1961-01-27

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he could confirm or deny a report in the press this morning to the effect that during this session the government is going to amend the War Measures Act.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I did not see that report. However, I did have an interview with the press with regard to the War Measures Act. The government feels-and it expressed its feeling in this regard at the time discussions were taking place relative to the bill of rights-that some committee of the house might well consider the War Measures Act and, having considered it, make recommendations as to what revisions or amendments could be made to that act to render it a measure from which injustice would not follow.
I pointed out that while the War Measures Act remained on the statute books between world war I and world war II, it was regarded by constitutional authorities as inoperative during those years. I also pointed out that following world war II, extraordinary powers were taken by the government through action by parliament under such measures as the transitional powers act and the Emergency Powers Act which had the consequence of infringing or impinging on the constitutional rights of the provinces, and that I felt the declaration of an emergency should not be used by the federal parliament to invade provincial jurisdiction as was the case following world war II.
I feel and I think the Leader of the Opposition will agree, that a full and complete review of the War Measures Act would be following a course in keeping with the desires of Canadians as a whole. In time of war the measure is necessary in the interests of maintaining security, but in the days of peace there cannot be too large a degree of justification for its maintenance in effect 90205-6-94
without giving parliament at least the opportunity, through a committee, of fully considering the representations that have been made from time to time with regard to this legislation.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: A supplementary question. Is the Prime Minister not aware that there is now on the order paper in the name of a private member indication of intention to introduce amendments to the War Measures Act in accordance with notice given by the government last year of its intention so to do?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the government gave its answer last year. This is a matter which we believe should be considered by a committee, to the end that the best available consideration may be brought before that committee with regard to this legislation. It is not a matter for private members; it is a matter that affects not only parliament but also the constitutional rights of the provinces.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister care to comment on the reported deterioration of the situation in the Congo and the statement by the Secretary General of the United Nations that the threatened troop withdrawals could bring the big powers into the Congolese conflict?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the Secretary General of the United Nations believes that a serious situation would arise if there were a permanent weakening of the force through large withdrawals. I would say that his purpose is not so much to predict what the future may be in the Congo as to indicate that in his view the countries which withdraw from the force must take the responsibility for the consequences. It is true he has said:
A severe weakening of the force may make it impossible for it to function effectively and would thus make necessary a proposal for the liquidation of the force and in consequence the entire U.N. operation in the Congo.

Inquiries of the Ministry
However, it would be going too far to suggest that the United Nations operations in the Congo are in imminent danger of collapse.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. Will the minister say whether Canada has been canvassed for a larger contribution to this force or whether we have made any offer of further assistance from this country in that regard?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, there has been no request for Canada to supply additional troops. I believe that requests have been made of other countries which are not now supplying troops.


Paul Joseph James Martin: So that we may have the matter clear, may I ask this question. Is it understood that the secretary general, in the note which he has sent to countries whose troops are in the United Nations force in the Congo, has not actually requested a further bolstering of that force by such member states?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker. The request would not be made in general terms of that kind. The request would be made to specific nations and, as has been pointed out, there has been no request that Canada should supply further troops. Canada actually has done very well when you compare her effort with the contributions made by most of the other member states of the United Nations.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY AS TO CHANGES IN TAX SHARING ARRANGEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether any changes whatever are in contemplation with respect to the tax sharing arrangements with the provinces for the fiscal year 1961-62.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker the ambit of discussion at the dominion-provincial conferences on fiscal questions has been confined to measures in the period commencing April 1, 1962. There were two matters that I recall in particular that could have a bearing on the period prior to April 1, 1962, but broadly the discussions have been directed toward new arrangements to follow the conclusion of the present five-year period.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Has the minister's attention

been drawn to a reported statement by Mr. Frost to the effect that it would be impossible to present a budget, that is in Toronto, until the federal government position is known in this matter?


Donald Methuen Fleming: My attention has not been called to this statement. I heard a reference to it on the radio this morning. Obviously this is a budget matter, and it would not be proper for me to comment on the plans of the Ontario government in relation to budget matters. Naturally I am not acquainted with the budget plans of that government, but it is conceivable that whatever fiscal arrangements may be arrived at in respect of the period commencing April 1, 1962, might well have a bearing on the budget plans of that government for the present year. I just do not know.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister is not suggesting is he, that he is not on talking terms with the premier of Ontario?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, no, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that thought would not have crossed the mind of any hon. member but the hon. member for Essex East.


Mr. Hellyer:: He just would not allow the premier of Ontario to get a word in edgewise.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I think I ought to hear the supplementary question of the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, [ wonder whether the minister can inform the house whether a date has been set for a federal-provincial conference involving the provincial premiers in order to deal with fiscal matters.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say whether a conference will be held within the next month or two?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would not expect one would be held within the next short period.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if I may ask
a supplementary question, is the government contemplating sending any communication on this matter to the provincial governments in the next month?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



IMPORTATION OF FRUIT AND VEGETABLES FROM CUBA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Fort William drew my attention to an article in the Globe and Mail concerning the importation of Cuban tomatoes into Canada and asked this question:
Can the minister inform the house in what form the Cuban deal has been subsidized by the Canadian government?
In reply I wish to state there is no Canadian government subsidy involved in the importation of tomatoes or any other products from Cuba.



RED CHINA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the reported important success of the Australian wheat board in selling 300,000 tons of wheat to China and the report that further sales of Australian wheat are being negotiated, can the minister say what efforts are being made by the Canadian wheat board and the Department of Trade and Commerce to sell Canadian wheat to China at this time?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: As the hon. member has been told in the house twice already, discussions between the Canadian wheat board and the China Resources Company are going on at the present time, and it would not be in the public interest to divulge any of these discussions until an announcement can be made. All I will say is that we shall not have to hold a candle to anyone when the discussions are over.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has yet arranged his visit to Victoria to discuss the Columbia project with the premier of British Columbia, which he announced to the press on January 6, I think it was.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Arrangements have not been made in a precise sense for the visit, but I hope it may be possible to arrange it relatively
90205-6-94*
Inquiries of the Ministry soon, Mr. Speaker. The federal government attaches very great importance, as hon. members are aware, to the development of the Columbia river, and has done all that lies within its power to assist and expedite the undertaking of the project. This still remains the very firm and urgent desire of the federal government.
So far as the proposed meeting with Premier Bennett is concerned, the premier indicated that it would not be convenient for him to come to Ottawa as he was busy with his plans for the session and his plans for his own budget. It was evidently thought I had nothing much to occupy my time in this respect, and it was suggested that I should go to Victoria. A visit to Victoria is always a very pleasant experience, and I am looking forward to that experience soon if the house will excuse me for the time necessary.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. If the minister succeeds in finding the premier of British Columbia when he gets there, does he intend to sweeten the offer he made in his letter?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sure there will be no difficulty about finding the premier. He has indicated that he hopes the meeting will take place in Victoria. So far as the second part of the hon. member's question is concerned, I cannot imagine the offer would need any more sweetening. It is such a good, generous offer on the part of the federal government that I should think it would be irresistible.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: May
I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that press reports indicate that the energy board of British Columbia is not likely to make its final report prior to August 1, does the government expect to sign an agreement with British Columbia before that date?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It takes two parties to enter into an agreement, let alone sign it. On the part of the federal government there is at all times a willingness to enter into an agreement along the lines indicated in my letter to the premier of British Columbia, in which this extraordinarily generous offer on the part of the federal government was put forward.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder whether the minister would like me to intercede on his behalf with Mr. Bennett, as I expect to be in British Columbia next week.


