers and their representatives to look into the administration of the C.B.C.
In this way, when the legitimate representatives of the people again go before the people, they will be in a position to answer all questions which the public is entitled to ask, and to give adequate answers, answers obviously more accurate and satisfactory than those given us so far.
(Text):


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its predecessor have long been of interest to members of this party, as to other Canadians, because we see in it an expression and development of Canadian nationalism. We are very concerned today over the position of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I am concerned not only with the general attitude of the people who are running it, but I am bothered by my own attitude. In the opinion of many people the corporation has deteriorated, and they have grave doubts about the service that the organization is performing and of its program standards. There are many doubts about its future and about its fundamental role of providing some kind of broadcasting service to the people right across the nation not only in metropolitan centres.

I hope the hon. member for Churchill and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate do not mind these remarks. I am not sticking my nose into Churchill but I know that if as the result of a policy decision, the constituency of Churchill receives what the hon. member is searching for, it will also bring services such as he wants to the part of the country that I represent. I think he should look at it not so much from the point of view of keeping our noses in our own constituency's business as asking for and expecting from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation a policy that will move it toward the attainment of a genuine national service to all the people.
Not very long ago in the house I made some criticisms of the C.B.C., especially in relation to the decision of the board of broadcast governors to allow the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to establish a television station in Edmonton. My argument was similar to that of other members, that before this rather large capital expenditure should be contemplated the C.B.C. should have gone farther in giving service to those areas that do not now have any television service at all and in many cases very bad or poor radio service. Since my remarks on that occasion I have been rebuked not only by some people in general but also by some of the C.C.F. party supporters in the west, who feel it is almost a question of desperation that those areas not only have private outlets but that they should have the opportunity to look at the kind of programs the C.B.C. produces.
In replying to these people I can only say that in my judgment, and I think in the judgment of the party, it is a difficult problem deciding which comes first, which is of primary importance. Perhaps because of the problems and needs of my own area I tend to feel that what should come first is the extension of some kind of service, even a minimal service, to everyone in the country. The argument that is always put forward by the broadcasting corporation officials to whom I talk is that there is the matter of cost, that you get into inordinate costs when you serve sparsely settled areas.
The corporation responds to this problem by establishing a formula of so much per capita or so much per household, and when an area reaches the population concentration that brings it under this formula the corporation then decides to go ahead. I know the corporation has shifted its formula to a certain extent in the last few years, but I should like to suggest it needs to shift it even more and look at the question of whether it should expand its facilities any further in metropolitan areas. There is nothing we can do now with respect to Edmonton, because
Supply-C.B .C.
they are going to go in there. I am talking even about the programming facilities, such as the provision of new studios in metropolitan areas, when there is still an important segment of the Canadian people who do not have any television service. As I look at the national needs this is most important.
The hon. member for Churchill mentioned people moving out of a region. In a country like ours where we do have mobility it may seem sad, but an amenity or a luxury or even a necessity from any point of view such as television does determine the attitude of people. I know that one of the difficulties many men have in the hinterland region is to keep their wives and children happy in a remote area where this kind of service is not available. It may be a commentary upon our civilization and the sad state it has reached, but this is so. I agree with the hon. member for Churchill that it is a very real problem.
I have pointed out to the house before that there is an inordinate requirement in the hinterland region for this sort of thing. People living in small bush communities who are keeping our basic and primary industries going, such as pulp and paper and mining, do not have the advantages of people in metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal. There are not the leisure-time facilities. There is a remarkable lack of recreational facilities, especially for children and women. The people of the frontier have always been good at devising their own entertainment and educational opportunities, but with the present sophistication of society and young people it is very hard to support a really going community that does not have modern services such as television.
I can see this very definitely in another way that is connected. I refer to those subjects of interest that make us Canadians, and by way of example I point to the sports field. I have known railroaders to come from away up and down the line years ago in order to cluster in a small town and listen to a hockey broadcast. I know that hockey, football and other Canadian sporting events that have been and are carried by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation mean a great deal in tying the country together, just as the national news telecast means a lot. If we are going to have a continuation of the very vague situation where these people cannot know when they are likely to get some kind of service. I can only say that we as their representatives have failed to put over the urgency and the real need of the situation.
This leads me into another aspect of criticism that we have of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, one that has to do with programming. Perhaps I have been guilty

Supply-C.B.C.
as other members of the house in sounding off about programs. However, I have tried not to sound off about programs in particular but programming in general. I suppose the problem can be put in its extreme case in relation to the trans-Canada radio network and the fact that there are a number of low power relay stations in my constituency that carry its programs. In communities such as Marathon and White River this tends to be about the best radio reception they can get, because of the great amount of interference in trying to pick up United States stations, largely caused, I understand, because of iron formations and other natural phenomena.
The trans-Canada network programming tends to be what one would call heavy. I do not think it is quite in the category of the C.B.C. third program, but it is still a remarkably heavy diet. While I or other people may enjoy parts of it, and I have said so again and again, in the main the programming is quite unsatisfactory to many of the people who are captive listeners. It is far too heavy a diet for the kind of person living in our frontier communities. In saying this I am not in any way slighting these people, but merely pointing out that their tastes are not the tastes of the educated elite that one may find in a metropolitan area.
I sometimes think that the programming of the C.B.C., particularly on radio and to a degree on television, is oriented to an audience that the producers of the corporation envisage as in a metropolitan area. I sometimes think the public affairs producers have in mind those people who are influenced by and are in touch with all the media that metropolitan areas offer, but the people in the hinterland across the nation who are far away from metropolitan centres do not have this point of view. I can never get excited about Bach or Beethoven or any of the other musical greats, but I know that in the larger cities especially there is a great and developing appreciation of these composers. I also know that there are those who, so far as public affairs are concerned, are interested in international matters, but continually the C.B.C. emphasizes this external material or material that is cultural in a very highbrow way.
As a consequence, the impression gained of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation across the line is not that Canadians are more of the folksy or homey kind you see on Don Messer's program, but rather that they may be more like Lister Sinclair or Nathan Cohen. With all due respect to these gentlemen, they are hardly typical of the kind of Canadians and the interests of Canadians in areas distant from these metropolitan sophisticates.

I should like to think that the C.B.C. could lighten the programming on its trans-Canada network radio service. In saying this I do not want to convey the idea that the programs are not worth while, but I would suggest that they go over the heads of many people. Certainly many them find not worth listening to. I suggested before that it would be to the advantage of many of these areas if the programs that go out on the dominion network were available as a matter of choice, ahead of the trans-Canada network programs.
In so far as the television aspect of programming is concerned, I should like to appeal to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to take a good look at what the United States networks do in the field of public affairs. We have a tendency to belittle the accomplishments of the United States and to think they are all for whoop-de-doo and razzle-dazzle. I find that whenever I am in areas in which United States television programs can be received I get much stimulation in the field of public affairs; there is more excitement and real interest, and actually more coverage of domestic points than we get from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I have already expressed the view that I certainly think this represents a lack of stomach on the part of the C.B.C. It may be caused by the fact that there is a lack of imagination toward domestic affairs and a feeling that what the United States does would be dangerous to the position of the C.B.C. Well, I should like to think that Canadians had not only more guts than that, but more interest in their own affairs than the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation programming would indicate.
The argument I have had from C.B.C. producers-I think I am being fair to them- is, what is the point of concentrating on domestic public affairs, since most people in Canada are apathetic about them? You are never going to shake apathy unless you offer the people something, and the fact that the people to the south of us are not apathetic in the development of public affairs programming should be some encouragement to the C.B.C. I would hate to think that these private networks which are in the future, and for which the board of broadcast governors is projecting some ground rules, would become, as is entirely possible, the best medium we have for finding out about ourselves as citizens. I think that could very well come about unless the C.B.C. shows some imagination and leadership in that field.
One of the things I have noted is that in certain areas where you have private television stations with a responsible attitude toward their duties-I am not going to single

out any because I could also think of some examples of stations which have not responsible attitudes-you have a livelier sense of the community and what is going on, and the reaction of the community to the medium is better than we get from the C.B.C. I can give one example in my own area. The programming that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation puts into Port Arthur appears to come from some distant organization. This is a lack in the C.B.C. If the only time our particular region is ever noticed by the C.B.C. is when an elevator falls into the lake, then the C.B.C. is doing nothing to bring ours and other areas together nationally. We should discontinue the orientation toward large centres, such as Toronto, and the feeling that really life in Canada is concentrated in such centres.
The exhortation I would give to the C.B.C., and exhortations are popular these days, would be to get out in a programming sense and do a job for this Canadian nationalism that exists. Do not be frightened by controversial topics. However, they do not have to be in areas such as divorce to get the kind of controversy that Canadians really want to hear about. I can think of many Canadian problems about which the people would like to hear, especially what comes up in relation to the United States and the rather latent United States pressures that are bubbling to the surface. We never get much treatment of subjects of that kind.
It seems to me that last year the minister hinted that there would be a new look at the position of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation after the nine private television stations were set up. I have here his speech from last year. I would not like to read too much into it in this regard, but I certainly feel that he indicated that once this trend had solidified the government might consider, or there might be a reconsideration, of the kind of service the C.B.C. should give. Now, the Globe and Mail of Toronto has been arguing one aspect of this matter, and that is that perhaps the C.B.C. should be divorced from control or ownership of any facilities at all, and that it should be put in the position of a program agency in the public affairs field, not in the entertainment field; that as such it would carry out the old role of the cultural dike against the United States tide.
One of the other possibilities-I have heard this put forward by both Conservative and Liberal members in private-is that perhaps we should consider completely disposing of the C.B.C. when the set-up is complete. These are the two alternatives. I think I would have liked to see the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation left intact and engaged to do a much bigger chore. However, the policy has
Supply-C.B.C.
been set and we are following a trend. I would think that the experience in Britain has indicated that a vigorous public agency and vigorous private agencies can co-exist and offer a great deal of variety and a wealth of information in so far as the radiotelevision media go.
The party which I represent feels very strongly that the C.B.C. is in some danger from these alternatives. We do not think they are the right ones. I feel personally-I do not know how many members of my party feel this way-that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by sheer lack of initiative, by failure to move, by lack of imagination, by always muffing its chances and looking like a fool in so many instances, will create the very kind of condition which will lead either to its destruction or to a very great narrowing of the functions that it carries out. For these reasons we would appeal to the corporation officials to get on their horse and start riding in the direction I have indicated.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate went into a lot of detail about one rather narrow aspect of the board of directors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I agree with most of what he had to say. I am not going to cover the same field, but I am very much bothered about the legality of the Dunsmore appointment. I should like a full explanation from the minister about it. I may say in this regard that most of us in this house have a great deal of respect for the minister. I have noted his tactics not only on this occasion but at other times. He is very quick to get to his feet. He never gives a full statement to start with on anything. He is quite prepared to sit in the bush until the enemy is fully in sight, and then he comes out with his forays.
I think these are excellent political tactics in the House of Commons. I compliment him on them. However, I should like to say to him that what he fails to do in so far as the C.B.C. and the board of broadcast governors are concerned is to give us a thorough review. It seems to me any minister is faced with two alternatives in this house. He can come in and give such a thorough review that the opposition tends to be overwhelmed by detail and at least to have very few points on which it can criticize; or he can do as the minister usually does, namely sit in the bush. I would suggest that I would greatly appreciate from him-and I am not saying this from the point of view of needling him-a thorough review of this changed program and where they are going.
I think it is regrettable that we do not have the annual report of the C.B.C. I should like to know from the minister whether he now

Supply-C.B.C.
has it in his hands, and whether he has in his hands a report from the board of broadcast governors, In the case of the board of broadcast governors it is most regrettable, because they have had a most exciting year, a most controversial one. They have been issuing orders and ukases and regulations in great numbers. They have been hiring employees. There has been more controversy and discussion about it than about any other government agency. I think it would have been of great service to us if we could have had the report before us.
The broadcasting committee has been set up, and I am going to vote or try to vote or move, when the committee starts, that the committee end; because I feel, and I know some other members have the same feeling, that now at this particular stage of the session, when we are sitting these long hours and are sitting through the lunch period, is not the time for us to get involved with private broadcasters, with the C.B.C. or the
B.	B.G.
It is not because we do not want to take a took at them. I should very much like to have a chance to analyse what Mr. Brown of the
C.	A.B. is going to say, and what the independent private stations are wanting to say. I hope that some time, but not at this stage, the committee will have a chance to go into all the dirty innuendos and all the snidery that exists at the present time about the awarding of licences in Halifax, Ottawa, Toronto and Winnipeg. Certainly there have been more sneers and more scepticism about this matter than about anything else that has happened in recent years. They have caused great doubts about the impartiality of the B.B.G. and also grave doubts about the role of the government.
I may say frankly to the minister that I am greatly bothered about the role of government and the role of parliament in relation to these two agencies. The phrases are tossed around that the C.B.C. does not report to the government; that the minister is only, one might say, an echo chamber through whom the C.B.C. speaks; that parliament is the body to which the C.B.C. goes, and that parliament has final control over the C.B.C. It is even arguable that since we have had a select committee on broadcasting, this committee as a microcosm of the house has a responsibility toward the C.B.C. and the B.B.G. that is greater than that of the government itself.
I think we are in great confusion about the relationship of these two agencies to parliament. I believe in going so far as to advocate that we never have a question raised in this house about the C.B.C. or the B.B.G., but

instead have some kind of regular meetings between officials of these agencies and the parliamentary committee. When I speak of regular meetings I mean possibly two or three times a year. I do not think it does much for either the B.B.G. or the C.B.C. to have members such as myself getting up and asking questions about details, about programming or any other inquiry we may want to make. But I certainly think we have to keep up that kind of practice unless we can get some clear indication of just how parliament controls the C.B.C. and the B.B.G.
This relationship of government corporations and parliament is one of the most ambiguous ones of which I know. We have had several examples this session, in connection with the national harbours board and the Canadian National Railways, which pinpoint the difficulty. I have not met many members of this house, except perhaps the hon. member who has just taken his seat, who really want to gouge their thumbs into the C.B.C. or any other government corporation. But I sense among hon. members a feeling of malaise with regard to what parliament's relationship really is, and grave doubts as to the minister's role in relation to these two agencies and that of the cabinet or the ministry as a whole. The air certainly needs to be cleared by the minister with some kind of review of his relationship with the board of broadcast governors and the C.B.C. and I hope he will give us a long statement.
I have some other and more particular matters that I want to take up with the C.B.C. but which I can come to later on in the estimates. I should like to give other people an opportunity to make their general approach. But I am going to say to the minister that I should like to have from him-and I should like to give him notice of it-some fairly full details on the Aitken research group that was established to report on programming. I should like to know the role this particular group has played in so far as C.B.C. audience research is concerned, how people were involved in it in connection with correspondence. I should like to know how the report is working out, and I especially want to know from the minister how I got this answer in relation to my question when I had before me clippings from the Winnipeg Free Press and the Winnipeg Tribune indicating that Mrs. Aitken had given a full report to the press as to how her activities in this particular field were going.
(Translation):


Mr. Paul:: Mr. Chairman, once again we are invited to vote estimates to that mystery corporation which we call the C.B.C.

I would be remiss in my duty if I failed to praise, the C.B.C. first of all for its loyal effort to treat the French-speaking minorities of this country with fairness, just as it is treating with fairness the English-speaking minorities living in the province of Quebec.
I think the C.B.C. is very well qualified to further develop our national unity, which is necessary to the progress of our country.
On the other hand, I think it is the duty of any representative of the people to inquire into the amounts voted to that body. How can we avoid being perplexed by the lack of information there is in the blue book in this connection?
This year the house is called upon to vote a sum of $71,739,040 to that corporation, while last year the amount was $69,641,975. That means therefore, an increase of a little more than $2 million, while, since 1958, that increase has reached $5,900,000.
The representatives of the people would like to know the reasons for that increase, as well as the amount of money actually needed by the C.B.C. to operate.
It would be quite proper, I think, to point out to the minister responsible for the corporation, the attitude taken by the latter's officials following a question I asked on May 7, 1959, as recorded on page 1 of the English version of Hansard of May 7, 1959.
It was about an amoral drama shown on the C.B.C. network, and entitled, "La plus belle de ceans".
The minister's reply was:
I can assure the hon. member and the house that the president is conducting an enquiry as to how this program could have originated on the C.B.C. and that appropriate disciplinary action will be taken against those who were responsible for the production of such a program.
For my part, I am still waiting for that disciplinary action, and I am anxious to know what disciplinary action the chairman of the corporation may have recommended against the producer of that program.
I would be remiss in my duty not to point out that, in my humble opinion, the only disciplinary action taken was at the expense of the state, since that producer, after the presentation of his program, and after the sanctions which should have been taken against him, had his salary raised from $6,800 to $9,500 a year.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is a shame.


Rémi Paul: I hope that the minister will bring more pressure to bear upon this mystery corporation-which I again describe
Supply-C.B.C.
by those words-so that happenings at the C.B.C. be brought to light.
I think that the most important point with which we have to deal today relates to finance.
I fully agree with the very pointed remarks made by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) and I wonder if the minister, who answers for the C.B.C. should not take advantage of the provisions of chapter 154 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, particularly those of sections 2 and 6, to set up a royal commission to inquire into the objects outlined by the hon. member for Roberval and also to establish the reasons for this waste of public money as practised by the C.B.C.
I am not going to dwell upon that question in this house, but I shall nevertheless point out the amount of $1,000 which the C.B.C. saw fit recently to give to an artist who was brought in from Paris to sing a song during the French Canadian song festival.
I will not insist further, but let me point out to the minister that he will be in a position to check this statement with the competent officials of the C.B.C. and with those responsible, if there are any, and if they can be found. I would like also to have some further details on this amount which has been paid to an individual-whose name I will not mention at this time, but that I will be glad to give the officials of the C.B.C. if they are interested to know-about the costs of a stay in a Windsor hotel from January 18 to February 19, 1-959. The daily rate of the room being $9, a quick calculation shows that he stayed there for 23 days, the total expenses for this "deluxe" traveller amounting to $1,370.79, while the balance included meals, telephone and telegram services, etc.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we should be told the reasons for such uncontrolled expenses as shown by C.B.C. authorities. I realize there are some accounting operations in this organization-but just the same, we are responsible to the people for the mandate which has been conferred on us. Then, how can we give answers to the questions of our constituents on this matter if we cannot get answers to the questions we ask? I would not want to blame the minister, but the blame rests with the intransigence, the pride and the insolence of C.B.C. employees who prevent us from learning about the situation.
It might be that a royal investigation could also inform us about the production of

Supply-C.B.C.
certain programs which are presented on the French radio network. I do not want those programs to be eliminated-quite the contrary-but I wonder why things are done that way. For instance, producing the program "Music Hall", which is shown on the French television network each Sunday night costs the state between $12,000 and $15,000. Moreover, the producers take a certain amount of pride in signing up so-called foreign performers, who are unfortunately not worth the over-rated reputation which precedes them. This is all to the detriment of local talent, of which there is so much in this country, in the English-speaking as well as in the French-speaking parts of Canada.
I also am thinking of programs like "C'est la vie", which costs the state an average $11,750 a week. And what about the program "The Plouffe Family", which is now being replaced by, "The Town Above". Quite apart from the weekly fee of $700 which goes to the author of the sketch for his text, that production costs this country an average of $4,200 a week. "La pension Velder" means an expense of about $2,650 a week for the government. And for "Les belles histoires des pays d'en haut", the taxpayers have to pay $3,100 a week.
Moreover, such exaggerated expenses are also found in the producing of some English television programs like "Showtime", for instance, which means an expense of $14,000 to $16,000 a week for the government. I am also thinking of certain dramatic performances which may add up to an average of $13,500 a week.
I think the royal commission which might investigate this matter could bring about a saving of public funds for the administration, which is spending lavishly and too generously, in my humble opinion; but we shall, nevertheless, approve this vote in the hope that things may improve.
I wonder whether the C.B.C., instead of making direct agreements or transactions from person to person, should not ask sponsors to submit tenders for programs. This competition might bring more substantial revenue to the corporation which would consequently reduce by so much the budget required for the operation and program production of the C.B.C.
I will not deal at length with the political house cleaning that is needed in the C.B.C. I will only quote with emphasis the words the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) said in this house on July 18, 1959:

Parliament, however, and the Canadian people have repeatedly decided that the C.B.C. would not accomplish a useful purpose if it were not free from governmental political interference, clandestine or otherwise.
And, with the candour that distinguishes him, he fervently stated the following, that I find at page 6319 of Hansard of the same day:
Personally, I do not know what the party affiliations ... of Mr. Levesque are-
And by pure coincidence and mere chance, this man, having given up his program "Point de Mire", will not try to become the focal point of the province of Quebec.
I would like to draw the hon. minister's attention to what happened on television on the night of June 22 last, when the producers, no longer able to hide their deep-dyed "redness", hastened to introduce on television the newly elected members like Messrs. Gerin-Lajoie, Rene Hamel, Georges-Emile Lapalme, Louis-Philippe Brousseau, member for Rimouski, Mr. Meunier, member for Bourget, but did not have the decency nor the administrative justice to invite the honourable Messrs. Dozois, Thibault, Bertrand and Johnson to appear on T.V. and make appropriate comments for their voters and all the population of Quebec.
In my opinion, this royal investigation is needed also to rid us at long last of the presence of the same panelists on the programs of the French radio and television networks. Let me point out that on June 27, on the program "Opinions libres", there were two newspapermen whose political affiliations are known to all, and that one of them, in a moment of enthusiasm, exclaimed: "I have unlimited confidence in Jean Lesage". Yet, Mr. Chairman, those individuals are invited and paid by the people of Canada to analyse a situation, to make comments but not to take sides.
The hon. member for Portneuf pointed out that the Liberal party adviser, Mr. Lamon-tagne, appeared on a French television program a few days after the presentation of the budget of the Minister of Finance.
The only so-called economic expert they could find was Mr. Lamontagne, the candidate defeated by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tasse), in the constituency of Quebec East. It was this man who, by pure chance, had been invited to comment on the economic situation of this country.
Moreover, I think that the minister should consider the advisability of establishing a C.B.C. board.

If this royal commission cannot be established, for serious reasons no doubt, I wonder why we could not replace it by a body that might be called the C.B.C. board or tribunal. Anybody having any complaints to make against recognized political activity of C.B.C. officials could lodge a complaint, and an investigation would be held immediately in order to correct the situation. The same would apply to some artists who are experiencing difficulties because they are reluctant to be stooges to some C.B.C. officials.
Local talent, I mean Canadian talent is denied opportunity of appearing on television; preference is given to foreign artists. This situation is the same both in the French and in the English networks. For instance, people who are asking for a program and are insolently rebuffed could address themselves to the C.B.C. tribunal or arbitral council to which I referred a moment ago in order to submit their grievances, and the people responsible for such insolent behaviour could be brought before that tribunal in order that justice might be given to all.
Finally, I wonder whether the minister, in view of his rather heavy tasks, has the time to study the C.B.C. problem, which has become crucial.
In view of the similarity of activities which may exist between that body and the civil service commission, I wonder whether it would not be advantageous to consider the possibility of making the C.B.C., like the civil service commission, responsible to the Secretary of State.
Again, I have not the slightest intention of casting any reflection on the high competence and the remarkable devotion of the minister in the fulfilment of his functions, but it is by natural sympathy that I pity him. In spite of his imposing stature, thanks to which he is able to weather the most serious storms, I am afraid he cannot consider the problem in all its depth, in view of the numerous occupations imposed upon him by the important department he is heading. I am sure he would be the first to be glad to get rid of that tentacle which the C.B.C. has become.
Mr. Chairman, I note that my suggestion does not seem to please certain high officials of the corporation. For my part, I am sick and tired of the political activities going on in the C.B.C. I am sick and tired of voting estimates without knowing for what purposes they will be employed. Once again, this year, we are going to vote them, in the hope that there will be some improvement, and that the firm resolve will take the form of a forcible stand, which will finally help throw 79951-0-377
Supply-C.B.C.
light on the whole situation, and especially bring about savings in that mystery or phantom body. We shall hope, as I say, that finally, that body will steer clear of all political concern, in order that the C.B.C. may be for our fellow citizens, both English and French speaking, a school of information and, at the same time, a school of formation.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to follow the line that has just been taken by the hon. member for Berthier-Mas-kinonge-Delanaudiere-


Rémi Paul: It would be impossible for you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -except to say that I sincerely hope that no one is ever put in charge of the C.B.C. to do the kind of things that hon. gentleman seems to want done.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: You did not hear what the hon. gentleman said. That is the most stupid statement I have ever heard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for
Chambly-Rouville, who never speaks except from his seat, can get up and reply to me after I have finished my remarks, if he can summon sufficient courage to do so.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: You talk too much. There is no time left for me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish to remind the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanau-diere and the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville, also the hon. member for Roberval who I believe spoke when I was out of the chamber, that only yesterday we gave second reading in this house to a bill to guarantee freedom of speech in this country-


Rémi Paul: You are abusing it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What these hon. gentlemen are arguing for in this house is to turn the C.B.C. into a kind of Tory "Radio Moscow"; that is what they are trying to do. They are complaining because Liberals are allowed to speak on the C.B.C. Well, I should like to know why Liberals should not be allowed to speak on the C.B.C., or Tories, or C.C.F.'ers, or even the hon. member for Berthier-Maski-nonge-Delanaudiere, for whose opinions I have not much respect but for whose right to express them I have the greatest respect, which he does not seem to have for others.
I wish to say that we in the Liberal party, and I think I speak for every Liberal, dissociate ourselves completely from the idea that the radio system of this country should be made the instrument of any political party in any part of this nation, because that would

Supply-C.B.C.
be a complete denial of what the leader of the Conservative party was trying to do yesterday. It is because I think they know that the present Minister of National Revenue, even though he is a Tory, has some Liberalism in him that they want to get rid of him and put someone else in his place on whom they think they can put more pressure.
I say right away, sir, that I want to dissociate our party from this kind of thing. We believe in freedom in this country, and freedom even for the hon. member for Roberval, the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere and, if he can dare to get up on his two feet and speak, for the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: You are asking for it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, and I will be very glad to take whatever the hon. gentleman has to hand out; and I daresay that when the hon. gentleman is finished I will still be smiling. But what I want to say is that it is precisely for the opposite reason that I wish to say something now. We take the view that a fundamental error was made two years ago when the Broadcasting Act was passed and this performance that is going on in the house now became necessary as an ordinary part of the operations of government. I make no apologies, sir, for going back to review this situation very briefly.
It will be recalled that when public broadcasting was first decided upon in this country it was done by the government of Mr. R. B. Bennett in the 1930's as a result of the recommendations of the Aird commission, in order to preserve a separate Canadian nationality in this country. That is why it was done, as hon. gentlemen who may not know much about it can find out by reading some of the speeches at that time. When it was done it received the very strong support of Mr. Mackenzie King and Mr. Ernest Lapointe. It was made very clear at that time and by every royal commission and every parliamentary committee from that time until very recent times that what we wanted to be sure of was that the broadcasting authority, whatever it was, would have financial independence from the government; that we had to have a public broadcasting body, not because we believed in public ownership rather than private ownership but because we believed that Canada should be and should remain a separate country, and this was the only way that it seemed practical to do it in this field.
That is why it was done. But if public broadcasting, which anybody who lived through the 1930's, anyone who was an adult in the 1930's, knows is one of the most potent

instruments of tyranny and enslavement that has ever been invented, was to exist it must be surrounded with every kind of safeguard to see that what the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere seems to want to have happen in this country never should happen; in other words, to see that it was kept completely independent of the government of the day.
That was why we had the licensing system originally, and it was a very awkward way of financing broadcasting. It was certainly not very popular, and that was why the Massey commission recommended other financing methods which were for a fixed period of time, longer than the life of a single parliament. That was a wise move, even in those days when governments did not change so frequently as they seem to be doing more recently.
As I say, the idea was that there should be a fixed income, an income not under the control of the government of the day though ultimately, of course, under the control of parliament by statute, to be settled here in the open by parliament and not behind the closed doors of treasury board; settled in the open in parliament so the corporation would know what its income was, that it would not get any more if it pleased the government and it would not get any less if it displeased the government. That is the only safe way to have public broadcasting, because this could be a very dangerous instrument of tyranny indeed in the hands of certain people.
Some of the friends of some of the hon. gentlemen sitting in some parts of this house, and not here, seem to want that kind of thing if one can judge from a recent provincial election. Happily they turned out to be a minority in that province as well as a minority in the country. For the present that does not seem to be much of a danger, but it is a danger. I am making no charges at all. I do not do so because I have no evidence one way or the other; therefore I am not going to say that there has been any kind of pressure. I might suspect it, but that is not a fair basis. I do not say there has been any pressure, but I say there is that danger when the corporation has to come every year to the treasury board and the Minister of Finance and haggle to get its budget, as government departments have to haggle and as government departments ought to have to haggle, because the government is responsible for the departments and the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the ministers of the departments are entitled to screw down government departments, to pare off any extravagances. That is what they are there

lor, but it is entirely different with this operation. That is the one thing we do not want them to do.
I think, as I said two years ago-and I feel even more strongly today-that there is a greater danger that the corporation will insensibly try to please the government in order to get more money than that they will be under direct pressure to do things by the threat of reducing their budget. This is going to be a constant temptation and what we need, what we should have, is a bill of rights for the C.B.C. and for the people of Canada, in the form of a budget that is something certain, so they do not have to go and haggle with ministers. It would be a very good thing if the budget was not too big.
I think the C.B.C., for which in most respects over the years I have had a very great respect, is suffering a little-I am not sure that I know how to pronounce this word- from a disease called elephantiasis. I think it has got a little too big for its boots. I think it would be a very good thing for the C.B.C., for the taxpayers, for the listeners and viewers if they had a fixed income that was not too great, that they knew would not be changed except on some mathematical formula that might take account of some inflationary changes or changes in population but which otherwise would not be changed for five or six years, as the Fowler commission suggested and as the Massey commission suggested before, so they would know they had to live within that income and make do with it. Then they would have the responsibility of squeezing out the extravagances, of squeezing out those marginal things that creep into every organization.
This happens. It happens to many other organizations. I have no doubt it might happen to the C.N.R. if it did not have an almost perpetual deficit. Certainly it happens to many private corporations also, though sometimes they too have great difficulty in getting their money.
I know what the minister is going to say. He has said it several times already; and while I have done my best to educate him as to the facts it seems to be very hard to get this particular fact through his head. He says, "You had an annual appropriation when you were in office". We did. We had an annual appropriation the last year we were in office.


George Clyde Nowlan: Two years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister says the last two years. That was because we did not appoint the Fowler commission quite soon enough. There was, I think it is fair to say, a miscalculation as to the length of time for 79951-0-377J
Supply-C.B.C.
which the 15 per cent tax on radio and television sets would be adequate to finance the C.B.C. For a year or two its income had to be supplemented by annual appropriations. But I was in the government at that time, and I took then as I take now a great interest in this subject. I know that the principal reason which persuaded Mr. Harris and Mr. St. Laurent, who took the main initiative in this matter, to appoint the Fowler commission was precisely to get an appreciation from them as to the best way to finance public radio and television which was steadily becoming, as I think the minister will agree, alarmingly more expensive. They also wished to get an appreciation of the best way to preserve the necessary parliamentary control over the corporation in the interests of the taxpayers, without having any specific control by the government in power over the corporation's day to day operations.
I make a clear distinction, and I make no apology for doing so, between its day to day operations and its capital expansion, because it does seem to me that the question of capital expansion, about which I am going to have more to say in a moment, is something which cannot be foreseen long in advance. If we had tried to plot the course of television ten years ago our graph would be very different indeed from what has actually happened.
When it comes to a decision whether a specific area shall be covered by public broadcasting or private broadcasting, I do not think that decision should be made by anyone except the government of the day. It is a decision in principle which perhaps commits the taxpayers for a long time ahead to a large expansion in the budget, and a responsible government cannot possibly abdicate that function, or at least I do not think it should. My view-and here I speak not merely for myself but for my party-the same view has already been expressed by the Leader of the Opposition-is that we should undo what was done in 1958; that we should amend the Broadcasting Act and provide an operating budget for at least five years on a formula which the government cannot change and which can only be changed by parliament after debate in parliament. I am not referring to very small capital expenditures, but any considerable capital projects should be decided upon, as they always were in the past, by the government so that for a considerable period ahead the Minister of Finance can see where this is going to lead him.
That brings up another grave defect that has revealed itself. I do not think we were very prescient about this particular point

Supply-C.B.C.
even two years ago, but in the light oi experience we can see now a very grave difficulty in the present set-up. It has been revealed by the Edmonton affair in stark clarity. Here we had the C.B.C. applying to the board of broadcast governors for a television licence in the city of Edmonton.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am just going to tell the hon. member what is wrong with that. What is wrong with that is that we go through the farce, and I call it a farce, of having a hearing before the board of broadcast governors to decide whatever it is they do decide. I do not know what they decide. It is a mystery, and I do not think the minister knows what they decide either. I would be very interested if the minister can penetrate the mists of this particular kind of mysticism. Either the government has told the C.B.C. beforehand that there will be enough money for the Edmonton station, in which case it is very hard to imagine that the board of broadcast governors is going to take a different view, or the government has not, in which case to grant them a licence and then have them turned down by treasury board and the government would be a farce.
The plain fact is that this is the kind of decision that in any effective sense can really be made only by the government, and there is no reason why it should not be made by the government because it has nothing to do with freedom of broadcasting or anything of that sort. It is just a question of whether a particular piece of real estate in the city of Edmonton should be owned by the C.B.C. or by some private applicant if, indeed, there is need for a second station in Edmonton. That is a separate point upon which I would think there is probably much to be said on both sides.
I must say I am very worried, to be quite frank, about this duplication of stations. I am very worried about it for exactly the same reason that I am very worried about Canadian Pacific Air Lines having a competitive service in Canada. I think this is very apt to result in a deficit for the public organization that will have to be met out of my pocket and the pockets of other Canadian citizens. In these public utility fields the idea that we must have competition and, if necessary, underwrite the public side of the competition out of the treasury is one that has a relatively limited appeal to me as a taxpayer and a person who all his life has been fairly prudent about his private expenditures.
In saying this I do not want to get off into that bypath, because I want to discuss for a

moment the question of who really made the basic decision whether the C.B.C. should have a television station in Edmonton which, I may say without hesitation, I think is totally unnecessary. The existing private Edmonton station was providing television programs in exactly the same way the Calgary station was, and for the life of me I cannot see why, if there was going to be a second private station in Calgary, the second station in Edmonton should be a public one. I cannot see it for any reason because, notwithstanding the warning that I understand was issued to me in my absence by the hon. member for Churchill-I am sorry he is not here now-[DOT] that I should mind my own business-


George Clyde Nowlan: He was very courteous about it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure he was-and
take no interest in northern Manitoba, I must say that I think the minority in Manitoba is rather over-represented in the house at the present time, and that a spokesman for the majority of the people of Manitoba who spent 30 years of his life in that province and who has taken a great interest in it has every right, as a free citizen of a free country, to go on taking an interest in the place where he was brought up. I do think that under a sensible system of priorities-[DOT]


Mr. Halpenny:: Don't say too much or Joey will get mad at you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not worried about that. We discussed that just the other day in a very public and amicable way. Of course the same situation prevails in Newfoundland, as the hon. member for Humber -St. George's is going to show later. I am happy to say that once the permanent T.V. station is established between Grand Falls and Gander-there are temporary arrangements there now-I believe every corner of my constituency will be covered by television, though it will all be private television served by the network programs of the C.B.C.
I have no quarrel with that, though I would quarrel with private television stations having a monopoly where there was no network.
I think the network is essential to bind this country together. I do not want anything I say about the question of whether the C.B.C. should be more realistic to be misinterpreted. I am not saying that the network of the C.B.C. should be eliminated; very far from it. However, they have a station in Winnipeg and they have a station in Vancouver, and I do not see that putting all that money into another station is going to give to us, as a nation, rewards that would be at all comparable with providing for that

fringe. I know there are not many people there, but they are just as good Canadians as the rest of us. Sometimes I think these people in the remote areas, in a good many ways-well, perhaps I should not say that; my unspoken thoughts are perhaps tributes to my constituents.
There are areas in northern Manitoba in which there are not very large populations; there is Labrador where the population is steadily growing. It is true that there is a little station at Goose Bay which is operated jointly by the C.B.C. and the United States armed forces. However, there are considerable areas in Labrador, in parts of Newfoundland that I do not represent, and parts of northern Ontario as well, undoubtedly, and some parts of the three western provinces, that are not covered. I would, for my part, vote just as often as I could vote to see that these outlying areas get coverage before we go ahead with this station in Edmonton.
There are one or two questions about this matter of financing and about this other matter to which I have referred that I hope the minister will answer when he gets up to reply. The first of these questions is, will the minister tell us whether the budget that the C.B.C. submitted to the treasury board was the same budget that came out of the treasury board? That is the very essence of my point. I do not believe the minister will tell me that. I suppose he will say that that is something that is a secret of the cabinet and, of course, technically he is quite right in saying that.


George Clyde Nowlan: I did not hear your supposition as to what I was going to say.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said that I have very grave doubts about whether the minister would tell me that because I have some doubts about whether he has any constitutional right to tell me. However, it illustrates very neatly the point I am making; that is, if there is any change made by the treasury board then what I said two years ago about the C.B.C. being put under the thumb of the Minister of Finance is literally true. If there was not any change, why are the estimates submitted at all? The minister can beat his wife or not beat his wife as he likes, but the plain fact is that we have reduced this whole business either to absurdity or to pressure on the C.B.C. The minister cannot constitutionally answer my question. There is no way we can really find out just to what extent the members of the treasury board do exert pressure, some of whom I fear a lot more than I do the Minister of National Revenue and some of whose motives-I know we do not normally ascribe motives but I am not mentioning
Supply-C.B.C.
individuals-and some of whose past performances suggest they have a good deal less regard for what is involved in this matter than I feel the minister has.
However, I do not believe our system should depend upon men of good will. The system should be, as nearly as we can make it, foolproof and the plain fact is that as long as there is an annual budget that can be changed by the treasury board, by the Minister of Finance, by the government, we have not got that independence, in fact we have an overhanging threat to the independence of the C.B.C. I say again that I feel the government would be well advised to change this. It will be changed, and of that we can be sure because our position on this matter is quite clear. There have been recent indications that this might not be too long in coming. I still believe this system should not go on a day longer than it needs to. I say once again that the government would be very well advised to change it.
I think they would also be very well advised to end this farce, because that is all it is, of having the C.B.C. go before the board of broadcast governors and make its application. Either the government has made up its mind in advance that these stations are necessary or it has not even made up its mind. It is impossible to imagine that the board of broadcast governors is going to give a different verdict if the government has made up its mind in advance, and if it has not made up its mind in advance it is an irresponsible thing to be wasting the time of people. If, indeed, it was determined in advance that this licence was to go to the C.B.C. in Edmonton it was just putting the private applicants to a lot of unnecessary expense to make a competing application. I may have more to say about that. I realize that has nothing to do directly with the C.B.C. estimates, but rather with the board of broadcast governors estimates.
There is one other thing that I think has been demonstrated by experience, and also by regrettable experience, and that is that there should be a more complete divorce than there is between the management of the C.B.C. and the government. I reiterate what I said earlier, that if we are to have a separate board for the C.B.C., which was not recommended by the Fowler commission but which has been established, I would say it might be an improvement to have the chairman of the board be other than the president-I said that before and I said it the last day of the last session-but I think it should be done here in parliament, openly and publicly, and not done in the way it was done.