Donald Methuen Fleming: All I can say is
that I hope the Leader of the Opposition will not muddy the waters. I am not going to ask him to do anything except to keep out of this.

Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Bourbonnais (Vaudreuil-Soulanges):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could he inform the house whether he has received recently a bona fide offer or an official request on the part of some minister of the Quebec government with regard to the purchase of the Soulanges canal for the establishment of a fish-breeding centre?
Does the minister feel it would be advisable to hand over to the provincial government, under present conditions, the entire property of the Soulanges canal for the amount of $1, as the minister of youth in the Lesage cabinet has expressed the wish in his newspaper?
Does the minister believe-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is customary to ask only one question at a time. Perhaps the hon. member would allow his first two questions to be dealt with.
(Translation):


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, the Quebec minister of youth and welfare wrote me, on behalf of his colleague, the minister of game and fisheries, to inform us of the province's intention to acquire the federal property along the Soulanges canal in order to set up a park and a fish breeding station. I have also had a visit from the minister of youth who gave me some details on the intentions of the provincial authorities.
Since then, Mr. Speaker, I had occasion to visit the spot, and I found that the local people have expressed a wish that part of this property be reserved for development and industrial building. Many municipalities on the banks of the Soulanges canal have also made known their intention to approach the government to obtain certain pieces of land which they deem essential to their expansion.
Mr. Speaker, I should tell the house that this is a very important property. I believe it is possible to meet the needs of the riparian municipalities as well as those of the people concerned and the provincial government.
As far as the proposed setting up of a fish-cultural station is concerned, I can assure my hon. friend that our only aim in that

transaction will be to help the public in general and the riparian population of the Soulanges canal.


Marcel Bourbonnais: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Does the minister think it would be better for the Soulanges area to establish a bird sanctuary, as suggested by the minister of game and fisheries, rather than promote the establishment of industries which would give employment to the people of Vaudreuil-Soulanges?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, first of all, we want this property to become a sanctuary for human beings, and there is room both for industrial development and a fish-cultural station or a bird sanctuary.
Above all, we want to make sure that the interests of the people will be preserved, and that will be our first consideration.


Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question to clarify the situation.
Since the Soulanges canal will no longer be under the Department of Transport jurisdiction, is it not true that it will be declared a surplus asset and transferred to the Department of Defence Production?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the provincial government's proposal included an offer to buy the whole property for the sum of $1, regardless of the needs of industry or of the various municipalities. Following my visit there, and following various representations made to me by residents of the area, we had to reconsider the whole matter, and I think we can now submit to the provincial government a concrete proposal that will meet all the wishes of the population.


Maurice Bourget: Another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I believe-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this matter has been pursued with four supplementary questions. If it is not sufficiently clear I could perhaps permit another question, but it seems to me that the matter has been fairly well canvassed.


Maurice Bourget: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, may I say I was just trying to clarify the situation. Here we have a situation where a certain property or installation is not presently used by the Department of Transport; therefore it should be transferred to another department for disposal. That is the situation that I should like to clear up.


George Harris Hees: That is debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is perhaps interested in presenting a point of view, but this is not the proper time at which to do so. This is a time in which to get information. It seems to me that the answers have been clear and that they have been sufficiently elucidated by supplementary questions.



METROPOLITAN TORONTO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a request to meet with a Toronto metro committee in order to discuss their request for a $58 million subway loan? If so, is it his intention to comply with this request?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to say without having looked into the file directly, but there certainly have been discussions in this regard. As always, the government is prepared to listen to representations and it will continue to follow that course.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY BRITISH COLUMBIA-REPAIR OF FLOOD DAMAGE IN FRASER CANYON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold Hicks (Fraser Valley):: I have a question I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works. Whose responsibility is it to repair the trans-Canada highway flood damage in the Fraser canyon of British Columbia?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: The question of the repair of the trans-Canada highway in the Fraser Valley is under investigation at the present time. We have engineers out there at the site to determine that matter, and on receipt of the necessary information I shall be very happy to answer the question asked by the hon. member.



STATEMENT ON REPORTED CHANGE OF ROUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): Perhaps I might take this opportunity to answer the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges concerning the contents of the telegram I sent in reply to the request of the Quebec government for the consent of the federal government to their proposed change in the
Inquiries of the Ministry route of the trans-Canada highway through Vaudreuil. The following is the text of the telegram dated January 20:
Reurtel even date regarding route trans-Canada on basis of information you have given our officials to effect that proposed route is 2.3 miles shorter and will decrease cost to federal government of some $500,000 am prepared to authorize new route through Isle aux Tourtres instead of lie Perrot.


David James Walker: Perhaps I might also take this opportunity to answer a further question, this time one asked by the hon. member for St. Mary on January 26, in which the possibility of building a tunnel was referred to. The answer is as follows. The route of the highway, as provided for in the trans-Canada highway agreement, crosses the St. Lawrence over the west end of Boucher-ville islands which is east of the Jacques Cartier bridge. The initiative as to the type of structure required at this location rests with the recommendation by the province. Any provincial proposal will be carefully considered.



INQUIRY AS TO FILLING OF VACANCIES IN REPRESENTATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister whether the government expects soon to take steps to make sure that the electors in some parts of Canada will not be denied representation in this house for the whole of this session.


John George Diefenbaker: I am always glad to notice the reformation which has taken place in the hon. gentleman. When the former government was in power-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -it failed to accept the admonitions of the hon. member who now presses for action. This government will see that in the proper course of events an opportunity will be provided for the various vacancies to be filled in the constitutional manner.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a question of personal privilege. The Prime Minister saw fit gratuitously to make a personal reference to me not founded on fact in any respect whatsoever. If the right hon. gentleman will search the whole of the record of

Broadcasting
the St. Laurent government he will find no evidence of delays such as are taking place now in the calling of by-elections.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister in a position to say whether any progress has been made respecting the proposal for the reactivation of the truce supervisory commission in Laos in the light of the statement made by the President of the United States a day and a half ago.


Howard Charles Green: The situation at the present time with regard to Laos is that the United Kingdom, as one of the two co-chairmen of the Geneva conference of 1954, submitted to the Soviet union just the other day a draft letter to India as chairman of the international supervisory commission. This was done some days ago, but as yet the Soviet union has not said whether this letter is satisfactory.
If agreement should be reached between these two co-chairmen on the letter to be dispatched to the government of India I am very hopeful there would be some quick action. The proposal is that India send a representative to interview the king of Laos, and if consent could be obtained from the constitutional authorities of Laos to the commission coming into the country, then Canada, for her part, would at once name a commissioner and I think the commission would begin to function.