Supply-C.B.C.
(Translation):


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I only wish to remind the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) that in dealing with political activity in the C.B.C., I have in no way violated the bill of human rights. On the contrary, I wanted to point out to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) the necessity of putting an end to the family compact within the C.B.C. It is known that in Montreal more than 200 employees are related and that new appointments and transfers are not made if the applicant is not a Liberal. That is why I wanted to point out those facts to the house, in accordance with the bill of human rights providing for freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of expression. Mr. Chairman, if this situation exists, I must tell you that there is a French proverb that says: "The hen that cackles is the one that has laid an egg".
(Text):


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, I shall be reasonably brief because in a few minutes time I have an appointment with the public body with whom we are now dealing so that I may express my views on one of the great issues of our time. As I listened to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate wax eloquent in his somewhat overzealous wrath against any suggestion that freedom of speech be curtailed on the C.B.C. it brought to my mind one of the problems with which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is faced, not only in Quebec but in other parts of Canada as well. I refer to its choice of commentators. I would be the last person in the world to suggest there should be any curtailment of the right of a man or woman to express views on the radio or television.
I think the point that was made and was misunderstood perhaps by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate-I refer to the point made by the Quebec members-was that they feared that a clique had set in in the province of Quebec and that much of the public opinion or most of it was coming from Liberal sources. I agree with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that Liberals, Tories, C.C.F. or what have you should be allowed to express opinions. However, I also think the C.B.C. should be extremely careful to take care that both sides of the question are presented and not just one side.
I was also interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur and the suggestion that the C.B.C. had a certain lack of stomach in the matter of promoting Cana-dianism through its "Viewpoint" and other

programs. I must say that with the hon. member's views I fairly well agree. I think we can turn on the C.B.C. and see fine programs from that body on the latest development in Algeria, in other Mediterranian countries, in Europe or in the United States of America but that we do not get in this country enough commentary on things that count in our own Canada.
For example, I am sure there will be a lively election issue in British Columbia later this year. I should like to think that sitting in Nova Scotia at that time I would be able to turn to television or to radio and get some fairly good reports on the issues in that election, to see not just one commentator make a five minute appearance on it but rather three or four. If necessary, the commentators could be labelled in this way: this person will give the Liberal viewpoint, this one the Conservative viewpoint, this one the Social Credit viewpoint and this one the C.C.F. viewpoint. But let us get the word from British Columbia into other parts of Canada. I think that is a serious criticism, namely that we see many broadcasts on public issues but unfortunately they* are the public issues of what is real at the moment in the United States or real at the moment in France and not enough on what is real at the moment in Canada. I hope the C.B.C. will be able to come up with a more acceptable formula.
It rather gripes me-and this is only a personal complaint-to see "Viewpoint" transferred so often to New York for reports by professors from Columbia University. I am sure we have in this country a great pool of able commentators which has not even been tapped by the public broadcasting system.
I should not like to leave this particular portion of my remarks without complimenting the C.B.C. for what I regard as a very fine step in their Canadian coverage, namely the appointment of Mr. Norman DePoe to Ottawa and his frequent appearance on news broadcasts to say what is going on in this chamber, in the other place and in parliament as a whole. I think that was a first rate step forward. I think he is discharging what could have been an extremely difficult responsibility with remarkable ease and also with remarkable non-partisanship. This type of appointment not only deserves the thanks of all but it also proves that it can be done, and done well, when the C.B.C. turns its attention to building up things that are Canadian.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate made a suggestion that the C.B.C. be placed on a fixed budget for say the next

lour or five years. While I think this suggestion has some merit in it, I would humbly submit that perhaps this may be a year too early to bring it in for the simple reason that there will be private television stations in operation in different parts of Canada in competition with C.B.C. outlets which up to now have enjoyed the market solely. I rather suspect that instead of the $71 million we are going to be asked to vote this year we may be asked to vote a considerable bit more money next year unless the C.B.C. is able to get out and scrap more vigorously for the advertising dollar. I hope they will forget all ideas about peaceful co-existence with the private camp when it comes to getting the advertising dollar and that they get all they possibly can for themselves.
In the broadcasting committee last year I raised the suggestion to the then manager of the C.B.C., namely Mr. Bushnell, that it might be a useful idea to appoint salesmen on commission to obtain this advertising revenue. He thought it was a good idea and said he would look into it. Perhaps when the minister rises to reply to the various suggestions that have been made by hon. members he might let us know whether this in fact is being done.
I am a little bit disappointed at what I think is perhaps a lack of an obvious source of revenue for the C.B.C. and that is their venture this year once a month, or perhaps more than once a month, into the Game of the Day baseball broadcasts on Saturday afternoon. I think most of us are very happy to have these games presented instead of the inevitable cowboy and Indian hassle that usually comes on at that time. But in the ordinary ball game of nine innings-and when I say "the ordinary ball game" I am not thinking of what took place on the lawns of parliament the other night because that was extraordinary-there are in effect 17 or 18 intermissions, each one capable of carrying a one-minute spot and therefore each one capable of bringing in a great deal of revenue. I have noticed in Halifax on the C.B.C. there when the game was carried and again in Ottawa when the game was carried that there are a number of public service announcements-and with those I do not quarrel-but not enough revenuebearing messages. I think there is a natural opportunity for the C.B.C. to turn some aggressive salesmen loose in this city and in other places and really bring in a "whack of dough" for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. May I say to you, Mr. Chairman and through you to the minister and through the minister to the C.B.C.-that is the chain we are working on at the moment-and through the C.B.C. down to the salesmen I
Supply-C.B.C.
have in mind, that I hope this will be done and that the C.B.C. will be more aggressive about getting that revenue.
Finally, if I may, I should like to turn to something at home. The eastern section of Halifax county is currently poorly served by television. That is a problem that may be straightened away by the second television station in Halifax or it may be straightened away by the erection of a television station in Antigonish. Of this I am not sure, and I suppose nobody can be sure until the other television stations start operating. I know that Mr. Briggs' successor in the maritimes, namely Mr. Kennedy, has put forward the case for a satellite in the eastern end of Halifax county for Musquodoboit valley down through Mushaboom, Sheet Harbour, Necum Teuch, West Newdy Quoddy and Ecum Secum. When he brings this request to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and through them to the minister and through him to the treasury board to take action I hope that this time the people of that section of Halifax will emerge with their satellite television station. I shall not keep Mr. DePoe waiting. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I could well associate myself with some of the remarks that have been made by the hon. member for Halifax, Mr. Chairman. I also believe that one of the main tasks of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Canada is to bring Canada to Canadians. We live in a country of large extent and it may be possible that only a very small percentage of Canadians who live in one area of Canada know all ten provinces of Canada or very much about them first hand. For example, we talk about the tourist industry and encourage our people to visit various parts of Canada so that they will come to know Canada. These things are certainly very fine, I am sure we will all agree, but on the other hand it may at the same time be possible to bring to many Canadians most interesting information concerning other parts of Canada by means of radio and particularly television.
What I want to say at this time does not deal with the type of program which is given over television in Canada; my problem concerns those areas for which no service is provided, and I should now like to bring to the attention of the minister three points which are of interest to the people of my own constituency.
I would refer first to the C.B.C. radio station CBY at Corner Brook, Newfoundland. I have mentioned this problem in the house on two previous occasions and have brought it to the attention of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but no action has been

Supply-C.B.C.
taken. Before confederation the radio station which existed at Corner Brook was one which serviced the whole west coast of Newfoundland. The radio station serves an area of 100 miles south of the station and about 200 miles to the north of the station to northern Newfoundland. Before 1949 this area was completely served by the local station at Corner Brook. In 1949 the station was taken over by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which carried on its radio duties.
In an area where communications are not all that could be desired radio plays a very important part. It is able to give service to people which no other means of communication can provide. In many of the fishing communities along the coast the people are interested in the movement of boats, particularly those boats which deal directly with their means of livelihood. This information was broadcast to these people by sponsored programs that in the main undertook to provide for the people of that area the information in which they were interested.
Then a couple or three years ago, I am not sure of the exact date, radio station CKEC was set up at Newcastle, New Brunswick, and operated on the same frequency, 790 kilocycles, as CBY at Corner Brook. I hasten to point out that I am not complaining about the station at Newcastle, New Brunswick. I know too that any interference that the one station may have with the other is not in the protected area of station CKEC in Newcastle or within the protected area of CBY at Corner Brook; but it so happens that the further you get away from the city of Corner Brook the greater is the interference of CKEC with CBY, with the result that 50 miles north of Corner Brook and 50 miles south it is almost impossible to understand the reception received. This is entirely due to interference from CKEY.
What the remedy is I am not sure, whether it is a matter of changing the ground pattern, whether the frequency should be changed, whether the station at Corner Brook should be made more powerful. I do not know the answer to this question and I will leave it to the engineers of the C.B.C. who are competent to give an answer. But I contend that a station Which has served people for years before Newfoundland came into confederation should be able to continue serving these people and not be interfered with by another station on the mainland of Canada. I say again, that I do feel these people have been deprived of the service to which they have been used for many years by interference from this particular station.
Radio station CBY is the only station on the west coast of Newfoundland. It is true

that people within the area are able to listen to stations in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and most of the time I understand are able to get some of the radio stations at St. John's, Newfoundland, but they are unable to receive broadcasts from the radio station at Corner Brook. Everybody knows that there is a complexion about a local radio broadcast that is important to the people in the area and perhaps not at all important to people outside the area. One of the things for which I would commend the C.B.C., as they have operated in parts of Canada that I know, is that they have been able to adapt themselves to the needs of the people in the area. I think that is a commendable thing. It has certainly been done in Newfoundland, but it would be much more effective if the area which is covered by station CBY could receive reception from this station without interference from the station at Newcastle, New Brunswick.
As I have said before, I have brought this problem to the attention of the minister on two previous occasions and I would hope that some serious consideration will be given to it. I know that at the moment some inquiries are being made. Similar inquiries have been made before but have not resulted in any remedial action. Therefore I would suggest to the minister that some careful consideration be given this problem.
I was interested in the statement which the minister made, I think on Wednesday evening, when he said that 94 per cent of the people in Canada were receiving radio broadcasts.


George Clyde Nowlan: Television.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Television. I think that is a tremendous achievement, but I feel that the people living in this particular area are not receiving the service to which they are entitled from a national system of radio broadcasting. So again for the third time I bring this matter to the attention of the minister and I hope it will be possible this time to find some remedy.
I would now like to make some reference to the television station at Harmon Field, Stephenville, Newfoundland. I am not going to go into the set-up of the station. This is well known to the minister and his officials and they are well aware of the agreement which exists between the Canadian government and the United States government for the operation of this television station at Harmon Field which also gives television coverage to the very important town of Stephenville and the nearby air field.
However, on the Port au Port Bay peninsula there is a large number of people, and toward the south in the district of St. George's and the Codroy valley there is another large

body of people who are unable to receive television broadcasts from the station at Harmon Field. Only a year or so ago I could not have brought this problem to the attention of the minister for the reason that that area was not serviced by electricity. Not all of the area is served now but the service to that area is gradually being increased. I believe that with the possibility of receiving electrical services the coverage offered by the station at Harmon Field should be increased. I have discussed this with the United States officials at Harmon Field and they have intimated to me that they would be very willing to enter into discussions with the C.B.C. in order to make it possible for an increased number of people to receive television programs from the station.
My third point is to make some reference to the coverage of the television station at Corner Brook. This station is only about two years old and is rapidly becoming an important part of communications in the area. I can tell the minister right now that it is doing an excellent job. It has taken time for the station to acquire all the necessary instruments and local information that is required for the operation of the station but the station is to be commended for its work and it is giving a very fine picture to the people who are able to receive the program.
Those of us who come from Newfoundland like, of course, to see the Canadian hockey games. We enjoy them very much. Others of us like to see the boxing bouts on Friday night. Being a politician I suppose that I, too, have a natural interest in seeing two fellows knock each other around. Many of the programs from the mainland that are received in Corner Brook are thoroughly enjoyed.
On the outskirts of Corner Brook there is a large area which is not now receiving a satisfactory picture. I refer particularly to three places. I wish to refer first to the organized community of Steady Brook and the larger organized town of Deer Lake. These two areas are not now receiving satisfactory programs from the station at Corner Brook. What the solution is so these people will be able to receive the programs is one for the engineers to determine. It may well be that at Steady Brook and at Deer Lake some instrument such as a reflector will be necessary but in any event I would bring to the minister's attention the need for television coverage in that area. I hope it will be possible to have the difficulties investigated and the remedy provided.
Slightly to the north and west of Deer Lake there is a populous area known as Bonne Bay. The people there at the moment do not have the services of electricity. I hope 79951-0-378
Supply-C.B.C.
they will shortly. In view of the fact that television broadcasting can be given to these people in time, I hope that when the television station at Corner Brook is being examined to find out what its possibilities are that not only will the possibility of providing programs to Steady Brook and Deer Lake by considered but that consideration will also be given to the Bonne Bay area.
I bring these three points to the attention of the minister. They are important to the people of my area. I know the minister is interested in having the C.B.C. bring its services to as many people as possible and I would hope that he would ask the corporation to investigate the possibility of providing better coverage to the people in the areas I have mentioned.


Mr. McQuillan:: Mr. Chairman, I, like many hon. members who have preceded me wish to speak about television and radio service in some of the remote areas on the west coast of Vancouver island. I live in an area where there is very little television reception. I was surprised to hear the minister stat that 94 per cent of Canadian homes have Canadian television coverage available. I know that he spoke about A, B and C contours of coverage and I would think that the C contour must be a very limited one because I know that there are many people particularly in the west who do not have proper television coverage available to them.
In my own area there is very little television that reaches the west coast of Vancouver island. It hits the odd spot but in general it is scarcely worth the cost of a television set. I should like to ask through the minister that the C.B.C. make a thorough study of the requirements in that area.
In the Port Alberni area which has a population approaching 20,000 people there is little television coverage. The balance of the west coast of the island, if it receives any television service whatever, receives it from United States stations. In Courtenay on the east coast of the island I understand the C.B.C. plan to erect a satellite station on the mountain named Jap Mountain near Cumberland. I also heard that there is some problem here, about a licence for the station because of wave lengths. I trust that this will not delay the installation of this station because it is urgently needed.
It was pointed out to me by a resident of the northern end of the island a few months ago that there is a United States communications cable that goes up Vancouver island and right by their door step at Port Hardy en route to Alaska carrying television communications. They were inquiring about how they might tap into this. If the minister has

Supply-C.B.C.
any ideas on the subject I should like to have them to pass on. It seems strange to these people that such a cable should go by their door step en route to an area that has only slightly more population, if indeed it is as large, than the area of which I am speaking. I hope that the C.B.C. will take the advice that has been offered by previous speakers and first endeavour to bring television to those areas where it means so much, where they have no picture shows, where the people cannot get into a car and drive down the highway to the next town. In fact, many of them are isolated miles apart from any other family.
I trust the corporation will make every effort possible to bring these people the service they so badly need. At one time radio was a great consolation to the people in isolated areas but radio programs have deteriorated to such an extent now that in many cases they are hardly worth listening to. On the northern coast of British Columbia and in the northern part of Vancouver island we do not even have satisfactory radio reception from CBR in Vancouver. In this case again most of the radio reception comes from United States stations. I would ask the C.B.C. through the minister to take a very serious look at this area that is being indoctrinated by foreign propaganda.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a few moments in which to bring before the minister and through him to the C.B.C. the claims of my constituents for improved service. We have heard that the C.B.C. has applied for a permit and is prepared to spend money to provide a television station at Edmonton which already is supplied with service from a private station. It seems to me a warped sense of service is displayed when the C.B.C. is prepared to do this and at the same time to ignore repeatedly year after year-* it has been done-the requests from other places, not for a television service but for a radio service.
My riding contains approximately 50,000 people, and not more than one quarter of them are served by C.B.C. radio. We have asked repeatedly for a small satellite-


George Clyde Nowlan: Will the hon. member say what stations do serve the constituency?


Chesley William Carter: There is no station that serves my constituency completely.


George Clyde Nowlan: Does Sydney come in?


Chesley William Carter: Sydney comes in at the western section but only around the Port aux Basques area; from Port aux Basques down as far as Marystown there is a wide gap which receives

hardly any service at all; the service it does receive comes from a private station rather than from the C.B.C.


George Clyde Nowlan: Where?


Chesley William Carter: Station CJON at St. John's.
The minister mentioned the C.B.C. station at Sydney. That is not a satisfactory station for our needs because my constituents do not rely on a station merely for entertainment. Most of my constituents are fishermen and their interests are tied up with those of our own province. They want to receive weather and market reports; they want to know what has gone on in the capital and it should be one of the prime functions of the C.B.C. to bind us together, to bind Canada together as a nation and certainly to bind the individual parts of a province together. In my riding the C.B.C. is completely failing in that respect.
I am not at all certain that the C.B.C. should be permitted to spend more funds in expanding services or duplicating services in areas which are already served. There is no handicap in being served by a private station. I think it can be proved that in most instances a private station can give better service at much less cost than can the C.B.C. I know in my own province, before we had the microwave linkup, we got excellent programs from station CJON. I know their outlay in giving the service was far less than what the C.B.C. would estimate to provide similar service. I have had an opportunity to compare the programs, when we would be in St. John's, Newfoundland for a number of months and we would get used to seeing the programs over the private station. Then we would come to Ottawa where we would be fed by the C.B.C., and the contrast was certainly unfavourable to the C.B.C. It is true that now the microwave provides us with a sort of instantaneous hookup. We can see events as they happen, but that is only a minor detail because in a vast country like Canada there is the time element and we cannot all look at the same things at the time they happen because the difference in time will not permit it.
While I am talking about the private stations I want to pay tribute to the work they are doing in my province, and in particular to station CJON, both the radio and the television station, and with respect to one of the prime justifications for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, namely that it should be an outlet to provide opportunities for the development of local talent. I want to tell this committee that the private station is doing a much better job in my province in providing for the development of local talent

than I have seen the C.B.C. do in any other part of Canada that I have visited.
As I said before, it seems to me that the C.B.C. has a wonderful opportunity to help give Canada a sense of nationhood; it could make us better known to each other; it could emphasize the principles and values which bind us together as a nation and which must be strengthened if we are to survive. I for one am concerned about the extent to which the C.B.C., by their programs is in many ways undermining and weakening those very values. I think the security of Canada as a nation is better protected by the private stations than by the C.B.C.
As 1 said before, the provision of a satellite would not be very expensive. The private station was able to provide one and I do not see why the C.B.C. cannot provide a small satellite to fill the gap which is not now covered. My colleague, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's, spoke about the station in Corner Brook. Port aux Basques is only a short distance from Corner Brook and yet it cannot receive the programs. I believe a small satellite either at Port aux Basques or Grand Bank would overcome any difficulty. The least we can do is to have somebody investigate this and make certain before the C.B.C. starts spending money to duplicate services already in existence.
I wish to make one more point before I sit down. The idea came to me while I was listening to my colleague from Humber-St. George's refer to the station at Harmon Field. We do not have any television coverage to speak of. If there are 100 families in my riding who are able to receive television programs that would be the outside number. Television is not a big issue with the majority of my constituents because they have not the means to buy a television set even if the service were available. I was wondering whether it may not be possible to serve the more densely populated area around Port aux Basques from Harmon Field? I should like the minister to follow up the idea and see whether some arrangements can be made with the United States authorities there so that the station might be given more power and extend its coverage to at least the Port aux Basques area.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the minister; he may reply to it when he replies to all the others. I should like to know, if possible,
79951-0-378J
Supply-C.B.C.
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?


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Chairman, we are called upon today to approve the estimates of the C.B.C., which amount to about $71 million, i.e. $4 per head for each Canadian citizen. In consequence, for the large families I represent and who live in my constituency, where there are generally from 6 to 7 children to a family-which means a family of 8 persons-the contribution amounts to about $100 a year for helping the government create something we have no means of controlling. On the whole, all we are asked to do today, is to pass phantom estimates. Because, if I scan the blue book and come to page 11, I am referred for further details to page 128. I therefore look up page 128, but I am no wiser because there on the page where the details are explained I see there is a $62 million grant, and, at the second paragraph another grant of $7 million.
On the other hand, a little further on complete details are given respecting the administration of the international shortwave broadcasting service.
I do not understand why there is such a big difference between what must be kept secret in this corporation's administration and what is willingly revealed as far as the shortwave division is concerned.
At the outset of my remarks, I wish to acknowledge the presence of Mr. Ouimet. I hope that his recent gall bladder operation was successful and that he is now fully recovered and in a position to carry out his usual duties.
I know that, before his operation, Mr. Ouimet may not have been able to withstand certain pressures in his service, even from highly placed officials. That is why I am glad to note that he is well again and I urge him to direct with a firm hand the internal administration of the corporation.
Referring once again to the blue book, I wish to consider the estimates of various departments.
Under agriculture, for instance, the appropriations for this year are about $41.6 million. As for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the amount is $59.3 million. Under the Department of Defence Production, estimates total $23 million; for external affairs, estimates reach about $83 million. Therefore, I am inclined to compare

Supply-C.B.C.
those figures with the C.B.C. estimates and I find that no others impose a heavier burden on the national economy. That is why members of this house are anxious to obtain fuller information respecting the internal administration of the C.B.C. and to learn especially for what purpose the moneys voted to the corporation every year are actually used.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is the reason why some members had strong but sound criticisms to voice against the estimates we are called upon to pass today. I therefore urge the minister to investigate more closely those responsible for C.B.C. administration because I suggest that he will discover flaws in the administrative structure of the organization. To give only one example, may I point out that I suggested a few months ago that the C.B.C. should consider building its new offices in Montreal's east end. I therefore wrote to several people, among others to Mr. Gerard Lamarche, French director general of the C.B.C. for the province of Quebec, to Mr. Ouimet and to the minister. I also wrote to Montreal municipal authorities.
In his letter to me, Mr. Lamarche said the responsibility for the establishing of offices in any place is not his, but rather that of the authorities of the city of Montreal.
The minister, on the other hand, told me to inquire from the C.B.C.
I wrote to the regional director who also told me to inquire from the authorities of the city of Montreal. Later, he came back on his advice and told me to inquire from the chairman of the C.B.C.
The C.B.C.'s plan to establish its offices in the eastern section of Montreal is commendable, and I am quite happy to see that some of those offices are to be built in the constituency of St. Mary, that I have the honour to represent.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Those offices could be built at Repentigny if the city of Montreal does not want them.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, after reading the letter which a senior official of the C.B.C. addressed to me, I am led to believe that the corporation lacked objectivity in the choice of that site, because I had sent them a very definite plan, in which the land, the topography and the esthetic of the place had been considered. A serious study of my suggested alternative was, I think, rejected. Yet sev-

eral thousands of dollars were spent in investigating the project which the corporation has now under study, whereas the document I have here at hand cost absolutely nothing, either to the C.B.C., or to the city of Montreal, or to the province of Quebec.
Anyway, as I say, I am happy to find that the C.B.C., together with the authorities of the city of Montreal, agreed to build its offices in a part of my riding. However, I shall invite the corporation to establish an order of authority in its organization so that members of parliament or any other public servants would know with whom to deal when they want to discuss such matters.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twistingate-Twillingate (Mr. Pick-ersgill) stated this morning that on second reading of the bill of rights we agreed last night that the Liberals had a right to be admitted to the C.B.C., like everybody else. I agree with the hon. member on that point, but I maintain that Conservative members should also, in the same capacity, and under the same privilege have access to the C.B.C. and to the positions it may offer. As far as I am concerned-I am not ashamed to say so, because it is what I am here for -I have several times recommended people who came to see me, asking me to give them an introduction to the authorities of the C.B.C.


An hon. Member:: There are no more Conservatives.


Georges-J. Valade: You will be surprised. There are many more than you think, and you will lose your deposit at the next election. It is not Mr. Rene Levesque who will conduct your election.


An hon. Member:: What a prophecy.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I wrote a letter of recommendation to one of the personnel directors of the C.B.C. without exerting any other pressure than that of recommending an elector. Well, the reply received by the person I recommended was to the effect that letters of Conservative members were not welcome at the C.B.C. I did not want to take that person at his word. So, from my office, I telephoned that C.B.C. official, and I had the person concerned listen in on a second telephone-


An hon. Member:: That is not honest.


Georges-J. Valade: I had the conversation which I had with that official repeated over the telephone.
Mr. Chairman, I consider that the C.B.C. should not play politics, that it should not be subjected to any political pressure, but I think it is the duty and that it is even part of the functions of a member of parliament, to recommend to the C.B.C. authorities, as elsewhere, an elector of his constituency.
That attitude is, in my opinion, an abuse, and following the remarks made by Liberal members, I note that they do not like to be told of those things, because their own reach the C.B.C. more easily than ours.
Mr. Chairman, I should like also to raise another matter. There is, as everyone knows, a certain family compact within the C.B.C.; I would not like to blame Mr. Ouimet for this, because I know he is not altogether informed of the situation-


An hon. Member:: Do you mean to say he does not know what is going on?


Georges-J. Valade: Tell him yourself, if you have the spunk.


An hon. Member:: I am not the one who
said it.


Georges-J. Valade: There is, in the C.B.C., a certain clique of performers, and they are the only ones who can get consideration from the management. As was pointed out to you, there is also favouritism in respect to commentators, and if our friends in the opposition want names, we can supply them.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I have here a letter-


An hon. Member:: Name them.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from a citizen who called on me and said he would be prepared to testify before a royal commission to the effect that he was asked a 25 to 30 per cent kickback on bis fees to have his plays produced by the C.B.C. If that is not a shameful and disgusting situation, I wonder what our Liberal friends will call it. And if a royal commission is appointed, I shall submit the name of that person.
Supply-C.B.C.
Mr. Chairman, I should also like to call the attention of the house to the poor organization of the film purchasing department in the C.B.C. As you will realize, we have to go by the information supplied to us, because there is no information in the estimates and we have to take what we get from outside. It is that attitude that is causing dissatisfaction and turning public opinion against the C.B.C.
For instance, I should like to mention the case of a person who called on the C.B.C. with a film made at Ste Anne de Beaupre. It was a documentary, and the person had really made a masterpiece out of it. This person called on a certain authority in the C.B.C. and was told this: "If you wish to sell your film, you must see Mr. X, and if Mr. X is willing, well, we shall buy it." If my friends in the opposition wish to know the names, I shall give some to them.
Mr. Chairman, this is an unfortunate situation. In my opinion it is an abuse that has been going on for too long in the C.B.C. The trouble is that parliament has no control over the corporation's expenditures. In fact, the C.B.C. paid prohibitive prices for certain films which could have been bought for half, if not a third of the price.
Why? Because there is no control whatsoever by the elected members of this house.
I would like to raise another point to show to what extent there is interference and maladministration in the corporation, merely because the Canadian parliament has no control over C.B.C. finances.
Some time ago, an air conditioning system was to be installed in the corporation building. Experts from companies specializing in this field were called upon and the installation of the system was requested. According to the experts, who sent me a report, the system was put in at a cost of $9,000; it was an air unit which is called air eliminator.
Technically, the system was rated as a 5 power unit. That equipment could therefore have been bought for $6,500. Moreover, Mr. Chairman, some engineers told me that the installed unit was inadequate for its intended purpose.
That is what we deplore, in this house- that lack of control by parliament.
I think our friends in the opposition are as anxious as we are to look through and

Supply-C.B.C.
investigate the expenses of the C.B.C., to determine whether the money has been spent honestly and usefully.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to come back to a point I had stressed a few moments ago. I mean the patronage which prevails in the award of jobs in the C.B.C. The situation is similar to that in the civil service commission. When anybody wants a position for a friend, an examination is announced and the candidate is notified of the competition. Soon after it has been announced, the posters are quickly removed, obviously for the purpose of eliminating competition, while-though only ostensibly-conforming with the requirements of decency.
I have here a statement by somebody who told me he was interested in a position as departmental clerk. The competition announcement was posted on August 20, 1957 in the St. Luc street building, but the staff which might have been interested in this job was working on Dorchester street. Obviously, the very fact points to a desire to avert the attention of those who might have been interested in this job. Of course the person I am referring to did not get the job.
There is another fact I would like to mention. A vacancy was advertised in the stagehand section, which was, in fact, looking for a scenery shifter.
Now, Mr. Chairman, those things are current practice in the C.B.C.
I have here a list of people employed by the corporation. I see here the names of two brothers, and then those of two brothers-in-law.
A strange thing that happened, and it obviously happened before the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) was elected, is that as I notice, the score of people on that list all come from St. Hyacinthe. They were, without any doubt, recommended by the former administration. Do you not find this a rather strange coincidence?


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Claude Fontaine, Rosaire Fontaine-


Georges-J. Valade: Our friends in the opposition seem to relish the situation. It is indeed, very funny that there should be political patronage in the C.B.C., but they are the ones who introduced it ever since the C.B.C. was first established in this country.
If a certain hon. member would not mind toning down his voice, I shall add that not long ago, a fairly high level job was secured in the C.B.C. thanks to a letter of recommendation signed by a member of the opposition.

Before raising cries of patronage or unwarranted interference, hon. members opposite should look at themselves and go through their files.


Mr. Denis:: It is like the C.N.R.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Never mind the C.N.R., stick to the C.B.C.


Georges-J. Valade: A member rose and talked about leftism.


Azellus Denis: Grignon.


Georges-J. Valade: I am accused of making unfounded charges.
Now here is something from a newspaper which I never read, but which was sent to me. The name of this paper is Vers Demain. On page 6 of the May 15, 1958 issue, I find the following-
Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to call our friends in the opposition to order. If they want to make speeches, let them make them in due time; however, I hope they will make more sense than the speech made by the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis).


Azellus Denis: It hurt you.


Georges-J. Valade: No, it hurt you. I shall now quote from page 6 of the newspaper in question:
The C.B.C. has become a socialist stronghold, and they know it. That is why they fear anything that threatens to take it away from them. On June 10 last year, whenever election reports showed Conservative gains and Liberal losses, the faces of Rene Levesque and Andre Laurendeau took on a gloomy expression. And before the elections of March 31 last, expecting the Conservative party to strengthen its position in Ottawa, the socialist weekly Vrai forecast in large headlines that the antisocialists (he called them Duplessists) were preparing to oust the archangels of Canadian socialism from the C.B.C.
Further down in the same article, reference is made to Jacques Hebert, publisher of that sheet dealing with the scandal at Bordeaux.
Jacques Hebert wrote that before the March 31 elections, when, expecting the final victory of the Conservatives, he already had his handkerchief out to cry at the expected departure of his friends and himself from "the last oasis of freedom, the national film board and the C.B.C., where the air is still breathable" (breathable for them, of course).
I go on quoting from the same article which mentions Jacques Hebert, that friend of hon. members in the opposition.
People of talent, such as Andre Laurendeau, will have to give way to idiotic nobodies-Every leftist will be thrown out: Pierre-Elliot Trudeau, Gerard Pelletier, Fernand Seguin, Jean-Louis Gagnon, etc. -It will be a triumph for stupidity when the only thinking men have been eliminated from the C.B.C.-

You would think anyone who is not a Liberal is an idiot.
Every leftist will be thrown out of the C.B.C.
Those are not my words, they are in the article.
It will be a triumph for stupidity when the only thinking men have been eliminated from the C.B.C.
Those are not my words, they are the words of the leftists, people on the payroll of our friends in the opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I am not here to indulge in petty politics. I submit to the house that I do not stoop, like certain members on my right, to the point of making comments on municipal, provincial or federal elections.
I was not elected here to indulge in petty politics.
If our friends here were as conscious of it as we are, they would try to fulfil the pledges they gave their fellow citizens.
In my opinion, it is the duty of any member who is conscious of his obligations to rise and protest strongly against certain institutions or crown corporations which abuse their powers.
We are asked to vote $71 million, without even being told what that money will be used for. It is for that reason that I join with my friends who spoke before me, to demand a royal inquiry into the business of the C.B.C., in order that the people themselves, those who have any grievances against the C.B.C., may have the opportunity of expressing their views on this matter.
I should like to quote here from an article published in Montreal Matin of February 11, 1959, reproduced from he Bien Public of Three Rivers:
Parliament, which is responsible to the people, has the duty to examine the present establishment of the C.B.C. and to apply the necessary reforms. Let our leaders hasten to shed some light on the C.B.C., whose internal chaos has just been revealed to the public by the strike. A body which has absorbed half a billion dollars since its creation must not escape examination.
I close my remarks by asking you to draw the minister's attention to the fact that we cannot ask the people of Canada to spend $71 million inconsiderately without knowing what that money will be used for. I would call upon our friends opposite, who are so talkative from their seats-having but nonsense to talk about, and who take the floor on government measures always in such a way as to break the rules-who insult their opponents rather than state the facts, to pronounce themselves honestly on that matter and to stop resorting to patronage with the C.B.C.
Not long ago, Mr. Chairman, I entertained at my home a former Liberal party organizer
Supply-C.B.C.
who told me that wrestlers' mattresses had been ordered for a C.B.C. program. When he sent in his bill, it was returned with the remark: "You are not very wise to charge only that amount, send another bill and charge three times as much."
Well, Mr. Chairman, that is exactly so, that is exactly the kind of expenditures that we do not want to accept in the House of Commons. That is why we want to know where the money goes, and how it is being spent.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Are you going to vote for or against?


Georges-J. Valade: What are you going to do yourself?
(Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: When this battle in Quebec is finished, Mr. Chairman, I will commence. I rise particularly to deal with one or two matters of particular concern to my constituents. However, before going into the details I must on behalf of this party emphasize the fact that this party wholeheartedly supports the C.B.C. as a necessary institution in Canadian life. Like any other organization, whether it is public or private, it may on occasion suffer from administrative indigestion or growing pains. However, I am quite sure that many of the things that have been complained about today will be soon corrected if necessary-as they usually are corrected-in the proper way and in time.
We in this group believe that it is a healthy and proper state of affairs if we have the C.B.C. as a public corporation and the private radio interests in this country competing together on a proper basis. We think the net result of that state of affairs will be to the advantage of the Canadian people.
I should also explain that while the hon. member for Port Arthur mentioned that in his view the educated elite live in the large centres-and that may be true-I am speaking on behalf of the cultured country people of Kootenay West. I would not mind saying that if you wanted to assess the educational standards in the small city of Trail and district you would find a larger percentage of people in that city and district with university degrees than are to be found possibly in most other areas in Canada. I also want to mention the fact that I represent vigorous frontier-minded people who have not lost their vigour or their willingness to live pioneer lives.
My people make their own entertainment on an exceptional scale. As far as the stage