BROADCASTING
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, January 18, consideration of the motion by the Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):
That a special committee be appointed on broadcasting to consider radio and television broadcasting with power to examine and inquire into the matters herein referred to and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon and to send for persons, papers and records;
That the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable or necessary;
That the committee shall consist of 35 members;
That standing orders 66 and 67 be suspended in relation thereto.
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, at the time of adjournment when this motion was previously before the house I was stressing my sincere hope that when this committee meets it will give very serious consideration to the interpretation which is being placed by the board of broadcast governors on that section of the regulations which deals with controversial broadcasts. It is only in this past year that I have heard any criticism of previous interpretations of this regulation, but from my own knowledge I am convinced that the interpretation presently being placed on this rule concerning controversial broadcasts is of such a nature as to be in danger of wrecking some of the finest radio programs in this country.
All I want to do this morning is to give one illustration, because I feel this matter is of such importance that it should receive the earnest attention of the committee. I intend to make reference only to the program which is known as "Town Meeting in Canada". This program was founded on November 5, 1943, and originates from station CJOR in Vancouver. It was begun as a radio program of the discussion type, and its declared purpose was to promote justice, tolerance and reason through an informed public.
Since this program was founded nearly 17 years ago many prominent Canadians, many of whom are in this house at the present time, in the realms of politics, education, economics, religion, industry, trade unions and agriculture, as well as internationalists and ex-ambassadors, have appeared on it. I believe I am right in saying that up to the present time there have been approximately 880 continuous weekly programs extending over a period of approximately sixteen and one half years. For that length of time the program was free from interference or criticism regarding the policy of providing an opportunity for the expression of major points of view on controversial issues. However, since February 14 last the board of broadcast governors on two occasions have prohibited the right of broadcast.
With respect to one program dealing with a trade union jurisdictional dispute, they prohibited the right to broadcast not because it was a controversial matter but because at the last moment one party failed to appear when the program was about to be taped to go on the air. At that time the debate was on the question, what is the international issue involved in this dispute?
On a second occasion the subject of the broadcast was, what are the national issues between the Conservatives and Liberals? The program was accepted by both parties, but at the last moment one of the parties failed to turn up and of course the broadcast had

to proceed. The board of broadcast governors immediately stepped in and took it off the air not only in Vancouver, where it originates, but in all private stations that carry the program across Canada.
"Town Meeting in Canada" has attained such a reputation that on two occasions it was carried over the entire N.B.C. network in the United States. On two outstanding occasions it received the Columbus award at the international institute for education by radio of Ohio state university of Columbus, Ohio.
The basis of the cancellation was that one party that agreed to appear did not turn up and therefore there could not be a public airing of the issue involved. I maintain that this is basically a denial of free speech. This serious matter means that one party can kill this type of program by agreeing to participate and then at the last moment failing to appear. The interpretation placed last year by the board of broadcast governors on the regulations concerning controversial broadcasts is such that it now denies the right of the public to have any public airing of important issues. This is a serious problem of vital concern to us all.


Mr. Drysdale:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Is the hon. gentleman aware that the cancellation was made by the radio station itself and by neither of the political parties? Is the hon. member also aware that in another broadcast when another political party representative did not appear, the moderator of the program decided on his own initiative not to put the broadcast forward?


Harold Edward Winch: I am aware of all of that. I have all the details in front of me at the present time. Every statement I have made is accurate and is supported by a statutory declaration sent to the board of broadcast governors giving complete information as to what transpired hour by hour and day by day, and even noting the exact time at which it became known that one party would not turn up.
The radio station did raise this matter. They would be responsible if they had not drawn the matter to the attention of the board. However, it is the interpretation of the board and its action in which I am most interested. All the supporters of this program that I know in British Columbia feel that if this interpretation is maintained it will wreck what I maintain is a marvellous and remarkable broadcast.
In order to indicate that I am not merely expressing my own opinion with respect to this program I will read portions of a letter
Broadcasting
sent to the board of broadcast governors under date of October 24, 1960.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Who wrote the letter?


Harold Edward Winch: I will give the hon. member that. I will read only the important passages of this letter:
We should also make it clear that it is our opinion, as it is also the considered opinion of the management of "Town Meeting in Canada", that the program cannot survive if the present construction which the board has evidently placed on the doctrine of equal opportunity is to prevail.
The real issue is the interpretation to be placed on the meaning of "equal opportunity", or as regulation 6 (1) which you quote in your letter of October 4th, 1960 expresses it "on an equitable basis to all parties and rival candidates." Assuming for the moment that this regulation was intended for application to the public discussion or forum type of radio program not directly connected with political campaigns, we submit that on the facts relevant to the September 30 incident, "equal opportunity" was provided to both sides. The situation there was that the one party did not take the opportunity which was offered to them. Surely the doctrine of equal opportunity cannot be carried so far as to cover a situation where the opportunity is provided but not used.
If this construction is to be followed it must have the necessary consequence of allowing any party to a controversial topic to stifle discussion and kill debate through the simple expedient of declining the opportunity to participate. Surely this is the direction from which the real threat to free speech and discussion would arise.
The undersigned are requesting from the board a clarification of the construction and interpretation they are going to place on this rule in the future. If the program cannot be broadcast because one side of the issue is not represented by reason of their refusal to avail themselves of the opportunity, then clearly the program cannot survive.
We shall be looking forward to receiving your reply.
Who wrote that letter? The representatives in British Columbia of the four political parties interested in this program.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Would the hon. member provide us with the names of those persons?


Harold Edward Winch: Their names are as follows: D. A. S. Lanskail, Liberal; Bert Price, Social Credit; William Dennison, C.C.F.; and Raymond Hull, Conservative. These people are all interested in the broadcast. They represent four different political parties. Although they hold differing political views they have maintained a long and lively interest in this program.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Will the hon. member permit a question? I appreciate the point of view he has taken with respect to those particular circumstances and, as I emphasized earlier, the objection did not come from any of the political parties. Does he feel that the moderator should have the discretion to decide whether a particular program should

Broadcasting
be withdrawn because he did so in another program in the absence of one of the members of another political party?


Harold Edward Winch: That is hardly a question.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me the hon. member is dealing with a matter which might properly be raised before the committee. In regard to the relevance of what has been said by the hon. member who has the floor, it is simply that here is a matter which might well be reviewed by the committee in its investigation of radio and television broadcasting, the subject matter proposed to be referred to it.
As I have said earlier in this debate and on previous occasions, and this was also said by my predecessors, the discussion of matters which will properly come before the committee is relevant only by way of illustration of the need for the committee, or the desirability or otherwise of proceeding with the committee. It can be argued either way. The motion is to set up a committee to review radio and television broadcasting.
I am not going to read the citations, but hon. members will find support for this view of the proper course of debate on a motion which is simply to set up a committee for a specific purpose in May's 16th edition at page 452; and instances where my predecessors in the chair have pointed out the desirability of hon. members restricting their examples as much as possible, and also the desirability of not attempting to do the work of the committee by roaming over the whole field, will foe found in Hansard of 1955 for May 28, at pages 2441 and following pages, Hansard for January 27, 1953, at page 1366, Hansard for May 10, 1954, at page 4558, as well as the references I have made myself to the proper practice, as I see it, on a motion of this kind.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: May I just speak on the point of order?