Supply-C.B.C.
is concerned they are served by little theatre groups. As far as music is concerned they have their own bands and small orchestras. As far as sports are concerned they have baseball, hockey, curling, track and field sports, water sports, fishing and hunting. They are all indulged in and I mention them to bring to the attention of the committee that I represent a cultured and vigorous people who still evidence their pioneering instincts in many fields. They also appreciate the C.B.C. as a Canadian institution. Generally speaking you find an appreciation of the C.B.C. services across Canada. When it comes to entertainment you find people who prefer one program to another, but I think it is fair to say that the bulk of Canadians are proud of and support the general policies and activities of the C.B.C.
I have been very interested when travelling in the United States, in the states of Washington, Idaho, Montana and New York to find out what a high opinion many people in the United States have of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its programs. In this connection I wish to quote briefly from an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal entitled "Not without honour". In part it says:
Witness the comment of Mr. Jack Gould of the New York Times on that favorite target, the C.B.C.:
"Discriminating Americans close to the border ... repeatedly have apprised the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that its radio network is a veritable model of civilized behavior on the airwaves. It is."
To support the view that "Canadian radio can stand comparison with the best aural efforts of any nation", Mr. Gould points out that "Canadians are firmly convinced that live classical music on the radio is not only a joy to the ear but also a cultural resource to be preserved", and praises our "substantial radio drama, which has practically become extinct in the United States".
I am getting very close to the problems of my own people. It is because of the interest of the people I represent in good music, in good commentaries and in the cultural things the C.B.C. provides that those who are denied them today are anxious to receive them at the first opportunity.
Now a word about the television satellite to be erected to serve the Rossland-Trail area. All I say in that connection is that it has been delayed for over a year by certain difficulties in connection with the leasing of a site on the mountain behind Rossland but the people in the area are looking forward to the commencement of the operation of that station. As a result of the construction of this station a satellite will be erected somewhere behind the Beasley bluffs to serve the Nelson area, and I would like to bring to the minister's attention the fact that some

apprehension is felt that although the satellite is welcomed by the great majority of the people it will not serve a good number of the people it is intended to serve.
In that connection may I quote briefly from the Nelson News of June 8, 1960:
-Grade A service will be provided from the local satellite to Nelson, Crescent Valley, South Slocan, Bonnington Falls, Shoreacres and surrounding rural area, and grade B service to Tarrys, Thrums, Robson, Castlegar, Brilliant, Blueberry Creek, Kinnaird and a larger rural area.
The station will operate on channel 9.
Nelson authorities who have studied contour maps and consulted other data, doubt that the signal will cover lower Fairview or the north shore unless some unknown freak condition exists or some mechanical provision is made.
They said that Nelson mountain's 3000-foot elevation would likely block reception to these areas.
CBC-TV is expected to reach Nelson this winter.
I was informed later by letter that these contours and maps were drawn by engineers in the district who have experience in radio and television and they are very concerned that the district of Fairview, which is almost half the city of Nelson, and the north shore which represents a relatively closely settled area on the north shore of the north arm of Kootenay lake will not be serviced by the proposed satellite station. I would urge that the C.B.C. give serious consideration to this fear before erecting this television satellite. I think it is a good idea these things should be checked up very carefully, especially in a mountainous region such as the Kootenays where there is such difficulty in getting signals in many cases from even a short distance.
Now I come to a matter I have mentioned before and I am sure the minister is not surprised to hear me mention it again. It concerns the two or three low power relay radio transmitters which are required to service the 3,000 or 4,000 people still denied radio service in Kootenay West. It concerns an area in the Upper Arrow lake which should be served by a low power relay transmitter in Nakusp and one required in the Balfour-Procter area to serve the area around those villages and the surrounding shores of Kootenay lake. I am receiving constant complaints about lack of radio in this area. It was expected at one time that the Balfour-Procter area would be served by an increase in the power of the station at Nelson, but unfortunately these expectations have not been fulfilled and these people are still denied radio reception.
A great number of people are interested in television, but I have noticed how many people in my constituency are fond of listening to the radio. In fact I think radio is making a recovery. I find that many people

who have had televisior for some time tell me they enjoy listening to radio programs and radio speeches more than they do to television. The people I am speaking about in the smaller areas who want to get the low power relay transmitters and the television service want them because they are a cultured informed people who want the programs of the C.B.C.
In connection with the recovery of radio I will quote very briefly from the Canadian Commentator of December, 1959, which supports my own experience in the constituency which I have the honour to represent:
The Fowler commission proved that radio is anything but a secondary form of home entertainment, where people want news and informed comment they go-of necessity-to radio. They are buying more sets than they ever did before and it's not unusual now to find people who can tell you what was on radio the previous evening. A hopeful sign.
People are re-discovering the pleasure of listening to good music (completely absent on the "other medium"), the stimulation of intelligent debate: they are discovering that they have an imagination, and this because the radio play demands attention and the use of the mind.
They are beginning to forget the horror of quiz shows, performing seals and thundering horses.
Radio has come home-to stay.
I think there is a great deal in what is said in that paragraph. It is because of this interest in radio that I make a final appeal -I hope it is a final appeal-to the minister and the officials of the C.B.C. for low power relay transmitters at Nakusp to serve the Upper Arrow lakes where some 3,000 people have been denied satisfactory radio reception to date.
A similar situation exists in the Balfour-Procter district. Nakusp is the headquarters in the area for sawmills and lumbering activities generally. The population is engaged in producing forest and agricultural products. All through the years to date they have been seeking an opportunity to hear the C.B.C. It is possible to get the Trail, Kamloops and Kelowna stations in the daytime under certain conditions but there has been no opportunity to listen to the C.B.C. on a dependable basis.
In the Arrow lakes area there are approximately 3,000 people who are still thus denied radio reception and the opportunity to listen to the C.B.C. They are also denied television reception. Lately they have had some experimental television service by the use of a gadget put on top of Saddle mountain but I understand they can only receive signals from Spokane. Many people ask me how soon they can expect the opportunity to hear and see C.B.C. programs. These people are anxious to receive C.B.C. radio and television reception. They wish to enjoy its cultural and other programs.
Supply-C.B.C.


Mr. McFarlane:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the hon. member for Kootenay West in his plea to the department for the establishment of radio and television services in isolated areas. I do not go along with him in the doctrine that the government should continue with the C.B.C. I believe that the sooner we turn it over to private interests the better off we will be.
I noticed recently an article in the press stating that many millions of dollars will be spent in the area of Montreal this year for C.B.C. buildings and equipment. If some of this money were spread around in the small rural districts of Canada in providing radio and television service it would be of vast assistance. I do not believe that all C.B.C. expenditures should be localized in the larger centres.
I wish to point out the need for improved service in Kootenay East which borders on Kootenay West as was mentioned by the previous speaker. As the hon. gentleman said there are certain localities in this area where no radio reception is possible. We are situated in the midst of the Rocky mountains and because the valleys are not very wide our reception is subject to serious interference. Long before this government came into power requests were made of the federal administration to establish a booster station in the lake Windermere valley which is noted all over the world for its radium hot springs. It enjoys a considerable tourist trade and some consideration should be given to the establishment of radio reception facilities so that tourists and the local residents may enjoy C.B.C. programs. No reception exists at present. We are dependent on a small local station which is unable to give us the service we require. The cost of establishing small booster stations would not be very great especially in this area and I know the local residents who have a keen interest in the matter would greatly appreciate some consideration being shown to the establishment of booster stations.
I wish now to direct my attention to the question of television reception. Companies have come into the area and piped television reception into the cities and towns but the people in rural areas are still denied C.B.C. television reception. I believe the time has come when we must begin to meet the needs of the people living in the outlying areas of Canada who are just as entitled as those in the larger centres to television service. I realize it is difficult to provide reception to rural areas but this could be done by the establishment of small satellite stations by which means C.B.C. television programs could be brought into the area.

Supply-C.B.C.
In view of the plans that have been made for the expenditure of many millions of dollars in the larger centres I urge the minister and his department to consider spending some of this money to establish satellite stations in small rural areas and to improve radio reception there so that those living in isolated communities, our farmers and those in logging and mining camps can enjoy the advantages of this service. This service would make their lives more enjoyable. We have a limited range of reception at present in the outlying areas of Kootenay East in the Rocky mountains.


George Clyde Nowlan: Would the hon. member say exactly what area it is of which he is speaking?


Murray Lincoln McFarlane: I am referring to the Kootenay East district and the lake Windermere valley and all the territory in the Kootenay East section. If many millions of dollars can be spent by the C.B.C. in the Montreal area this year I feel some of this money could be spread around among smaller communities to give our Canadian people better service than they are now receiving. (Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few brief remarks to make about the speeches which have been made since this morning by the hon. members for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay), for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul), for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) and for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), who made several unfounded charges against the C.B.C.
I refer to some of the charges made by the member for Roberval who claims that the C.B.C. refuses to reveal how it is spending the money it gets from parliament. As he said, they do what they like with it. The member for Roberval added that the C.B.C. gives insolent answers to the questions asked by the representatives of the people. Besides, he said that the C.B.C. is a hot bed of favouritism and political patronage.
The member for Berthier-Maskinonge-De-lanaudiere calls it a corporation where public funds are squandered.
The member for St. Mary talks about a ghost budget, about a family compact, about favoritism in employment and maladministration in the purchase of films.
I would not want for a moment to question the right of any member of this house to ask questions and demand answers. This is the reason why we are here. But this morning, following the speech of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, I rose to ask him this very simple question:

The time has come, the occasion is perfect, if you have questions to ask or specific charges to make, please make them right now to the minister and his officials. I must add that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm backed out and that he did not follow up my question.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. members did not make a single specific charge, did not state any specific fact, no name or date, and I have much sympathy for the Minister of National Revenue who, with the officials of his department, has been indirectly flaunted. But he should not be surprised, since the Conservative members who acted this way have recently lost a patronage monopoly which they valued very much and we think they would want to regain here certain benefits they have lost in the province of Quebec.
In any event, for the last two years, the Conservative members, and the member for Roberval in particular, have been witchhunting about the C.B.C., just like a certain American representative from Wisconsin who certainly did not render his country all the services he could.
I believe that the general public, especially in the province of Quebec, because I am more familiar with the facts there than in other provinces, trusts the C.B.C. and its administrators.
I have often heard those hon. members strongly criticizing some programs but it is strange that those very members, to my knowledge, never managed to commend the fine productions and activities of the C.B.C.
When one wishes to be fair and give credit to everybody, one must take into consideration the good things as well as the bad ones. And if this is done judiciously and conscientiously, I say that we may be proud of the C.B.C., of its performers, of its productions that are just as good as foreign productions, taking into account the funds available.
I leave it to the minister to deal with the accusations made by those hon. members. He knows them much better than I do and he must know whether there are motives that prompt such remarks and, if any, what they are.
As far as I am concerned, I believe that if an organization needs the trust of parliament and the public, it is indeed the C.B.C. which has a duty so complex, so important and so difiicult to perform for the Canadian people. So long as we shall hear vague and irresponsible statements such as those we have heard, I shall continue to rely on the corporation.

In conclusion, may I give this friendly advice to the minister? When he took over this important department which reports for the C.B.C., he was taking over from men who had kept the C.B.C. free from political influence. Moreover, if the minister keeps on the course we have set for him, he will have rendered a great service to his country by holding firm against pressures exerted by his friends.
(Text):


Mr. McIntosh:: I wonder whether the minister would say a few words with regard to the over-all policy of the C.B.C. in servicing all rural areas, not just those of Kootenay East or Kootenay West?
Of course, the reason for establishing the C.B.C., as I understand it, was to disseminate Canadian culture to all Canadian people, and there was no suggestion that it should be given to urban people rather than to rural people. I represent a constituency which is almost wholly rural and in some of our areas, on account of geographical conditions, it is impossible to be serviced by a privately owned station; it is not economically sound to do so. But those people have contributed toward the $69 million, as have other people, and I am quite sure it was the intention of the government that they should receive benefits as do all other Canadians.
I should like to know whether there is a policy and whether it is taken step by step? It is quite reasonable to believe that the more densely populated areas of the urban regions should be serviced first, but there should be a definite policy that all hon. members could take home to their constituents, particularly those representing rural areas.


Mr. Marlin (Timmins):: First of all, I should like to agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate in one respect. I refer to what he had to say about many suggestions made by some of our Quebec Tory members today. As he said, I can disagree violently with what they say, but also I would stand very firm on their freedom to say it, for this reason. How can I judge what they have to say if I do not give them a chance to say it? Only by giving them the opportunity to say it can you know how much you are against that type of thing.
But the hon. member went further in his remarks. He pointed out something that is the very crux of many of the problems and of the criticisms of the C.B.C. I do not think I can recall word for word what he said but certainly, as I understood him, his remarks
Supply-C.B.C.
were to the effect that he had always supported the C.B.C., not because it was a publicly owned system but because Canada could not remain a separate country without public broadcasting. This is quite an admission because it means that if we had to rely on private broadcasting we would not even have a country. According to the words of the hon. member, it would be impossible to have a country if we had to depend on private enterprise; but he is against public enterprise even though it is impossible to have a country without it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want to be unfair. I did not say I was against public enterprise or for public enterprise. I said I did not support the C.B.C. because it was public enterprise but because, in my opinion, it was necessary for the preservation of Canada.


Murdo William Martin: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what I just said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, not at all.


Murdo William Martin: I do not think it is any reflection upon the hon. member. I think he has just expressed the confusion we have in our society in Canada today. He has expressed the sense of confusion that we have. It seems we want to have our cake and eat it, too.
The C.B.C. was started as a public service to supply broadcasting services to people across this country where private enterprise could not or would not supply the service. As soon as we set up this public service we started to criticize it. Why? Because it cost us money. How we can supply a service without costing money is something that nobody has ever explained to me yet. The one thing I do not like about this whole situation is the way in which we continue to delude ourselves that we can get free service from private broadcasting.
We have fooled ourselves and fooled the people of Canada generally in believing that private broadcasting stations supply free entertainment. Where do they get the money with which to supply the free entertainment they provide? Is it not out of the very same pocket from which the government has to collect taxes to support the C.B.C.? I do not know from what other source the money could be obtained. The matter boils down to the fact that if we want to supply a broadcasting service across this country we have to pay for it. The hon. member for Kootenay East advocated that we sell the whole thing to private enterprise but I shudder to think what that would do to the broadcasting service in this country or even in Kootenay East which the hon. member represents.

Supply-C.B.C.
It puts me in mind of a situation we often see in communities. A householder will become so incensed at his tax bill that he will get rid of his property and move to the country or to the outskirts of the community, but as soon as he gets there he immediately demands the same services he had when in town and by the time he gets them his taxes are back at the same level they were in the first place. The situation is like a man wrestling with his conscience. We want all the benefits of socialism as long as we do not call them socialism. We want to get rid of all the evils of our so-called free enterprise system and at the same time still maintain it.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Murdo William Martin: I do not know where that interjection came from. I think we must clear our thinking on this matter and endeavour to put a stop to the selfdelusion that is prevalent in this country. Conservative members from the province of Quebec have criticized the C.B.C. very severely today, mainly on two grounds. The first is the fact that the C.B.C. has permitted people to appear on its programs who disagree with these members politically and the other has to do with the terrible cost hanging around the necks of the taxpayers.
I think we have to realize once and for all that if we are going to supply service through the C.B.C.-many hon. members from widely scattered areas have complained bitterly that the C.B.C. does not supply the service it should in some areas-we have got to pay for the service. We must keep in mind that if we are not going to put the C.B.C. on a straight public service basis with its expenses paid out of general revenue then we must at least give it an opportunity to get into some of the lucrative fields which in far too many cases are reserved for private broadcasting.
We seem to have the idea in this country that if there is a profit to be made out of anything private enterprise should get it but if it is a matter of providing a straight service which will impose a burden it should be done by public enterprise. Yet as soon as that is done there are complaints about the cost of the public enterprise. In my opinion this is one of the problems that the minister, the officials of the C.B.C. and the people of Canada as a whole should face up to.
I have mentioned on previous occasions that the favourite pastime of the Canadian people seems to be to fool themselves that as long as the cost of something is hidden it is free, but once we look into the matter we run into the unalterable fact that there is nothing free. Such services are paid for either directly

or indirectly, and I think we should make up our minds just what we want to do with public broadcasting. Do we want it to do a job as a public service? Do we want it made available to as many Canadians as possible, if not all, or do we want it to be castigated and criticized as it has been today, this way, that way and the other way?
I am sure we do not mind criticism of the C.B.C. provided it is justifiable and constructive criticism put forward with the idea of improving the service now given, but I certainly hope that before the minister and the government listens to the recommendation of the hon. member for Kootenay East, which I noticed was also applauded by other members, and takes such a step it will look ahead a bit and see what the consequences will be.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am not rising to make a speech but merely to correct a misrepresentation. I do not accuse the hon. member for Timmins of doing so intentionally but I think he misrepresented my position somewhat and I should like to make it very clear. I said or intended to say and thought I had said that I did not support the C.B.C. because it was a public corporation rather than a private corporation but that I supported the C.B.C. and public broadcasting because I thought it was essential to the maintenance of this country as a separate country, and I think it is.
But in saying that I had no intention of suggesting that most of the private broadcasters in this country, though there are a few I do not admire very much, do not have a very high sense of public service. But they are local in character and in nature and this country extends over 5,000 miles, and if we are to have any Canadian broadcasting at all it is beyond the capacity of anyone who has to put up his own money in a corporation to establish the kind of national networks that I believe are necessary to keep this country Canadian. That is the point I was seeking to make.
I think it is a very fortunate thing that we never did go whole hog as Mr. Bennett intended we should go at the time the Canadian radio commission was established in 1932 and nationalize all broadcasting. Looking back, I think it is a very good thing that we have the C.B.C. and I think it is a very good thing that we have private broadcasting, but as long as we have this situation there is going to be a difficult area in between, as the hon. member so justly said. I did not want anyone to represent me as taking the view that private broadcasters are not just as capable of being patriotic and good Canadians as public broadcasters.


Mr. Leduc:: Mr. Chairman, I would merely ask the minister to try to improve the television service in the upper part of Gatineau constituency.
The chambers of commerce of my constituency and of neighbouring constituencies like those of Pontiac and Labelle, as well as the union of chambers of commerce of western Quebec, have asked for the setting up of a satellite station on Mount Ryan, near lake Ste. Marie.
I know that the C.B.C. has considered that request, and I know that it is sympathetic to it, because such an improvement would benefit a population of 40,000 inhabitants in the Mont Laurier area, in the northern area of the Lievre, and the northern area of the Gatineau as well as in part of Pontiac constituency.
At the present time, reception at Maniwaki, which is about 80 miles from Ottawa, is sometimes very good, and we may say that, in general, it is average and even acceptable, because there is a private community station there. Those who are served by that station, must first pay a $100 fee to connect their television set to the main cable, and afterwards they must pay $36 a year. I think that the same situation prevails in Mont Laurier.
According to information available to me, the erection of a satellite tower on Ryan mountain would improve the service in the whole area. I therefore ask the minister to look favourably on this request made by the chambers of commerce of this area and of neighbouring ridings.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I would like, at the outset, to apologize for taking the time of the house. If it were not for a certain challenge from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) I would have been satisfied with leaving it to my colleagues from Ber-thier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) and Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) to express certain views that I share with them.
I would like also to take this opportunity to congratulate the new leader of the opposition, the suave member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) and his assistant the waggish member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis). I say that, after so many years, the Liberal party finally allows them to express their opinions. It remains to be seen whether the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate should be transferred to the back benches and henceforth take his lead from the members for Maisonneuve-Rosemont and for St. Denis. But it is not for me to decide. The Leader of the Opposition will regret it or will
Supply-C.B.C.
congratulate himself after the next election, unless he puts an end to this thing as early as Monday morning next, or at five o'clock tonight, at the latest.
However, I will not pursue the matter unduly, as I just want to discuss-as I and my colleagues are entitled to-the funds the house is now being asked to vote for the operations of the C.B.C.
One thing that strikes me, Mr. Chairman, is that when the estimates of certain departments come before the house, some members on the government side rise to voice certain criticisms, particularly against the C.B.C. That is their right, it is even a duty. I think the people will be the first to commend them for it, because they display an independent mind and make no bones about revealing anything wrong in some division or other of the federal administration.
It is the very essence of a democratic party. I for one am sure that the people of the province of Quebec and especially the citizens of the Chambly-Rouville riding will bear me out on that point. As for me, I congratulate my colleagues on being brave and dutiful enough to criticize the administration of a department even though their own party is in office.
It is the basis of democracy and I fail to see why the hon. members of the opposition criticize such a stand.
Ironically, every time a member on the government side criticizes or ventures to make the slightest unkind remark concerning the C.B.C., its administration, the acts of its officers or of some of its employees, immediately the Liberal members protest sharply against what they call an infringement upon the freedom of speech, the freedom of this, the freedom of that. Well you may be sure that before long we shall hear them lash into the wording of the bill of rights, and if we, Conservative members, venture to exercise our right to speak in order to criticize in any way any department, and more particularly the C.B.C., you will hear them refer to the bill of rights and accuse us of infringing upon the freedom of the C.B.C., of its commentators, of its officers and of its employees.
Mr. Chairman, mention is made of political patronage. I wonder if this would not be the main reason for the stand which the Liberal members have taken, and more particularly the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask you not to be hasty in calling me to order. There has been an election recently in a province. The Liberal members, taking pride in a halfvictory which they keep talking about, continue in this house to nag the party-
5996	HOUSE OF
Supply-C.B.C.
(Text):


The Deputy Chairman:: Order; I am afraid I shall have to call the hon. member to order. I think the Chair has been quite lenient, but I shall have to ask the hon. member to come back to vote 41, which is for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
(Translation):


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Exactly, Mr. Chairman, I cautioned you against hastiness in calling me to order.
I wanted to say that some hon. members, continuing that election campaign, are apparently riled whenever a Conservative member criticizes the attitude of certain C.B.C. employees or officials. Apparently, that private hunting ground of the Liberal and C.C.F. parties, that socialist and Liberal propaganda mill, is not to be touched. Such an attitude is calculated to give the Canadian people the impression that we are trying to make a political hotbed out of the C.B.C. That is what the people are being led to believe about those who try to voice honest criticisms, as is their right, at the unreasonable and unconstitutional attitude of the C.B.C. when our friends rise in defence of those who, within the C.B.C., work against the purposes of that organization and try to turn it into a political hotbed.
Mr. Chairman, no Conservative member has ever asked or even wanted that the C.B.C. should become a political organization, a propaganda machine in the hands of the government in office. However, Liberal members have denounced our attitude every time one of us demanded that the C.B.C. should no longer be used for political or propaganda purposes in favour of a particular party. This is so true that a moment ago, paradoxically I drew a mirthless smirk from the member for Bonavista-Twillingate when I asked him in the course of his remarks, what political propaganda he was referring to in quoting from some newspaper article.
Mr. Chairman, the C.B.C. is an institution which Canadians generally have a right to be proud of. Such an organization is, for Canadians generally, a bulwark against Americanism in Canada. I have nothing against Americans, I have no criticism of their behaviour in any field whatsoever; but Canada is an independent country, and wants to remain independent. Its leaders therefore have a with the historical context, the present day


context and the Canadian and French Canadian context. We have a broadcasting network which I think in principle does contribute to the promotion and development of a Canadian culture, while at the same time respecting and even promoting French culture in Canada.
We think the C.B.C. is to be commended, and its leaders are worthy of the highest compliments as far as principles are concerned. Must we, however, as representatives of the people, blindly vote $71 million without raising questions, without denouncing the wrongs of certain officials or employees of the C.B.C., or of certain profiteers orbiting like satellites around this organization which is the property of the people and should be used for the people?


Azellus Denis: Ask your questions, now is the time.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, the genius is telling me to ask questions-


Azellus Denis: Go ahead, ask questions.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: He is repeating what the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) said this morning.
We have no intention of asking questions of the minister and then be told that he has no power to investigate directly, that he must rely on whatever information C.B.C. officials will see fit to let him have.
We have not got the time today. The hon. member for St. Denis who, after all, has a modicum of intelligence will admit that we have not the time to ask all the questions we would like to. Nor, surely, have we time to bother the minister with those questions. Liberal members-especially the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate-refer to the minister as the reporter of the C.B.C., "the minister who reports to parliament for the C.B.C.", showing that, as far as they understand the status of the C.B.C. towards parliament, the C.B.C. enjoys full independence, which allows it to reply to questions, through the minister, as it sees fit.
We have had several examples of replies given to questions asked by members.
The hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Parizeau) asked questions about a certain C.B.C. commentator, who was recently elected to the Quebec legislature.
Liberal members would do well not to applaud too fast, because that commentator

turned representative is already tangled in his electric wires.
In reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Lake St. John, we heard the minister say that it was impossible to reply. I do not blame him, because he was acting within the limits of his functions in accordance with the powers conferred upon him. He could not go any further. He could not force those gentlemen of the C.B.C. to reply to the representative of the people, he who is responsible for the supervision of the C.B.C. That is the deadlock in which we find ourselves every time reference is made to the C.B.C., a body financed by the Canadian people which spends increasing amounts of money, that is, $71 million this year.
Why must a body of that importance, which costs so much to the Canadian people, refuse to reply to simple questions asked by representatives of the people in this house?
Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask this- and the hon. members for St. Denis and Maisonneuve-Rosemont know very well I will have no reply this afternoon-why the minister should not have the power when we ask him a question, whether it be on the estimates or on the orders of the day, to reply on what goes on in that corporation? We asked questions, but got no answers.
We thought the Liberals were making a mistake in setting up that system. We thought they were indulging in a comfortable laziness by not dealing with that situation. But we, the newly elected representatives of the people, were sent to parliament in 1957 and in 1958 in order to bring about some changes. And we want to know the truth about the C.B.C., both in the interest of the C.B.C. itself and in the interest of the people.
The C.B.C. is the target of frequently unfounded criticisms. But how can we know, how can we know the truth, if not by demanding that C.B.C. officials reply to our questions? Otherwise they could be told: "If you do not want to reply, is it because you have something to hide?"
It is not by reading an enumeration of items on a page that we will understand what the C.B.C. proposes to do with the money it is asking us to vote. Nor is it by consulting its statement of assets and liabilities in the second book of public accounts, that we will find what use is being made of the peoples' money.
Supply-C.B.C.
A statement of assets and liabilities means nothing without details. More particularly when there is an unexplained deficit.
We are objecting to such proceedings, we want to know how the money paid to the C.B.C. has been used and what causes that deficit.
We ask the government to take a positive attitude in the matter, and to decide once for all whether crown corporations will remain independent of the people who must ultimately pay the piper and the deficits.
If those deficits are legitimate, if they can be explained-why does not the C.B.C. explain them? We should be satisfied. But why does the C.B.C. give no details in the public accounts as all other departments do with regard to their expenses?
Let there be the necessary reforms in the structure of the corporation-administrative reforms-but, at least, let there be a serious consideration of suggestions made by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay), as well as by the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Paul) who quoted the public and departmental inquiries act, chapter 154 of the revised statutes of 1952.
Let us consider the proposal of the hon. member for Berthier.
I invite the hon. members for St. Denis and for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, to read over again the speeches of the representatives of Roberval and Berthier, before they criticize them. They will realize first of all to what extent they are unfair, and how stupid they can be in criticizing them.
Section 2	of chapter	154	of the	revisedstatutes of	1952	reads	as	follows:
The governor in council may, whenever he deems it expedient, cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter connected with the good government of Canada or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof.
I challenge the Liberals or the C.C.F. group to discover	any	defect	in	that legislation
which would enable the C.B.C. to elude such inquiry.
I contend that the government has the power, under this chapter, to launch an inquiry into the financial situation of the C.B.C.
If the hon. member for St. Denis wants to list the matters	to be discussed,	I shall

Supply-C.B.C.
tell him of a few. Subsequently, if he wishes to do so, he can ask the minister some questions.
For instance, let there be an inquiry about some people who are supposed to get double pay from the C.B.C.
Let there be an investigation into extravagance, like that expense of $1,000 not very long ago to bring a singer from Europe to Montreal who could have been asked to delay her departure.
Let there be an inquiry into those small cliques, into family compacts, and into all the pals, the boy friends, the girl friends, the mistresses. Let there be an inquiry into the cost of stage sets. What is the cost going to be of this or that T.V. dramatic presentation or of some other program referred to as a "continuity".
Let there be an inquiry into travelling expenses, not only for local performers-and I do not want to make any personal reference to Miss Germaine Dugas, who is one of our most talented French Canadian singers, and who deserves to be encouraged by the C.B.C., which corporation has, on the other hand no reason whatsoever to invite to its studios a burnt-out performer like Lucienne Boyer; but let there also be an inquiry on the travelling expenses of foreign performers.
The case of Miss Dugas should not be the only one examined, but also the travelling expenses of some foreign artists.
Last year in the committee on broadcasting, questions were asked to determine whether it was true that certain performers making a round of appearances in clubs, concert halls or theatres, that is to say, under private sponsorship, were getting double fees, or were being paid both by the impresarios and by the C.B.C., including travelling expenses.
We asked questions and got no answers.
For instance, we asked whether it was true that certain performers who had come to Canada under sponsorship of private interests, or impresarios, had had their travelling expenses paid, not only by their impresarios, but also by the C.B.C. Again, no answer was given to this question.
If the hon. member for St. Denis wants to enlighten himself he should look into the case of a particular club waiter, now a producer, who is a close friend of that patriarch Levesque, who is now a member of the Quebec legislature.

The way in which sponsors are forced to pick a particular program might also bear some looking into. We should be told whether our information is correct.
Mr. Chairman, we must find a way to start an investigation before the people rebel and decide that the C.B.C. is too costly and should be scrapped.
We must react before the people grow more indignant and demand that the government clean up the mess. We must straighten out what needs straightening. Let us have some answers now. Let it be a whitewashing if necessary, but let us have an investigation. Let us find out for sure if such situations exist.
Furthermore, let us be told about kickbacks. Again, we asked questions last year on this matter, but got no answer.
Some people who were producers before T.V. came in, are now supervisors or C.B.C. executives.
There have even been charges that such producers get kickbacks on the fees paid to C.B.C. actors or other performers.
Here again, no answer was given. We want to know the truth; we are seeking the light.
The C.B.C. is charged-could it be true?- with refusing sponsors, and keeping sponsorless programs on the air. We inquired about that, but again, no answer was given.
People talk of immorality within the C.B.C. I do not say that the expression is correct, I do not suggest that it is in keeping with the facts, but mention was made of this in Montreal and certainly in Toronto. Accusations of immorality have been made against the C.B.C. I am not shocked more than is necessary, but with the members of this house who are the least bit responsible, I say that this business must be cleared up because we have no right to let such accusations be made against the C.B.C. without doing anything about it. If it is true, then severe measures should be taken. If not, then the facts should be set in their true light, and this for the benefit of the C.B.C. We have the right as representatives of the people to restate those accusations and to say: Gentlemen of the C.B.C., shed light on the matter, hire a public relations officer who will try to defend you against those accusations, and account for your actions before parliament; but in the name of truth, in the

very interest of the C.B.C., we urge you to answer those questions.
Mention has been made of political recommendations. I do not know one Conservative member who can boast of having succeeded in placing someone with the C.B.C. I know that in my riding there are a great many people in the C.B.C.'s employment who earn their salary and are good servants of the corporation. I also know that some of them recruit other employees, while a member could not even recommend one person, though it be an unemployed person in dire poverty. A member of parliament cannot recommend anybody for employment with the C.B.C., because he would be accused of patronage and of filling the C.B.C. with Conservatives.
The member for Chambly-Rouville cannot recommend people to the C.B.C., but any moron, whether he be a sweeper or a clerk, can sometimes find a better job than his own for a friend, provided he has a minimum of qualifications. And this is done without examination, without any serious control, so that people are hired without examination or control.
We inquired about this in the committee on broadcasting, but we got no answer. We are inclined to believe, Mr. Chairman, that it is easier to find a job for a "chum", a "girl friend", or the mistress of this one or that one, for it seems that all too often physical attractiveness is the main consideration. At least that is what I have heard-I am only repeating what I have heard. I would like that to be brought to light. It is said that in some cases, physical attractiveness is often more important than intelligence or talent.
The report of the committee on radio and television broadcasting shows that we referred to the hiring of personnel last year and had questions to ask. As reported on page 784, I put the following question to Mr. Carter:
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, has this only been going on for half an hour?


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member's time is not up yet.
(Translation):


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Since it seems that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) would like to shorten my speech, I shall immediately mention something which concerns him. During the last electoral campaign, we heard people talk about contracts awarded without tenders, and it was said that there would be no more patronage in the awarding of those contracts.
Supply-C.B.C.
Last year, as reported at page 733 of the report of the committee on broadcasting, I put the following question to Mr. Richardson: (Text):


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Coming back to the Radio Canada building, were public tenders called tor the construction of this building?


Mr. Richardson:: It has not been our practice to call for public tenders, if you mean by "public tenders", advertising in the press?
(Translation):
I would advise Mr. Lesage to take note of that answer. It will serve him as a basic formula, everywhere, to explain the patronage he is about to organize.
(Text):


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Do I understand that there were tenders called?


Robin Mark Richardson: We always call tenders for any construction.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Was the number limited of those who were asked to tender?


Robin Mark Richardson: No, we usually start off-and this is actually covered by a different item-by having a list, and we endeavour to use local contractors wherever possible, that is, contractors in the community in which we propose to build. We invite a number, and this number varies; it may be six, three, or may be ten. Then, anyone else who wants to tender on it applies for the drawings, specifications, and so on. If he appears to be a reliable contractor who is capable of carrying out the work, we never have any objection to that.
I invite the attention of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to the following passage:


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Before 1957 did you have any protest from ministers of the crown or members of parliament against the way in which contracts were awarded, that is, without asking for public tenders by advertising in the papers?


Robin Mark Richardson: I do not recall any such objections.
(Translation):
That was the practice of the C.B.C. Why should the Department of Public Works, the Department of Transport and every other department have to invite public tenders, and not the C.B.C.?
Could there be political patronage in such matters?
How are employees hired? The committee on broadcasting established that last year, when we discussed the system of subsidies and the matter of pull. Mention has been made of the movie "scandal". On many occasions last year, I asked questions on that subject. The committee lapsed, and I never got an answer, because every excuse under the sun was used to avoid answering my questions.
For instance, take the matter of paid advertisements in newspapers. I was told the

Supply-C.B.C.
C.B.C. places no paid ads in papers other than a particular newspaper on Notre Dame street, which has been campaigning for the Liberals. If that is not patronage, in the eyes of those Liberal gentlemen, I don't know what else it can be.
There was some talk about rentals of studios. Has any light been thrown on that matter? I would like this to be clarified.
And, finally, there are those cliques in the C.B.C. The corporation is charged with spreading Liberal and socialist propaganda. Has this charge been answered by the Liberals or by the C.B.C.? All they did was to charge us, the parliamentarians who want to know the truth, with creating hotbeds of Conservative intrigue. But, Mr. Chairman, I am not worried because we will have time to complete our 25 years of office before this happens.
But when a department submits its estimates and opposition members stand up for that department in connection with questions asked by members on the government benches, one has a feeling that there must be something queer and mysterious about it. There is certainly someone who wants to protect someone else, and it is not government people, it is not the responsible minister, nor the other ministers, nor government members; it is rather, as my colleague who is sitting here beside me said, those patronage people of the Liberal party, who do not want to lose their supporters. There is reference to cowardice in the C.B.C. We have-
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I must say I followed the hon. member's speech closely through the translation system which is perhaps not fair to him but I believe he painted an exotic Parisian picture of the C.B.C. in Canada with his talk of the mistresses of certain people having more influence in getting jobs for people than members of parliament. We have had evidence in the committee with respect to the Jacques Cartier bridge which suggests that the influence of members of parliament when it was used seemed to indicate that they did not always have the best choice of prospects for jobs and the same might be true of the C.B.C. I think the hon. member has raised serious charges, the Parisian flavour of which I must say tantalized what I must describe as my worst self.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: It is all over you.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Perhaps I should not proceed in that vein but it was most interesting. The

hon. gentleman brought up the points of Liberal and socialist propaganda and the fact that the C.B.C. in French Canada seemed to be that kind of agency. He seemed to indicate that because hon. members of the government from Quebec criticized the corporation and because hon. members of the Liberal party from Quebec praised or defended the C.B.C. there is something wrong, that there are patronage mongers. I cannot comment on that.
One of the targets of government members has been someone by the name of Rene Levesque. Several years ago he gave a series of programs on French Canadian culture over the English service of the C.B.C. These were well received. A number of my constituents have asked when we are going to see that likeable fellow again. I should like to suggest that if Mr. Levesque and another very charming French Canadian television personality, Maurice Lamontagne, cannot be used now on the French network because of their relationship perhaps the English service might plan some way of bringing them forward so we could benefit from their interpretation of culture.


Azellus Denis: We might get the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Another point that interested me was this. I am pleased to see the number of government members who are making a contribution to this debate especially on the relationship of the C.B.C. in French Canada. I have often heard it argued that French Canadians should have more of their own in senior posts. If the fact that the head of the C.B.C. is one of their own has brought about this interest it is an encouraging thing and I believe something might be said for having more French Canadians in senior administrative posts.
I wish to express appreciation to a gentleman whom I note that the C.B.C. has promoted to Toronto, Mr. Michael Hind-Smith who was a producer here for a long time. My relations with him were never too friendly because we disagreed too strongly but I think he did a magnificent job especially on the royal visits and in terms of girding up or coaching politicians so they did not seem as bad as they really were when appearing on programs such as "the Nation's Business". I hope he will have success in his new position as manager of CBLT.
In the December 8, 1959 issue of the Clobe and Mail there was an interesting article entitled "Never Such Nonsense-Critics Contradictory, C.B.C. Chief Charges". The article reads in part:

The president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation said yesterday he has never heard or read so much uninformed nonsense about the C.B.C. as in the last month.
Mr. Ouimet is reported to have said:
Within the past month I have read or heard that the C.B.C. is wasteful; that private enterprise can provide the same service free; that broadcasting is primarily a vehicle for advertising; that Canada cannot afford Canadian programming; that there is no Canadian talent worth broadcasting, and that Canadians don't want Canadian programs.
X have never heard or read so much uninformed and negative nonsense in my life.
I think it is more than high time that somebody said something positive about Canadian broadcasting.
This sounds good to me and I hope it does to other hon. members. I hope that the minister and members of the board of broadcast governors and others in the C.B.C. will do some of this talking. I am glad the president kicked off on this line. 1 wish that those people who adumbrate general broadcasting policy would give us more of this. The article continues:
Mr. Ouimet said that "this destructive and negative mythology could, if unchecked, eventually threaten the effectiveness of our entire broadcasting system."
This was the point I made earlier, that there are these destructive forces and a trend which may lead to what has been applauded in this chamber, the break-up of the C.B.C. and its sale or partition to private interests. The article goes on:
The contradictory nature of the comment often floors us. On Monday we are too commercialized: on Tuesday, we should be more vigorously commercial; Wednesday the C.B.C. costs too much; Thursday the C.B.C. should extend its services; on Friday, too much culture; Saturday, too much sport; Sunday-well let's pretend it's a day of rest."
He said the corporation is not too worried because it is the kind of comment which usually balances itself out. But there is some "pretty fancy sophistry" going on, he said.
"About two weeks ago I sat in a public meeting at Ottawa and to my astonishment heard it said that the C.B.C. was established to do only those things which private stations couldn't do", Mr. Ouimet said. "And I think the speaker believed it."
This is what I wanted to come to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what George Drew said.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am pleased to hear that that was said by the former leader of the opposition and former leader of the government forces when they were in opposition. He also said some things about baby bonuses.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member said that Canadian babies were better.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Those are Canadian babies. I
continue to quote:
Supply-C.B.C.
The C.B.C. was established, he said, to meet four basic principles of national broadcasting. To provide a complete broadcasting service; one which links all parts of Canada; one that is predominantly Canadian in content; one that serves French and English cultures equitably.
I should like to ask the minister whether he feels he and the government still subscribe to these four principles, and whether at the present time the principles are in any danger, or whether they are in need of change. I will just repeat the principles:
To provide a complete broadcasting service; one which links all parts of Canada; one that is predominantly Canadian in content; one that serves French and English cultures equitably.
"These are really the basic considerations. And yet you see very little of them in print these days and they are too infrequently heard in any discussion of Canadian broadcasting."
I have been trying to serve the intent of Mr. Ouimet on this occasion by giving this another airing when we are in the middle of the discussion of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation estimates. I should like to reiterate what I asked before. Can we have from the minister his assessment of these basic principles in relation to the trends and what seemed to be a portent in his speech last year at this time that there was going to have to be a reconsideration of this private set-up further along the way? It seems to me that it is far enough along the way. The board of broadcast governors announced the ground rules for the network-


George Clyde Nowlan: They have not announced the ground rules; they have only been proposed for discussion in a meeting, as the hon. member knows.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I saw one newspaper heading which said that the B.B.G. had announced the ground rules; they are tentative ground rules.