Harold Edward Winch: If it is a question; otherwise I have the floor.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I should like to speak to the point of order. I think the hon. member for Vancouver East is very fairly putting forth an important point and an important principle regarding freedom of speech. I think in essence the question is whether the board of broadcast governors is to rule on the matter of freedom of speech, or whether the program moderator is to do that. What I was seeking to bring to the attention of the hon. member for Vancouver East was another situation, which he has not drawn to the attention of the house, where the moderator himself withdrew one of the broadcasts. I wanted to obtain his comments on that particular proposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. Well, the point I was making was that to debate the merits of the illustration, which has been chosen by the hon. member for Vancouver East was going beyond the scope of the debate. That is why I intervened.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I was nearly at the end of my remarks. It was because of what was said the other day that I realized there were other examples, and I thought I was correct in giving only one example as to why I felt this matter was of such importance that it should be dealt with. The hon. member who has been asking a couple of questions undoubtedly can see, or has already accepted, the importance of this matter and the fact that I have tried to put it in a fair way. I therefore feel absolutely certain that he will support my contention with respect to the seriousness of the situation and the need for clarification of the matter before this committee, and the best possible guarantee given that a program, which has been on the air for 16 or 17 years without criticism, will not be taken off without the fullest investigation and a guarantee given of the maintenance of free speech and of public discussion of matters of concern of that nature.
(Translation):


Mr. Howard Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of this resolution providing for the setting up of a committee to deal with that corporation which, after having done so much for our country, will continue, I hope, its good work.
At the beginning of my remarks, I should like to stress the fact that having taken the floor is no indication that I intend to deliver a speech against or in favour of the C.B.C. I should like simply, Mr. Speaker, to discuss objectively a few particularly important aspects of the situation before the setting up of such a committee.
(Text):
I understand that under the rules, Mr. Speaker, when we speak on resolutions of this kind we should speak in general terms and, as you have just said, stick to the criterion of what constitutes the desirability of setting up such a committee.
This morning I want to speak very briefly on two main topics. The first topic I will discuss is simply the general desirability of examining crown corporations in committee. Second, I shall speak in very general and objective terms, and this is where I want to underline the fact that when I speak under the second heading my speech will not be anti anything or for anything. I simply want

to make some general, objective observations.
I want to discuss that general phrase "political interference".
All of us in the House of Commons, and the Canadian people, believe that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-and I am not for one moment suggesting that I am going to cover all its powers which it derives from its original charter-has shown great leadership in the development of our country. It has played a very great role. Many loyal and great Canadians form its working force. I think in most instances we are all proud of it as a corporation. If we think it is desirable, and I believe most of us do, to have a distinctive Canadianism going from coast to coast in this country, perhaps we are also equally agreed that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has played a very important role in this respect. This was the original intention in the setting up of the corporation.
Whether we refer to television or radio broadcasting, I am sure we will all agree that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has done a good job in certain areas of this country which for the time being could not be served by private enterprise in a practical way. If it was not for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation many areas of this great country of ours would have no radio or television services at all.
Now, sir, I want very briefly to discuss the desirability of examining the corporation in committee. After all, it is one of the most pertinent parts of this resolution that we are discussing this morning. I think we should pay much more attention to this general subject because it involves a very great principle. Canada is a young country. Confederation dates from 1867. We have gone through two great world wars and many emergency periods. At the same time, by the natural evolution of things government has become bigger and bigger. Thus many crown corporations have come into existence, for good or for bad. Therefore I think it is most important that as members of parliament we make sure they receive careful scrutiny at all times; because while it is very necessary at times to create crown corporations, we must make sure exactly how, why and if they fit into the democratic scheme of things as we see it under a parliamentary system of government.
I think that very often people err when they try to compare the C.B.C. with the B.B.C. to too great an extent. The experience of the B.B.C. in the United Kingdom is much different from that of the C.B.C. in Canada. First of all, their experience is longer; and second, the B.B.C. is superimposed on a
Broadcasting
unilateral state whereas the C.B.C. is working in conjunction with a parliamentary system and a federal state. These are general principles that I think should be outlined when we are trying to compare the two corporations.
Again I reiterate and emphasize the necessity, especially in peacetime, of members of parliament through our parliamentary institutions always exercising eternal vigilance in scrutinizing the activities of crown corporations. We all know that the C.B.C. reports to parliament through the Minister of National Revenue and at this point I should like to emphasize the fact that parliament is made up in large measure of people who are proud to call themselves politicians. Therefore we must be very careful in giving consideration to that very loose expression, "political interference". I would warn all members that when people confuse the idea of political interference with the voice of the people; when people confuse the idea of political interference with the true and rightful duties of a member of parliament; when irresponsible pronouncements are made regarding these two things, political interference on the one hand and the rightful duties of a member of parliament on the other hand, nothing is being done to serve the true principles of democracy as I am sure all broadminded members of the House of Commons understand them.
Therefore I am sure this committee is going to start its work in a sober and sensible way; I have heard someone suggest in a "serene" way. That is a very good word, but I think it was Haldane who said that justice must not only be just but must also seem to be just. So I think these are general principles that should be understood before the committee starts its work.
Just because a member of parliament wants to know how much a cultural program costs or is going to cost, be it on television or radio; just because he wants to know what the price tag of that cultural program is, let us not smear that parliamentarian and say that he is anti-culture. In the past I have done a little church work, and we had a minister who was a great sky pilot but did not occupy himself too much with the books of the church. He was a wonderful minister, but a few people had to get together to make sure that church affairs and the church in general were going to be kept solvent. So I think it is extremely important that just because members of parliament and representatives in legislatures ask what something is going to cost, we do not as a result label them as anti-cultural.

Broadcasting
As I have said before and I repeat it now, the C.B.C. is doing a wonderful job in providing cultural programs, programs which in many instances private enterprise cannot really afford. I hope the day will perhaps come when private enterprise will be able to do so, but today we have this situation and I think it is only right that members of parliament should ask about the cost. After all, the Canadian people are paying for these programs.
Second, Mr. Speaker, I have heard it said by many Canadians that they hope to see the day, perhaps in the not too distant future, when private radio and television stations will become so financially sound that they will be able to undertake in a responsible way under the board of broadcast governors some of the cultural programming that the C.B.C. is doing today. In a very objective way many people are seriously asking themselves about the advisability of too much state radio and television in a democratic society under a parliamentary system. In a very sensible and serene way many people are asking this question, which makes it even more desirable that in a common sense manner a corporation of this nature be examined as this resolution proposes.
I know that it perhaps embarrasses a lot of people to talk too openly about political interference, and that it is something we should all admit that we talk about too much privately and not often enough in public. I am a politician, Mr. Speaker, and I am proud to be a politician. I fight hard and I am partisan, but suppose I am looking at the television news one night, before New Year's, for instance, and suppose various Canadians are wishing the people of the country a happy New Year and the Leader of the Opposition appears on television and the Prime Minister does not. Of course I would squawk. I am a human being. But let us not call that political interference. I am naturally going to ask somebody, whether in the C.B.C. or outside the C.B.C., why the Leader of the Opposition appeared on television and the Prime Minister did not. If the official opposition had a convention and the C.B.C. did not cover it at all on television I am sure their party frontbenchers would also say: "My goodness, something is going wrong", and they would squawk too.
We just heard an hon. member of the C.C.F. party speak, and he suggested that something constituted political interference. As long as there are politicians and as long as we have state owned radio and television there are going to be charges and countercharges involving what we call political interference. But let us be very sensible about the whole matter, Mr. Speaker. Let us analyse