George Clyde Nowlan: It shows how unreliable headings are sometimes.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Some of us wonder whether it is the headings, the news services of the B.B.G. that is unreliable, but we are dealing with the C.B.C. now.
One of the points that bothers me is the petty one that has to do with the complaint I saw in a Toronto paper recently by Film Editorial Services Limited. I have here a copy of the letter they sent to Dr. Stewart of the board of broadcast governors. In general they have a complaint about a film they produced and the failure of the C.B.C. to buy it. I just wish to say that according to their argument the C.B.C. looks pretty small in so far as this particular set of films is concerned. Those films, Canadian-made, were good enough to be sold to the B.B.C., which would seem to indicate that they had some merit and some

Supply-C.B.C.
standing. The letter which I have from the Film Editorial Services, signed by Mr. D. Ellison, says:
The C.B.C. seem rather hurt that they were not informed of our intention to shoot this series, and even more hurt to find that not only do we complete it, but that it is better than their own products.
The C.B.C. is wrong in assuming that the B.B.C. is taking only the visuals, they are in fact supplied with international tracks and scripts as is normal in an overseas transaction.
During our talks with the C.B.C. nothing was said to indicate that our films were unacceptable as network material, on the contrary, we got as far as talking about two network plays, over a period of two years, and later about placing them in a program such as "Junior Magazine," which is of course a network show in itself.
If the CJB.C. had no intention of entering into a deal with us, why did they waste our time and efforts for almost a year before giving us an answer neither positive nor negative. If the problem is as they say, one of money, then surely they knew this six months ago, and even then all we asked for was an agreement to rent, not instant money.
I am always aware that there are two sides to every story and every argument, but this particular side is very well put and it does make the C.B.C. look as sensitive, as prickly and as indecisive as it has been labelled at times today by certain speakers.
I should like to have from the minister some explanation regarding this particular matter. I should also like to know from him what has been done about programming in the Windsor area? We have a real problem there, or so I am informed. I want to bring this up in detail later on the B.B.G. estimates.
Of course the residents of the Windsor area have many television and radio channels available to them. The big local station in Windsor, CKLW, is largely United States-owned; the newscasts are United States oriented and much of their programming has that orientation, so much so that I gather the station was brought before the board of broadcast governors last fall and asked for an explanation.
The C.B.C. has a service in the Windsor area, but the complaint about it is that it is not local enough and not geared enough to the local community to get the kind of audience and to have the kind of reception that one would expect. As a consequence, some people in the Windsor area have complained to me that they are in perhaps the most vulnerable position in Canada to United States influence. If the C.B.C. is a cultural body and wants to perform a service it can do so by taking a keener part in the Windsor area. I should like to know whether this has ever been a consideration of the C.B.C.?
One last point I wish to return to is the financing of the C.B.C. I understand the

hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate brought it up and it had been brought up repeatedly. The minister's argument last year was that this government has been more generous to the C.B.C. With respect to the actual amount of money paid to them that is quite true. The argument for the situation where the C.B.C. does not have to come every year before treasury board and fight for its funds is that it is given more freedom. This particular principle is always extolled in Britain in connection with the
B.	B.C. and with the university grants board; the idea being of getting some kind of projection and knowing that within a fairly extended period of time, such as half a decade, what your capital requirements are going to be and how much you are going to spend so you can plan.
This came home to me when I was trying to find out from the C.B.C. how it was going to expend its money in so far as extending its services to the hinterland area was concerned. I know that at the time the C.B.C. was before the treasury board last fall I inquired from the minister and at the time the C.B.C. was in front of the treasury board I telephoned the C.B.C. officials to find out about extension of services and they said they could not really tell until they were through with treasury board. I phoned afterwards and I know some hon. members have been in touch with them about possible extension of services and we got no better answer. Not only did we not get an answer, we did not get any indication whether there would be any answers or projections as to how the C.B.C. was going to spend its money. The only thing we were told was that the
C.	B.C. was left with some latitude within its budget by treasury board as to how it would expend its money. I may have completely confused the matter through my personal telephone calls and investigations, but I should like to say that whatever the case may be, and I think the minister is aware of the situation from the representations he has had from members of his party from hinterland areas, we think we are entitled to know the formula and the progress of the formula and what the plans are for the next few years. We think that the people who dwell in our areas are entitled to know.
In addition, I have this reservation which may not be shared by members who I think will associate themselves with me on this hinterland question. We feel that the C.B.C. would be better able to do this if it did not have to come every year for its budget but had a rough projection on a five-year scale as has been suggested. The question of the hinterland service is something that I am

afraid those of us who come from those regions have really failed to put over. It is not through lack of pressure on the C.B.C. and I do not think it is from lack of pressure on the minister, but somehow we have not been able to put the case strongly enough.
I think we all recognize that private interests are not in the conceivable future going to go to the extent of offering the kind of service to which we feel these areas are entitled. I think it is too bad that we do not have a cabinet minister from an area that is without service. If we did have it seems to me we would probably get some service. I would never attempt to double as a cabinet-maker, but if we could only get somebody like the hon. member for Churchill or the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, who are seized with the problem, into the cabinet maybe we could smash the problem. (Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I see my time is running out. However, there are a few remarks I intend to make this afternoon, and I will start with this. If the bill of rights were passed, I would refer the minister, to section 3(b) and say that no one has the right to impose upon him torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. I think some members from the province of Quebec- not all of them, thank God-made it a point to embarrass him. What struck me in particular was that most of those gentlemen are prone to make charges, but show less courage when the minister has qualified staff with him to answer their questions. They do not dare ask direct questions then. However, when the officials are away, they fearlessly ask questions of the minister and criticize certain people. They would not give him a chance to answer when he is in a position to do so and has the assistance of qualified staff of the C.B.C.
The ineffable member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay), who is not in the house at this time, played the part of a censor, because perhaps he has a certain intellectual development and thinks there is no one like him, that he is the salt of the earth. He plays the part of a censor. He pretends to be the authorized censor on international matters, on religious matters as well as on economic matters, and he complains about the existence of patronage. He should be the last one to complain about patronage because, if my memory serves me right, following a vote, he went to the C.B.C.-and, which is rather unusual-asked to be interviewed during the
Supply-C.B.C. news broadcast in order to explain his vote in the House of Commons. I do not know of any other member who has been authorized by the C.B.C. to explain a vote he had cast the very same afternoon.	n
I do not blame opposition or government members or anyone else for asking the minister to give details on the C.B.C. estimates in the amount of $71 million. I do not blame them at all, because members have a right to ask for this information. However, I disapprove of a member who makes no direct accusation, as the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson) has just done, on the pretext of repeating rumours that could be cleared up by a royal commission. That same member repeats everything he has heard about, without any proof in support of his case. He accuses people indirectly, something he could not do before the court, and being a lawyer he knows it. But he takes the liberty, under the cover of his parliamentary immunity as a member, to reflect upon the reputation of certain people saying that those are rumours that could be cleared up. I say that this is cowardice.
(Text):


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, could the member for Hull mention one name, one reputation, that I tried to smear?
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: That is not a question of privilege at all, Mr. Chairman, and the hon. member should know it. Furthermore, I suggest the chairman did not even intend to reply to it.
The great fault with these gentlemen, is that they do not really know what the word freedom means. The word freedom for them means to be able to say everything they think, but without others having the same right. We disagree with them. We claim that those who do not think as we do, even the socialists, are entitled to express their opinions, and if we do not approve of their ideas, we are entitled to reply to them. That's what freedom is.
When I hear those gentlemen attack men who are infinitely superior to them, when I hear them attack persons who hold certain views different from theirs, I suggest, as I said a moment ago, that to take advantage of their parliamentary immunity, especially when those persons are not in a position to

Private Bills
defend themselves, is an act of cowardice. In my opinion, that is why they had so much difficulty in having their candidates elected in the last Quebec provincial election.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it five o'clock.
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: It being five o'clock, in order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15 it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be.
Progress reported.



RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES

Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, may I have the consent of the house to revert to presenting reports by standing and special committees?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked for the leave of the house to revert to presenting reports by standing and special committees. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Alexander McBain: I have the honour to present the thirteenth and fourteenth reports of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether I could suggest to the leader of the house that he ask if we could not resume the public business today with a view to ending our deliberations as quickly as we can.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It would be a great convenience, Mr. Speaker, if we could carry on with the estimates now before us and complete them because we have a fair program of work for the days of next week.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think agreement has been reached about referring certain matters to the miscellaneous private bills committee which could be referred very quickly. If we could get that out of the way we could then return to the matter that was being considered.


Mr. Morton:: With respect to the request made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I should like to make this suggestion, that we change the procedure at this time to consider Bill No. S-24 which has gone through the committee and which involves a great deal of money. However, I am informed by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) that the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) would like to speak to this bill. In deference to the desire of the hon. member, I would consent to the adjournment of this bill until Tuesday.
I would suggest to the house that there are some bills ready for second reading which I do not believe would take too much time. There are also certain divorce bills, and a bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More), being item 22 on today's order paper, which I do not think would take too much of the time of the house. These bills would get to committee and hence be advanced one stage. Then the house could, with consent of those who are dealing with the divorce bills, return to a consideration of the estimates.


Mr. Speaker:: It is proposed that the house give unanimous consent to taking item 22 before going into committee, that is second reading of Bill S-19, an act to incorporate the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada, standing in the name of the hon. member for Regina City. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READING

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-19, to incorporate the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
House again in committee of the whole on the following 413 bills:
Bill SD-356, an act for the relief of Elame Louise Robinson Solkin (without amendment)-Mr. Mc-deave.	.	_	,
Bill SD-389, an act for the relief of Lambly Dorothy Audrey Hage Lambert (without amendment)-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-431, an act for the relief of Charles Guy Comeau (without amendment)-Mr. McCleave.
Frank Howard: There has been some discussion between the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) and myself with respect to three particular divorce bills standing for house in committee, and I would ask for unanimous consent to move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax:
That the orders for the house in committee of the whole on Bills Nos. SD-356, an act for the relief of Elaine Louise Robinson Solkin: SD-389, an act for the relief of Lambly Dorothy Audrey

Hage Lambert; SD-431, an act for the relief of Charles Guy Comeau, be discharged and that the said bills be referred back to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the motion moved by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).


Frank Howard: Perhaps I could indicate briefly the reasons for referring Bills No. SD-356 and SD-389 back to the committee. As a result of looking at the evidence given in each of these cases by Mr. Gordon Etheridge, who is a private detective, there is an indication that he was in two places at the same time, which naturally is rather difficult to do. There is also an indication that on May 6 he testified he was 44 years of age and a short time thereafter he testified that he was 46 years of age. This is a minor point, but I would suggest that because of the conflict in evidence about being in two places at the same time we should refer these bills back to the standing committee.


Robert Jardine McCleave: In seconding this motion, I may say that I do not imagine we will ever resolve the question of the somewhat mercurial age of this gentleman from Montreal. I am happy to second the motion, however, because the same problem has arisen in connection with exactly the same gentleman on previous occasions, and we had to deal with it in our committee.
I should perhaps also make a short reference to the third case mentioned by my hon. friend, that is the last divorce case mentioned by him. This one had been processed through parliament before and had been rejected. Under the rules of the house and under the rules of the other place it is necessary now to set forth all the judicial proceedings that have taken place in reference to the attempts to dissolve the marriage which was not done in this case. I am, therefore, happy to take this opportunity of referring this case back to the committee where we can deal with a problem which is quite basic to this proceeding.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether or not it was proposed that the divorce bills standing for second reading be also taken in one motion?


Mr.   Morion@: That was the suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: If the house wishes to have these bills given second reading in one motion perhaps unanimous consent could be given to the second reading of Bills Nos. SD-470 to SD-487, inclusive, in one motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supply-C.B.C.



SECOND READINGS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. SD-470, for the relief of Shirley Edith Rich Henry.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-471, for the relief of Helene Lepine Greig.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-472, for the relief of Marion Adelaide Smith Berube.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-473, for the relief of Sheila Ethel Mitchell Martin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-474, for the relief of Margaret Hunt Tibbo.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-475, for the relief of Simone Laramee Desroches.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-476, for the relief of Ethel Bannister Thomas.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-477, for the relief of Leo Antonio Gianfrancesco.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-478, for the relief of Mary Spalton Humphries.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-479, for the relief of Lise Des-Rosiers Eccles.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-480, for the relief of Nicola Salvatore Veri.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-481, for the relief of Noreen Elizabeth Cassidy Pineo.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-482, for the relief of Marie Therese Barolet Cayer.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-483, for the relief of Iris Nellie Armstrong Wedge.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-484, for the relief of Lucien Carbonneau.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-485, for the relief of Peter Borbely.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-486, for the relief of Joseph Pierre Claude Aubin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-487, for the relief of Vladimir Ignatjev.-Mr. McCleave.
Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Trade and Commerce has suggested, I believe, that the house is willing to give consent to waiving the balance of the hour for the consideration of private and public bills in order to resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
41. Grant in respect of the net operating requirements of the radio and television services. $62,085,000.
(Translation):
Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I did not know, when the discussion was interrupted at five o'clock that I would have the pleasure of taking up this matter again so soon.

Supply-C.B.C.
This morning, I listened to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon). According to him, the representatives of the people want to have some detailed information with regard to questions which have been asked. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm. A member of this house has a right to ask questions and to receive clear and precise answers that will enable him to get an idea of the expenses or improvements that should be made in any branch or division.
He was asked why he did not take the opportunity to ask his questions. He resorted to all sorts of evasions to say that it was not the proper time to do so.
Yet we know that if we have questions to ask about the C.B.C. there is no better time than this.
Even if the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), is substituting for the minister responsible for the C.B.C., we know that all the needed staff is available to answer our questions adequately.
Personally, I think the member for Halifax has all the qualifications for a cabinet post.
Mr. Chairman, the ineffable member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) raised a number of questions. He said the C.B.C. has refused to provide details. I am wondering whether that is true. I think the corporation is prepared to supply details. Some have already been made available. There may have been cases where the corporation appeared somewhat reluctant.
I think that hon. members, whether they be government or opposition members, have the right to press for required information.
Mr. Chairman, the member for Roberval said that the C.B.C. is much more vulnerable than other departments because this corporation is concerned with the minds and the conscience of men. He recalled the moral principles of philosophy and theology that were involved in those productions. It is certainly not a bad thing that a member take issue with the C.B.C. on this matter. I repeat that it is his right to do so.
However, where I differ in opinion with the ineffable member for Roberval is when he poses as the sole and only censor of everything that goes on in that corporation. In fact, I wonder if, in spite of his polished language, he has the required qualifications to act as the official censor for the province of Quebec.

Besides, the C.B.C. is not only intended for the province of Quebec. Its very name is a clear indication of this: the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It is for the whole country.
We might find fault with the C.B.C.
I think that if we could put a question to Mr. Ouimet to which he could supply an answer, he would do so willingly. He would admit himself, besides, that nothing in this world is perfect, no more in the C.B.C., where programs are so complicated and complex than anywhere else.
But to go so far as to say, as did some members, that everything is to be condemned, that is going a little too far.
I know that the member for Roberval is keenly interested in the C.B.C. and that he claims the corporation has infringed upon certain rights in the field of education.
Again I feel that this is going too far.
The C.B.C. had certainly the right in its own field to organize certain courses which proved to be very interesting, very instructive and from which we learned a lot.
If the hon. members who criticized those courses had followed them, they undoubtedly would have increased their scientific and even philosophic knowledge. In fact, we had first class programs.
Does that constitute interference in the field of education? I do not think so. Those were not compulsory courses. Nobody was obliged to listen.
Thanks to those programs, people who had finished school could add to their knowledge.
In my opinion, no provision in the constitution forbids the C.B.C. from broadcasting such programs of great help to those who have left school or university.
Besides, I know that when those C.B.C. programs started they were under the direction of Mr. Aurele Seguin who is now Rev. Father Aurele Seguin, dominican.
I am convinced that, on account of his knowledge and in addition to his religious convictions, Mr. Seguin was qualified to prepare those programs which will never come in conflict with the conscience of our hon. members.
Those responsible for these programs have been congratulated by people in Canada and abroad.
Therefore, I feel that the C.B.C. is entirely justified in presenting such programs which

increase the knowledge of our fellow citizens and that it cannot be accused of infringing upon the field of education.
There are also programs of a scientific nature, which are prepared by another Mr. Seguin whose first name I cannot recall. Those programs are a mine of information and enable you to grasp things that remained hazy, even after school or university. Those programs gave me the impression that even the most difficult things could be made easy. Instead of criticizing the C.B.C., we should congratulate it.
As the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) said, when artists or television people, such as Rene Levesque are not wanted in the province of Quebec, they are picked up and give a good account of themselves in other parts of the country.
Mr. Levesque is a worker. He puts in long hours of research to prepare a program, and gets accurate data to support his statements.
As far as Mr. Seguin is concerned, he was asked to repeat in English the programs he had produced on the French network, and apparently, the English element is quite happy about it.
So, it would be in absolute bad taste to say such programs are contrary to the Canadian constitution because they deal with science. That does not mean they encroach upon the field of education, which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
I repeat that the C.B.C. has been doing a very good job in this field. On the other hand, if there are weak spots, let us hear about them. If some have requests to make, let them speak up. If they want figures, let the figures be supplied. Any member, whether in the opposition or on the government side, is entitled to such information.
However, I cannot condone unwarranted criticism. Criticism should be based on serious information.
The hon. member for Roberval has asked for a royal commission.
In view of the many questions raised by some government members, namely the hon. members for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson), St. Mary (Mr. Valade), Roberval and even Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul), I think so many doubts have been raised that it might be good to have a royal commission rather than to let a committee of the house inquire into C.B.C. operations.
There is now a committee of the house which includes representatives of the three political parties, which of course have political interests to protect.
Besides, a royal commission of inquiry does not deal with political criticism.
79951-0-379
Supply-C.B.C.
When a commission inquires, it does a complete and serious inquiry.
I am convinced that the C.B.C. authorities are less afraid of a royal commission than of an inquiry by a committee of the house, for they know that, before one or three judges, they would be legally protected against questions which should not be asked. C.B.C. authorities know very well that the members of the commission would have to abide by the rules of evidence, and such is not the case of a committee of the house, where everyone bickers.
A royal commission would make a legal study, well designed and well organized, and I am convinced that C.B.C. authorities, especially the leaders, having done their best and having therefore nothing to fear, would unhesitatingly approve the establishment of a royal commission that would analyse, not so much the accusations, but the innuendos made by certain members on the government side.
Mr. Chairman, I pity the minister. I am sorry to see him at odds with people who, when they want to proffer charges, lack the courage to do so straight out, but who resort to implication. I appreciate the minister's efforts. He always was most kind about letting us have any information we asked for.
Mr. Chairman, I deplore the untimely outbreaks of the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson) who, under the pretext of protecting the C.B.C., spoke of everything which is being rehashed in the backyards, to launch an attack against the corporation. Well, Mr. Chairman, such cowardly action should not be tacitly accepted, and a member had to rise to voice a protest.
The hon. member said that he found the attitude of the opposition members, who are defending the government, rather strange. Now, I shall tell him this. We are ready to criticize the government when such criticism is deserved, but we are also honest and frank and just enough to defend it when unfairly attacked.
If charges are to be proffered, let them be proffered but they should be expressed directly and not just implied as the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville did. I hope that people who elected the hon. member will remember this at the next general election.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, on hearing
the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) praise with so much zest the new minister of public works and hydraulic resources of the prov-

Supply-C.B.C.
ince of Quebec, I wonder whether he does not intend to rent some premises from the hydro commission.
Moreover, when I hear him praise Mr. Fernand Seguin's film, I wonder whether he intends to apply for the part of the king's jester in one of that producer's films.
Whenever members on the government side speak of C.B.C., they accuse everybody of making innuendos, but they seem to have forgotten, either through ignorance or dishonesty, on what grounds we had based our affirmations.
Mr. Chairman, I regret to have to correct the member for Hull on this matter. Before embarking on his accusations, as far as I am concerned at least, he did not have the decency to realize that I had interrupted my remarks because my time had expired. I wonder where the member was hiding, if he understood all my points or whether they were repeated to him, then, hiding in his office, he was working on the prose we were served a moment ago.
(Text):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member implies that I was away from the committee when he was speaking. He has no right to say such a thing of any member even if the member were out, because a member has to eat and to tend to other business, and no member has the right to imply a member was out. I was not away; I was here all the time he spoke, but he was so enthusiastic about his accusations that he did not have the courage to look to see whether I was present in my seat.