it in a cool-headed and serene way. Members of parliament often receive letters complaining about certain programs. The Minister of National Revenue perhaps knows that better than anyone else. But when we bring these matters to the attention of officials we are only expressing the voice of the people. When a member of parliament makes known the views of his constituents regarding various programs, at no time is he doing anything that constitutes political interference.
I know this is a very delicate subject, but it is one that is often on the minds of all of us and I think it should be analysed in a cool-headed and sensible way. At the same time I think the individuals who work for this wonderful corporation must realize that public funds are involved, that the voice of the people does means something, and that while cultural leadership is most important sometimes the desires of the people are important too.
I think, sir, that nothing is to be gained when ill-considered attacks regarding political interference are levelled against the C.B.C. I also believe that nothing is to be gained when people are criticized because they have, either before a committee or outside a committee, levelled objective and constructive criticism against the corporation. I do not believe this criticism should be brushed aside on the ground that it is anticultural or that these legislators do not know what they are talking about. I think the whole thing should be brought into balance. I am sure, sir, this committee, in a coolheaded, sensible way, is going to do just that.
I have, therefore, brought before the house today what I consider are two important points which underline the desirability of setting up this committee. Point No. 1 is the desirability, in a free society like Canada, of examining crown agencies. We have a great many of them already in this young country which has gone through emergency periods and 'two world wars. I am not very clear in my thinking here, but I am sure of one thing. These crown agencies must be examined very carefully in a free democratic society; otherwise the true principles of democracy as we understand them, both inside and outside of parliament, will be tampered with. The price of democracy is eternal vigilance, and that is what this committee is going to do.
I have not done a very good job this morning of explaining the other point, but I do hope this committee, in a very gradual, common sense way, is going to do something to show us the real difference between political interference on the one hand, as so many people irresponsibly call it, and on the

other hand what I believe to be the true voice of the people. For these reasons, sir, and in a very general way as I have explained today, I support most wholeheartedly this resolution.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker,
I rise to say a few words, not in response to the very interesting declaration of political faith we have just heard from the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, but to talk about another matter which I believe should be considered by the committee when it is convened. I would say to the hon. member who has just spoken-I do not know whether he is a member of this committee-that now that he has avowed what we all knew, that he is a politician, I hope he will grace that committee and give it the benefit of his great experience and his solemn consideration.
The matter I wish to raise, Mr. Speaker, is one which I certainly would raise in the committee if I were a member. However, since T am not, I should like to do so in this way during the discussion of this resolution. On January 3 last we were informed by Mr. C. R. Delafield of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the international service of the corporation was to be considerably curtailed. Canada's shortw'ave radio service, of course, has been in existence now for some 16 years with programs beamed to listeners in Europe, Latin America, the Caribbean and Australasia. I have no quarrel with the decision to extend the international service to Africa, to provide programs in English and in French, as is now being done as a result of the changes announced by Mr. Delafield.
However, I do question the wisdom of the international service being discontinued to some of our north Atlantic treaty partners, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, The Netherlands and Italy. I understand that not only are these programs being eliminated or curtailed, but those to the United Kingdom and France as well are being considerably reduced. I do not know what the government had in mind in connection with this matter, and in this instance I say "the government" advisedly because I believe the decision was made by treasury board. It seems rather unusual that there should have been intervention by treasury board in a matter of this sort, particularly when it involves a service provided by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The explanation may be that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation international service has a budget that is entirely separate from the corporation's domestic budget.


Mr. Nowlan:: External affairs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister
points out that it is external affairs. I thought that was possibly the situation. In any event,
Broadcasting
when the minister speaks he will explain the situation in greater detail and justify the decision that has been made on the merits.
Now, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation international service, which was started in wartime, has been a post-war information and publicity arm of the Canadian government for about 16 or 17 years. For many years most of the government's Canadian overseas broadcasts have been to western Europe. In addition to direct broadcasting, Canadians have also recorded special program material here at the request of various European broadcasting bodies for use overseas. In recent years a portion of the transmission schedule has been devoted to propaganda broadcasts to countries behind the iron curtain. I understand that the change that has been made does not include curtailment of what are called propaganda broadcasts to the iron curtain countries. If that is the case, of course, I am in full support of the maintenance of that policy.
However, I question very much whether the saving, which I believe is estimated to be in the neighbourhood of some $400,000, is warranted when we consider the great disadvantages which I suspect will flow from this curtailment of service. It seems to me that the abandonment of broadcasts to countries like Norway, Sweden, Belgium, The Netherlands and Italy, and the cut-back in broadcasting to the United Kingdom and France, comes at a very bad time. This decision has been taken at a time when Canada is seeking to expand its export trade and to maintain existing markets, particularly in the light of the formation of new economic blocs in Europe such as the common market and the European free trade association. It seems to me that if the apprehensions of the Minister of Finance about these blocs are to be taken seriously-and I do not fully agree with the Minister of Finance-the government is placed in an embarrassing position by the decision which has been taken.
It seems to me that these broadcasts, apart from the other advantages that flowed from them, provided an excellent advertising medium that is now being scrapped. This will interfere with the possibility of getting further trade with Europe and maintaining existing trade benefits. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation international service is being forced to terminate a service that has been in existence for over a decade, and completely disrupt its working relationships with various European radio broadcasting organizations. This is being done at a time

Broadcasting
when the Canadian need for exports virtually demands aggressive use of every publicity medium available.
Working relationships with broadcasting organizations in NATO partner countries are being eliminated arbitrarily, it seems to me, while jammed broadcasts to only hypothetical audiences behind the iron curtain are being continued. I do not quarrel with that procedure. In spite of our inability to determine exactly the nature of the reception of and the reaction to these broadcasts in iron curtain countries, I think it is important that this service should be maintained. This I have already insisted on.
However, it seems to me that there are two sides to the coin. The Soviet union is encouraging a program of careful broadcasting to the Scandinavian countries. For instance, I am advised that quite recently the Soviet union began a series of broadcasts, very cleverly concealed, to some of these Scandinavian countries, namely Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Holland. While these broadcasts have been going on for years in some form, they have now taken on a new form. They offer well edited propaganda material addressed to the appetite for local news on the part of the people in Scandinavia. This propaganda is aimed particularly at these countries and is addressed to them by giving these people not news of events of an international character but news of local events in Norway and the other Scandinavian countries, and associating with this local news extremely sinister propaganda. This expansion is being carefully followed by the foreign offices, I am sure, of many countries.
It seems to me that a country like Canada, whose international service has been so widely appreciated in Scandinavia as well as in other nations of western Europe, should think carefully before dispensing with its service at a time when the Soviet union has increased and accelerated its broadcasts to the same European area.
My views on these matters may not be based on a full appreciation of all the factors involved. I can only state my point of view as I see it in the light of information that is made available to me. I hope that either the minister will deal with this situation directly or that the matter will be carefully gone into when the committee is established and there will be an opportunity of examining the officials of the corporation. However, as the minister has indicated that the decision is one for the Department of External Affairs itself and not for the corporation, perhaps he would think that the desirable moment to deal with it would be before the house had actually dealt with and passed the motion.


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few rather brief comments on this question.
First, I should like to say how fully I agree with what was said by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi as to what we owe to the C.B.C. and as to the importance of this committee dealing carefully and wisely with the subject. I should also like to say that I think the hon. member for Essex East has raised a question which is well worth our most serious consideration.
As to the remainder of my short speech, Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a rather cowardly course; I am going to quote, as far as you will allow me to do so, an extract from the speech made last July by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan). It is so good that I should like to think I had written it myself; if I work hard enough at it 1 may be able to persuade myself that I did so.
The minister was talking about the position of the corporation and he has this to say, as reported at page 6193 of Hansard of July 13, 1960. He speaks of those who-
-from time to time approach me asking why I permitted this or that to happen, or why I did or did not take action of a particular kind-
He describes the function of the minister as follows:
-the minister is here only to report to parliament for the C.B.C., and that he has no power whatsoever to exercise control over that corporation. That is a matter of law, that is a matter of statute, and that is a matter of public policy.
Then he goes on to refer to the fact that we in this party should be especially interested because it was R. B. Bennett who set up the corporation. May I digress for one moment in order to say that I think up to the moment history has dealt rather shabbily with that great man who founded many things that have been useful, including the C.B.C. and the Bank of Canada. The Minister of National Revenue pointed out that we in this party should be especially interested in the C.B.C. for that reason. I should like to think that we would be interested. Then the minister, speaking on the principle of the independence of the C.B.C., goes on to say this:
That principle has been continued, and that has been the finding of every royal commission since which has made recommendations on the subject, in addition to about every parliamentary committee, and there have been around 20 of them since the corporation was established.
It is embarrassing at times. There are times when I should like to be able to exercise some control and power, but if there is sometimes embarrassment and frustration on the one side there is, on the other side, the obvious danger of having a public service such as the C.B.C. brought under political control.

Then the minister goes on to refer to those who think it might be a good thing to sell the C.B.C., and he says this:
Such suggestions have sometimes been specifically associated with this party.
Then with that frankness and directness that we all like in the Minister of National Revenue he states:
Undoubtedly that is true; there are a few of them. There are a few also, I think, in other parties from time to time. The Conservative party has no monopoly of that viewpoint by a long shot. There are people who have been hauled screaming and protesting into the twentieth century and still think they live in the eighteenth.
I like that reference. It seems to me to be right on the target. I should like to quote further:
We respect their views-
That is to say, the views of these eighteenth century people.
-but certainly as far as this government is concerned I want to say again what has been said from time to time, namely that we believe in the C.B.C.; we support the corporation, and as long as this government is in power-and, I hope, as long as any government is in power-that policy will be maintained; because I am quite certain that if any government attempted to destroy that principle they would be heaved out of office so rapidly that they would never know what struck them.
I am glad to read those words. I believe them. As I take my seat I should just like to say this. While we shall be sometimes irritated and while we shall often feel that somebody is gunning at us, we had better remember that we are party politicians and that we are not as independent as all that in our judgment. Furthermore, we had better remember that the nation is poor indeed that has not some organization-we have churches, universities and now the C.B.C.-which is trying to bring to the public the things by which, after all, life is dignified. I refer to the things of the intellect and the things of the spirit. Anyone who listens to the Wednesday evening C.B.C. broadcasts knows that what I say is true. We may not always approve of these programs. We may sometimes think there are on the programs nothing but eggheads. Nevertheless they are holding up an ideal which none of us can afford to disregard.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the three speakers who have preceded me. This does not mean that I have not appreciated the remarks of the hon. member who spoke initially in this debate, namely the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who perhaps spoke most closely to the motion and raised a point on which I hope we shall hear from the minister, namely the vagueness of the motion.
Broadcasting
I have been reading it over and over again.
I suppose the committee could proceed in spite of the vagueness of the motion. I do not know whether I agree with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate in his contention that the motion might spell out in more particular terms exactly what the committee is going to deal with. I have been a member of the broadcasting committee and I suppose I have been at as many of its meetings in the past as anyone but the chairman of the committee. I am not very sanguine about spelling out beforehand the chores the committee should do, because so much will depend upon the wisdom of the members themselves and the pace they set.
I would be tempted to think that we could define a number of problems which the committee could approach on an ad hoc basis. That might be more effective than what the hon. member suggested.
It seems to me we should begin with the Broadcasting Act itself. I agree with the hon. member that we have had what amounts to an undertaking from the minister that this act should be reviewed as soon as possible, that this review should have taken place last year, and that, consequently we might expect it this session. The advantage of reviewing the Broadcasting Act at the beginning of the committee's work would seem to me to be this; that it would familiarize us all with details we tend to forget concerning the various rights and duties of the board of broadcast governors and of the C.B.C.
We expected that last session the committee would deal with the brief and the views of the Canadian association of broadcasters, that is, with the private interests. I know this group is anxious to come before the committee. Whether we should start there or with the board of broadcast governors or with some other problem is, I suggest, a matter which can be left to the wisdom of the committee.
I would be much more appreciative of the attitude of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate if I could feel that on this committee he had been one of the more constructive members. He has taken an active part, and we all have great respect for his intelligence and industry, but it seems to me he has a greater capacity for drawing red herrings in front of the committee's nose than any other member in the house. These herrings usually consist of charges connected with political advantage on the lines of "I suppose this is only what one might expect from the Tories" and everything explodes.
I do not want to suggest that I have a great deal more faith in these wicked Tories than the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, but I do wonder whether a committee

Broadcasting
which should move along calmly from point to point in order to cover the whole subject is the place to be continually jabbing and prodding with the kind of political charges which cause the meetings to flare up, send the newsmen scurrying for telephones and, in effect, interrupt the smooth progress of the committee's work.
I hope that this session the committee will have a new chairman because of the elevation to ministerial level of the hon. member for London (Mr. Halpenny), and that we shall now have a chairman who will be able to direct the committee in a smooth and cool manner.
In terms of ad hoc problems with which the committee might deal-if the minister is not prepared to give an undertaking that the government wishes the committee, and will so direct the chairman, to review the Broadcasting Act-the hon. member who spoke for the Liberal party stressed the question of the principle of licensing, and reiterated his doubts about the television licence which was awarded in Toronto. I know I heard a story the other day about one of the producers of this new concern who was told by the management that he must remember this was "a Conservative television station".
I do not attach too much credit to that particular story, but I do think this system of awarding television licences, as we see it in operation in the Toronto area, raises problems for the C.B.C. itself. I look at the Toronto stations, particularly the one which is now providing television as it ought to be, and I see a close connection with a newspaper, the Telegram, which I think openly supports, editorially, the present government. I do not complain about that as such, but when I look at the C.B.C. I get more and more the impression that it is the extension of another Toronto newspaper, the Toronto Star. Perhaps I should not put it as blatantly as that, but I know that a number of the headliners who work for C.B.C. television also work for the Star and made their reputations on the C.B.C. before they became what could be called valuable properties and were hired by the Star. Five or six of the great hired by the channel 6 happen to be employed by that newspaper.
If I have any preference it would be for the Star as compared with the Telegram, because I think it is the more interesting newspaper, but it seems to me we have created a situation where the two evening newspapers in the city, each of them somewhat given to sensationalism, have definite links with the two television stations in Toronto. I do not know how a parliamentary committee can apply its wisdom to this situation, but it