Mr.   Morion@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: May
I request both hon. members to get away from personalities and come back to the item before us.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, before we carry on I want to say that I do not want to imply the hon. member was away. I said that he should have been around or otherwise he was away and had been told by someone else what was said.


Alexis Pierre Caron: It is the same question of privilege; the hon. member has no right to claim I was away from the house.


Murray Douglas Morton: Order. Let us get back to the discussion of the subject matter.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I ask that the hon. member withdraw his accusation I was away, because

no member has the right to imply anything like that with regard to another member.


Murray Douglas Morton: I think it is a matter of opinion as to what was said. I do not know that the hon. member meant a reflection of the sort the hon. member has taken, but I would suggest that we get back to the item here, a grant in respect of the net operating requirements of the radio and television services, and keep away from personalities.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, when you called me to order I was ready to tell the hon. member for Hull that I did not want to imply that he was away from the house and I want to apologize, if that is the impression he got. I understand very well his question of privilege. I agree with him that there should not be any insinuation of this sort. Incidentally, that might apply also to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who said the same thing about the hon. member for Churchill not so very long ago today. (Translation):
I was just about to reply to the hon. member for Hull, who asked us if we could ask questions. He challenged us to ask any. He accused us of having the cowardice to make insinuations without asking any questions. I was just coming to that stage of my remarks, when my speaking time expired this afternoon.
I wanted to ask the minister, through the C.B.C. officials, some information about the program "Premier plan". I should like to know, in detail, the total amount of expenditures involved in that program, in the last year or two. I should like to know particularly the amount of salaries paid, the amount of travelling expenses, and the proportion of travelling expenses as compared to the total expenditures.
First of all, I should like to have that information about all commentators who have appeared on that program. I intend to name a few of them, and if I forget a few names, I would ask the minister to give me the same information about them. I refer in particular to Messrs. Wilfrid Lemoyne, Gerard Pelletier, Rene Levesque and Mrs. Judith Jasmin.
Second, I would ask the minister whether Mr. Dostaler O'Leary is still the permanent representative of the C.B.C. French network in Paris.
Third, if Mr. O'Leary is still the permanent representative in Europe, why is he not in a position to make any reports, rather than compelling the C.B.C. to send to Europe Messrs. Wilfrid Lemoyne, Gerard Pelletier

and Rene Levesque, as well as Mrs. Judith Jasmin who, after such a long trip, must rest and then go back again.
Wilfrid Lemoyne, Rene Levesque, Gerard Pelletier; the following month, Mrs. Judith Jasmin, Rene Levesque, Gerard Pelletier, Phillippe Lemoyne, always the same group, always the same favourites, always the same gang, as they say in politics.
As to the broadcast on refugees in the "Premier plan" series, I should like to ask a question to C.B.C. officials. Who is in charge of cultural programs and of the so-called public affairs panel discussions? I should like to know who, in the "Premier plan" series, was responsible for last Sunday's broadcast, when Mrs. Judith Jasmin interviewed people and discussed immigration in connection with the refugee year? Who is responsible for that broadcast, and who authorized Mrs. Jasmin to take that opportunity to recall some sharp criticism directed at present government policy on immigration. I do not deny Mrs. Jasmin's right to express any opinion, just as I recognize that any commentator has a right to his opinion. What I do object to, is that the C.B.C. should have a right to foist upon the people of Quebec and Canada, at least on the French network, always the same commentators and people of the same school; people from Cite libre, La Reforme, Le Devoir, or other publications of the same school. Why always the same commentators? I refuse to believe there are no commentators with different ideas or opinions.
I do not want to mention names, but I see now in the press gallery a commentator who should be invited more often on the C.B.C. I wonder if his unbiased attitude stands in the way of his obtaining engagements.
Here is another case, again in the same context; we ask who is responsible in the C.B.C. for selecting commentators. We object to the C.B.C. imposing commentators or moderators for quiz programs and panels, to the C.B.C. imposing supporters of the Conservatives, the Union Nationale, the Social Credit, the Liberal or the C.C.F. parties. We simply ask that moderators be known for their impartiality. I do not know that Mr. Jean-Louis Gagnon, who has been the Liberal party publicist until recently is an impartial moderator as regards provincial or federal politics.
In passing, I would like to mention another example. There was much talk about a re-79951-0-379J
Supply-C.B.C.
broadcast of an emergency session of the United Nations after the break-down of the summit conference. When the situation was extremely serious and when, more than ever before, the western nations had to unite and work together, there was a special program of commentaries in which Mr. Naim Kathan, Mr. Jean-Louis Gagnon and Mr. Andre Lau-rendeau took part. They took advantage of this opportunity for a bitter attack on the policy of the United States and that of their allies, including Canada itself. I think that they fell with a sort of sadistic relish on the speech delivered at the United Nations by the delegate of the United States, Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge and they mentioned its shortcomings. But they had words of praise for Mr. Gromyko. Let us say once again that these people have a right to their own opinion. They were entitled to express it. No one is going to deny them this right. I find Mr. Andre Laurendeau a very interesting commentator, but I deplore the fact that, for an obvious reason, Mr. Rene Levesque, should have to part with C.B.C., because I imagine that the C.B.C. will be honest enough to let go of the new minister of public works and hydraulic resources as I would hope that the new minister will want to devote all his time to his department.
I found Mr. Levesque interesting and I do not deny that he has the right to come to the C.B.C. to express his views, as have Mr. Jean-Louis Gagnon, Mr. Andre Laurendeau, and all those other writers who are counting on C.B.C. fees to supplement their miserable salaries. I have no quarrel with all these people, because they have a right to their opinions. Moreover, if they are invited to appear on television, I admit that they are entitled to say what they think.
What is wrong is not that those men should express their views, but the fact that the freedom of the city is thus given to individuals who all belong to the same clique, to people who protect and help one another in obtaining positions, and who do everything they can to exclude others from those jobs or from the possibility of appearing on the telescreens; who are doing their utmost to stop those who do not belong to their school of thought from being seen and heard on our networks.
We should like to be told by the director of programs, or the official in charge-that is the director of cultural programs-or the producer of these programs, or any people responsible for those public affairs interviews, why only representatives of a single school of thought are invited to appear.

Supply-C.B.C.
As I say, it is not the people who freely express their views that are responsible, but those who take it upon themselves always to invite people of the same school. This happens over and over again, for they always approach these persons of the same trend of thought, without ever finding out whether it would not be possible to ask people who do not share those views. Consequently, whenever a program on any subject is given, generally two or three people of the same school of thought are asked, for instance, Messrs. Levesque, Laurendeau and Gagnon, whereas there is only one person defending the opposite view. We do not have to give the dates or facts about such and such a day when that happened, for one has only to look at television sometimes to know what happens on the French network.
Unfortunately, I have not got the time to ask other questions, but I say it is time the C.B.C. took a good look at that field of public affairs programs. The C.B.C. has a responsibility, not only a legal one, towards parliament and the Canadian government, but also a moral responsibility towards the Canadian people and the French network, and in particular towards the French speaking population.
The C.B.C. has no right to sidestep issues. It must see to it that all opinions voiced on its network are voiced freely. An inquiry into the C.B.C. must be undertaken at all costs. If those statements that I have just repeated are inaccurate, let us have some evidence that we are wrong, let us have facts at the inquiry to prove the contrary. But let us have something, some explanation, and not that silence of complicity.
I would like to make only one comment about what the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) said after the first part of my remarks. I was under the impression, on hearing the hon. member for Port Arthur, that he was enjoying one of his numerous intellectual thrills he gets when the French Canadians, here in this house, are snapping at each other and telling each other a few home truths. I should like to point out to the hon. member for Port Arthur that the French network has perhaps its faults. He may laugh at it. He may laugh at the fact that we have the courage of airing them in the open, or at least of asking questions in the house. But he should not rejoice too quickly. I suggest that the English network is not without fault either. However, I have the decency to leave it to those who are more competent than I am to talk about it.
If the hon. member for Port Arthur wants to make fun of the French network inferring by this that everything is well in the English network, that is his own business. As for

me, I must make an important remark. There is nothing odious in unfolding the faults of the French network. I have been a member of this house for two years and this is our third session. I refrained for three years from making the remarks I made today. The facts I reported are only rumours and accusations that are repeated everywhere. They are nothing new because they were being made even before I was a member of this house. They were even stronger under the Liberal administration. But I wilfully refrained from dealing with this matter here because I hoped that the C.B.C. would manage to mend its ways, because I was hoping that, following the establishment of a committee on broadcasting such as the one which sat last year, and the report submitted afterwards, the C.B.C. would go out of its way to rectify certain situations. Well, I find that there are deficiencies to be corrected yet and I believe, or at least I feel, that we are entitled to come in this house and ask whether it would not be possible to launch an inquiry in order to ascertain whether such accusations are founded or not.
Not only is the reputation of the C.B.C. at stake, but the reputation of the French network, something with which I am particularly concerned.
Again, I am not blaming anyone, because if I quoted names, or laid specific charges, I might needlessly smear some people. In a committee, the Liberals could easily indulge in witch hunting, so I would rather have a royal commission to inquire into the financial situation of the C.B.C., where anyone charged would have a chance to defend himself. Those who claim I am wrong in taking this stand should recall what happened last year in the committee on broadcasting. First of all, every hon. member knows, or rather has observed that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate started making obstructions from the outset, giving the impression that he feared too close scrutiny of what went on in the C.B.C. under the Liberal government. It was not so.
Immediately the words "witch hunt" were bandied about, and from the very minute a certain C.B.C. official in Toronto threatened to go on strike or resign, on the grounds that there had been political interference in the administration of the C.B.C., Liberal members jumped at the chance and tried to smear the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) and even the Prime Minister, charging them with political interference,



I860

[Stage Direction]
something which has never been proven. Who, Mr. Chairman, were the witch hunters in the broadcasting committee during the 1959 session, the Conservatives or the Liberals? At the very outset, we indicated that we wanted to ask questions, and that is my reply to the member for Hull (Mr. Caron). In the committee, you could not insinuate without laying a charge. You could not ask questions, because by some sleight of hand, a rule had been passed preventing us from asking certain questions. Indeed, under a rule which had been passed in my absence, discussion was restricted in such a way that whenever we attempted to ask questions, we were told that the people involved could not answer, that we could not delve into personalities, that we could not ask certain questions. The chairman of the committee was bound by that rule.
We had no chance of proving anything at that time. We wanted to hear and question a number of personalities, including Rene Levesque, one of the leaders of the C.B.C. strike in 1959. All kinds of people were being summoned to Ottawa, it was like a kind of pilgrimage, but we were not allowed to question them, so the committee was ineffective. It was like attending an investigation on a car accident. The accused came to testify and was asked questions on the accident, but while admitting his ownership of the car, he would reply that he knew nothing of the accident because someone else had been driving. All they could reply were statements of principle seeking to indicate that all was well in the C.B.C., that everything was functioning perfectly, that there was nothing wrong, and that everything was all right in the C.B.C., that no criticisms was deserved. But we were allowed to ask questions dealing, for instance, with the cost of such and such a program.
Mr. Chairman, once again, we never tried to do some witch hunting in the committee on broadcasting or in this house last year. We had to mention charges that had been laid outside parliament against the C.B.C. When we did that, the Liberals told us to ask specific questions, and when, in committee, we wanted to ask specific questions to certain officials, we were told that those gentlemen could not answer because we would be making personal references, and tarnishing reputations. If the C.B.C. is to be scrutinized, this should be done through an inquiry. This is the only way to dispel any unfounded ac-
Supply-C.B.C.
cusation. And those who lay those accusations against the C.B.C., either in newspapers or elsewhere, should be given the opportunity to prove them or should remain silent.
(Text):
John Whitney Pickersgill: I just wish to ask the
minister whether, after this trilogy, he does not think there was a lot of force in my view that the C.B.C. should have a five-year budget?


Mr. Broome:: Mr. Chairman, the C.B.C. has had a thorough going over in this recent debate. I should like to go on record as a person who believes the C.B.C. has done a good job. This is not an unqualified endorsement of all its actions. I do believe that in so far as an organization dealing with ideas and entertainment is concerned, the sum and substance of this type of operation must be such that there is a variance in views. I remember an article by that eminent member of the press gallery, Mr. Blakely. It was on the C.B.C. He has written many on the C.B.C. Incidentally this one had to do with political partisanship of the C.B.C. He said the C.B.C. was roundly condemned by the Conservatives, the Liberals and the C.C.F., in turn, as being the spokesman of opposing parties.
I do believe the C.B.C. is in a transitional stage. At one time they were judge, jury and prosecutor; they made their own rules and regulations; they ran broadcasting in Canada with an unquestioned and iron hand. That has been changed and the changes which have been made are for the good. I think those changes have received support from all sides of the house.
The C.B.C. is now doing the job which the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate mentioned namely that of maintaining a Canadian identity, promoting a Canadian culture and knitting together this country. Even if it is not quite as broad in miles as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said, it is still pretty large.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I pose a question to the hon. member? Has he ever measured the distance from the farthest west point of the Yukon to Cape Bonavista?


Ernest James Broome: That is a diagonal split.

Supply-C.B.C.
I hope I am pouring a little bit of oil on troubled waters. Many hon. members, including my friends from Kootenay East and Kootenay West and also other hon. members who have problems which I have not, want greater coverage of television and radio, radio first and then television, for the remote areas of this country. This is a job that only the C.B.C. can do. If we were to apply the same philosophy to air lines then Canadian Pacific Air Lines would be operating all the well travelled routes and the feeder lines would be relegated to T.C.A. 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. I think there must be a balance between the remote areas and city coverage. 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.
Within the balance of the funds available and having regard to the job to be done I think that the C.B.C. is doing a relatively fair job at present. I believe there is a lot of merit in the idea that they could be more open about their affairs. Possibly they do not know themselves but I think they should at least have an idea as to how much their capital budgets will be in succeeding years and I think they could develop a program so that people would know that if service was not coming this year they were at least on the list for the next year. If they do this, of course, they will subject themselves to pressure from those areas that are four or five years away on the list, and perhaps it is with that viewpoint in mind that they are keeping away from setting out any long range plan although they may have one.
I wish to point out that if we are going to kick about the budget of the C.B.C. then we cannot at the same time ask for extra stations because extra stations represent not only capital costs but operating costs and the operating costs are continuing costs. Therefore if we want to have more service we must provide more money.
I am all in favour of the competition the C.B.C. is getting in the major centres across the country and in many cities which would not be called major centres but where there is a logical outlet for a private station. I think this is all to the good. I am indeed pleased that in Vancouver we are to have a new station. I was very disappointed at the amount of money that went across the line for advertising. I would sooner watch an

independent Canadian station than a United States station particularly as we can control the program content.
However, with all the good will in the world I think the C.B.C. almost has a genius for putting its foot in its mouth in that at periodic intervals it seems to arouse storms of controversy. I do not want to go back into history but I might refer to the appearance of the corporation before a committee of the house last year. Certain members on the other side of the house did not seem to think the committee did a good job but I think it was one of the better committees of the house although I was not a member of it. In spite of that, I think they did a good job.
The amount of money contributed by sponsors, for instance, in relation to the total cost of programs was a shock to me and to the people of Canada generally. The lack of liaison between the upper brass and the operating people in the various centres was another unsatisfactory situation. I do not know whether it has been corrected but it certainly was a drawback to the efficient operation of a corporation of the size of the C.B.C., with the diverse problems that face the corporation. Perhaps in the re-organization there has been a strengthening of these weak spots and an opening of lines of communication with the result that the corporation may be operating in a more efficient and effective manner than it was before.
But in spite of all the things that can be said about the C.B.C. it is my opinion that in general the C.B.C. has done a good job. I have received letters complaining about C.B.C. programs. If the C.B.C. acted on every letter I have received about programs there would not be any C.B.C. programs because everybody is going to complain about some program. That is the way the situation happens to be. We are not regimented to the point where we all think the same and all have the same tastes.
I am afraid I am not contributing too much to this debate but I do wish to ask for some degree of fair play and reasonableness in our consideration of the job that has to be done. Let us consider the job that has been done in relation to what there is to do. Mistakes have been made, and I am sure the officials of the C.B.C. will be the first to admit that.
There is one thing that strikes me as being another instance of the corporation putting its foot in its mouth, but perhaps this may be the last time this complaint will be made. I refer to the fact that we have heard criticism today that all we have before us is one item of $62 million. I suppose the C.B.C. has a financial statement and report in the same way as the C.N.R. which would

give details of the $62 million and how it is to be spent. The details are not in the book of estimates but will be in the report of the corporation. Why in heaven's name does the corporation not have enough forethought to have these documents ready for the time when the minister has to bring the estimates of the corporation before the House of Commons? If I am being unjust in this comment I will beg the corporation's pardon, but if what I have said is true I think they have also put the minister in a rather bad spot. Of course, as I say again, it is not done deliberately and has just happened this way but it is in line with the proclivity of the corporation to make rather silly mistakes. In spite of that, Mr. Chairman, I say again that I think the C.B.C. warrants the support of the house and the people of the country generally.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Chairman, after a day of verbal blasts at the C.B.C. by many of us I think a compliment is possibly in order. The few brief remarks I wish to make are related to some of the comments that have been made by various members today with regard to programs. It has been said today that in programming the C.B.C. should put more emphasis on Canadianism. I think the minister and the officials of the C.B.C. will be very pleased to know that during the past week the corporation saw fit to send a very capable team of cameramen, program directors and commentators to Flin Flon to shoot a few thousand feet of film of the events associated with the fabulous Flin Flon trout festival. These men did a remarkable job, and I really believe that the results of their efforts will provide great enjoyment and be of educational value to people in all parts of Canada. I can assure the minister that their efforts were greatly appreciated by the people of Flin Flon and the hardworking directors of the Flin Flon trout festival.


Charles Edward Rea: It being six o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?
8, 1960	6013
Business of the House


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister going to reply first?


George Clyde Nowlan: If you will undertake to pass the item in the time left, I will.
Progress reported.



PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION

Mr. R. S. MacLellan (Inverness-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of the house to revert to routine proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to revert to routine proceedings for the presentation of a report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the special committee on the Public Service Superannuation Act.