does seem to me that our licensing system has got us into what could be quite a competitive log jam. I suppose the people in Toronto area will be the final judges, but the question of the principle behind the T.V. licence awards to newspaper owners is certainly something we should know more about.
There is a case, and I should like to see the committee deal with it, relating to the Prince George television station. I have had communications from that area both of a general and of a particular nature which would indicate that here, perhaps more clearly than elsewhere, political influence has been at work, but again I do not know whether this is the kind of thing which should be investigated in detail before a parliamentary committee. Certainly the people who write to members of this house think it should. I have also received a letter or two from the Halifax area indicating that political influences have been at work there as well.
I mention these things to show that the committee could spend its whole career dealing with charges of political favouritism in connection with licensing. I think the best way to approach the licensing problem would be to get the head of the board of broadcast governors before us, forget about other witnesses, and keep pressing and questioning him, perhaps in continuous session for two or three days, in order to get the whole thing cleared up through his point of view. I suggest that cross-examination of Dr. Stewart might in the long run tell us more, if we persisted, than an attempt to investigate charges of political favouritism in all parts of the country where licences have been awarded.
At the same time, I know that such crossexamination would be difficult. As I think anyone who has tried to examine Dr. Stewart will realize, he is very quick on his feet and is a master at shifting his ground. I do not mean by this that he is Machiavellian, but he is extremely careful. I think that should be the challenge to the committee, and we will see what we can do.
Another point which it seems to me the committee might examine, both with the head of the C.B.C., Mr. Ouimet, and Dr. Stewart, is the effect of what might be called the C.B.C.'s new policy of commercialism. I know this is a reflection of the ukase or the request or the suggestion contained in both the Fowler report and the report of the broadcasting committee of two years ago that the corporation should go out after more advertising revenue, but in the process this

has raised in the minds of many of its supporters the question whether it might not have lost the role it used to play.
The suggestion is that the effective commercial competition which the corporation is now carrying out with the private stations must mean, to some degree, a lessening of the corporation's old role as a leader in education and public affairs because it has had to move in the direction of more popular programs-variety shows, western stories, and so on-as a result of which the corporation has lost something of its reputation as a cultural dike. This whole cultural question is something that is almost in the realm of philosophy. It seems to me the only way the committee can handle it sensibly is to seek evidence from the heads of the C.B.C., the B.B.G. and the C.A.B.
There was some laughter in the chamber when the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi made the common error of appearing to confuse the C.B.C. with the C.C.F. I have felt the ramifications of this type of error. I have expressed criticism and C.C.F. supporters have asked, "What are you trying to do? This is really our organization." This does not mean they feel it is a C.C.F. agency but that it is almost completely what the C.C.F. felt a crown corporation should be and do in this field. It almost completely reflects our approach to crown corporations in the field of public affairs and culture.
I think we should look again at the C.B.C. because of the extent of its commercialism and the coming on the scene of private television stations. I believe we are in a period of great change and transition. No one really knows what is going to be the final squaring away, especially in terms of income, of this competition and the whole future of private networks.
In its approach this year I think the committee should be tentative in its appraisal. We should think more in terms of scrutiny than in terms of a report that would try to direct or influence. It is certainly apparent that the financing of the C.B.C. in its present form leaves the corporation open to a more direct form of pressure than was recommended by the Fowler commission, and more than was previously the case.
I know there has been great exception taken across the country by certain people and certain newspaper editorialists to the C.B.C.'s annual report and its suggestion that you are a shareholder in the C.B.C. and that for so much expenditure per head you get this wonderful programming. It has been pointed out that in this sense the C.B.C. is not really a company in which each listener is a shareholder, that this is a confusion you might say of the advertising men. The point is,
Broadcasting
however, that the C.B.C. does cost us a lot of money, and as politicians we all hear pragmatic arguments in this regard.
For example, the maritimes have set up a hoot and a holler. They want the entire national hockey league game televised Saturday night. That is not the only part of the country that will express that desire. The argument is put to us at home that hockey is a Canadian game and extremely popular; therefore why should we not have it televised from start to finish. I know the minister will be well aware that such matters as the questions of cost and sponsors and arranging clear time in an evening are not arguments to which the people care to listen.
On the question of financing, the views we express and the recommendations we put forward in the committee could be related to what we think of the increased commercialism of the C.B.C. There is one point on which it seems to me the committee might spend some time and to which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate could make a great contribution, because I know he was on the committee that reviewed the Canada Elections Act and discussed the broadcasting situation to a degree in so far as it affects politics. In essence, the political aspect of broadcasting in Canada was determined by that committee rather than by the one now under discussion. It is still an issue in my mind, however. It came closely home to me the other day in watching the complete, almost hour-long telecast of the press conference of the new President of the United States which came from a United States station and had a tremendous impact in Canada.
I think this will be the forerunner of a tradition that is going to make us again very vulnerable to United States influence. Because of its newsworthiness and importance, even in Canadian terms, there will be strong demand to have these news conferences of the President televised regularly and carried trans-Canada. I think it is the kind of program that would have vast appeal.
As a result of this I think the following question will be raised. What are we going to do about our own political figures, such as the Prime Minister, in presenting them to Canadian audiences? It may well be that if J.F.K. is the great president he seems to be in embryo, we could have the same kind of love affair take place between him and the Canadian people that took place between Canadians and F.D.R. If that should be the case it will mean that Canadians will come under the influence of a political figure who is not operating on the Canadian scene but who is the man next door. There is nothing tremendously bad about that, but it is a problem in that once again we will be looking to

Broadcasting
an influence other than Canadian to crystallize our identity and give us leadership. It raises the question of what balance we can put forward within our own broadcasting framework to offset this kind of development and illuminate our own leaders.
I can speculate that it would be impossible for the Prime Minister of Canada to have this kind of conference because of our different constitutional framework. Both the limitations and the advantages under which our Prime Minister operates are different from those affecting the United States president. I suggest, however, that our committee should be in a position to consider some of the developments opening up in the political field, such as the president's press conference, which was televised.
Another point comes to mind. I imagine that every hon. member from the Toronto area is wondering what is going to be the position of the new station in Toronto as election time comes near, in the amount of free time it will clear for election purposes. Is it going to carry the same broadcasts the C.B.C. carries? Will this be required? A second thing about this station comes to my mind. How will they sell their time to political parties, if they have time for sale? What is going to be the principle upon which this will be established? As the regulations now stand, I think there are a few loopholes that may need correcting.
We have had a situation in my own area where time has been available for sale to all political parties, and while it has not resulted in ructions bursting out, it could have done so. On one occasion during an election campaign I reserved some time. I got there first, so I was able to secure the last half hour of the campaign. Someone else with great influence came along later, and it turned out that I did not have the last half hour. I did not complain about it at the time; I felt that overexposure of my rival was perhaps to my advantage, and let it go at that. However, in another situation I think we would need a more hard and fast rule, and it seems to me the committee might explore this question.
I have a hunch that an election is not too far away. It may not be this year, but certainly if the committee is going to recommend anything in this field it is likely that it will have only this session to consider the matter; because I am sure that next session, if we have one, the orientation will be all to the hustings, and away we will go.
The hon. member for Essex East raised a question about the international service and its cut-down. This is the kind of issue that, speaking for our party, we regret very much; but speaking as an individual representing a constituency in the centre of the country 
this does not arouse much interest. I know that the people in my area would not be particularly interested in this. I have to force myself to be interested because, in the centre of a continental nation, it is difficult to get concerned about the particular image of Canada that might be going abroad through something like shortwave radio services.
It is, however, a question with various sides to it. I suggest that in an ad hoc way officials of the Department of External Affairs appear before the committee and give us some kind of assessment of the impact of the programs as they have gone on, and in essence what their impact signifies in the impression Canada makes abroad.
The question of the cultural role of the C.B.C. and of private stations in the next year will probably hinge closely upon the 55 per cent Canadian content rule. It is awfully tempting to laugh at or become satirical about this 55 per cent of Canadian content. It reminds me of the beer labels that we used to have in Ontario showing the alcoholic content ranging from 5 per cent to 12 per cent. When you take a drink of whisky from something sold by the Ontario liquor control board you wonder just how much of it is water. There is something almost silly, when you look at it, about the rule that we are going to have 55 per cent of Canadian content.
Someone pointed out in a newspaper today, that if you listen to "Critically Speaking" you find that it may be a Canadian program, originated for Canadians, but most of the time the accent of the speaker tends to be English. We have had a great deal of difficulty with the census form in determining just what is Canadian. It seems "Canadian" means that you are a whole host of other things, depending on what your father once happened to be. This could go all the way back to Adam, I suppose, if you are a fundamentalist, and could raise tremendous difficulties. The same thing is going to apply in so far as the 65 per cent Canadian content is concerned. Our party's view is that this is a good rule, but its application will require not only fairness but, it seems to me, a certain sense of humour.
The orientation of so much programming in Canada tends toward metropolitan areas such as Toronto. Here again is something that a member from, let us say, a distant part of the country that is not within the sway of that particular metropolitan influence hears a lot of, and on which many complaints seem to centre. I am sure that the complaints with respect to the private stations and the private networks, the same as the C.B.C., will centre on the fact that we always seem to be seeing the same faces; that there is not enough variety; that we have too few hosts in T.V. for too many parasites in terms of programs.

The viewers are always complaining that they get sick and tired of seeing the same characters: Charles Templeton, Pierre Berton, Lister Sinclair, Dr. Blatz, Nathan Cohen, Gordon Sinclair and so on, all very much Toronto oriented.
Well, it is one of my contentions, and I think it would be the contention of many other members in this house, that Toronto does not contain all the finest attributes, and is not the sole reservoir of talent. I would point out to the hon. member for York-Scar-borough (Mr. McGee), who is laughing, that even the fact that some of us appear here as members of parliament is an indication that there is talent outside of Toronto. I would really like to see the committee give some consideration at first to this question of talent in relation to the 55 per cent rule and a bit of investigation as to why more of it is not combed out of, let us say, the brakes and the bushes of the country, and why so much of it is the same, all or nearly all from Toronto.
In the past the committee has been a lively one. I would hope that it will continue to be lively but in a bit more constructive way. I make my reservations because I see the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is going to be a member of that committee. I can see where there will be storm and stress. Again I am trying to speculate as to who would be the ideal committee chairman.


An hon. Member:: Will you be available?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes, with pleasure; but I am thinking of the hon. member from Calgary South, who has proved himself so invaluable down at the United Nations. I am just hoping that he will almost preach for a call during this debate.


George Clyde Nowlan: Perhaps you should elect the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate chairman, and then your fears would be over.


Douglas Mason Fisher: That is a suggestion I would be only too willing to accept. I would like to see him in the role of chairman. I think that as an editor he has done a remarkable disservice to one of the great Liberal prime ministers of Canada, and if he can do as well in his role of chairman it would be intriguing to us, his rivals. I want to go on and suggest that the hon. member for Calgary South ought to come in and preach for the call. I am suggesting to him that he would make as competent a chairman of the broadcasting committee as he did of other committees.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
Broadcasting AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased at this time to see that the government is again taking steps to set up a special committee on broadcasting. I am sure that all members of the house are well aware of the importance of this committee. In my view there are many very important aspects of the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with which the committee undoubtedly will be dealing. Some of them are extensions of the services of the C.B.C., programming, private stations, Canadian content, the financial structure of the C.B.C. and many other subjects. As hon. members may have noticed, in mentioning these different subjects which I sincerely hope the committee will deal with I placed extension of services in the top position. Despite the fact that these other aspects of C.B.C. operations are of great importance, I believe personally that the extension of television services and the improvement of radio reception in some parts of Canada should be given top priority.
I have listened with interest to the remarks of various members who have spoken on the resolution before the house, and I wish to concur in particular with some of the remarks made, such as the statement that we must keep watch at all times to prevent political interference with the C.B.C. or any crown corporation. In this regard, however, I feel that the committee has special duties and functions to perform. I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). He brought out some very good points and in relating his impression of what this committee should do he said, if I heard him correctly, that the committee should scrutinize but that it should not put itself in the position of influencing or directing in any way the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I cannot quite bring myself to agree wholeheartedly with that statement because in my view the committee can do a very worthwhile job after scrutinizing the operations of the C.B.C. by bringing in recommendations as to what the members of the committee believe should be done to improve the operations of this crown corporation. If those members who are fortunate enough to sit on this committee are merely to scrutinize the evidence presented to them and not suggest recommendations or give leadership as to what members of the house believe should be done, then I cannot see the point in a committee of this nature convening. Therefore

Broadcasting
I must disagree with that portion of the remarks of the member for Port Arthur.
I believe that any time the house is confronted with expenditures in the neighbourhood of some $80 million by a crown corporation and we have the estimates before us involving the approval or otherwise by the house of such an amount of money, neither the house nor the committee on broadcasting should in any way, shape or form rubber-stamp estimates of this nature. I agree that there should not be political interference but I also believe that in many respects direction should be given by the house through the broadcasting committee as to what the house believes should be done. Whether or not these recommendations are carried out is in my opinion a matter for the house to deal with.
I should like to speak very briefly on a subject which I mentioned and which I hope will be gone into very thoroughly by the members of the broadcasting committee. I refer to the extension of services which I regard as a most important subject. To the best of my knowledge at this time I believe that from 82 to 86 per cent of the population of Canada are now serviced by C.B.C. television. My interest at this time mainly concerns that portion of the population of Canada which still remains to be serviced.
As the house well knows, I have made representations over the past three years with respect to the area I represent for consideration to be given to the provision of network television services in northern Manitoba. These representations have the full support of every resident of that area. I should like to take hon. members back a bit in the history of these representations just to put before the house a point with which I believe the committee should deal. Over the years we have requested the C.B.C. to provide network service to the areas of Dauphin, Swan River, The Pas and Flin Flon.
We made these representations to the very best of our ability. We made them in every quarter we thought would receive them. We have received very good co-operation from the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), the minister responsible for the C.B.C. We have received excellent co-operation from the officials of the C.B.C. We have even taken up the question with the Manitoba government and have received excellent cooperation from the Manitoba cabinet ministers concerned. However, we are not yet receiving the network facilities of the C.B.C. I am given to understand that it may be some time before we can expect to receive those services.
Hon. members may be aware of the fact that some time ago we had planned to have the C.B.C. investigate the possibility of servicing this area consisting of Dauphin,

Swan River, The Pas and Flin Flon. A private television station at Yorkton, Saskatchewan, was interested at that time in extending its coverage and made application to the board of broadcast governors for permission to construct a satellite station in Manitoba which would increase the coverage of the Yorkton station and provide service for Dauphin and Swan River. The board of broadcast governors accepted this application and studied it very carefully. They dealt with it on two different occasions, and on each occasion they deferred it. Finally there was really no justification for deferring the matter further and, it is my understanding, the board of broadcast governors communicated with the C.B.C. to ascertain if its corporation had any immediate plans to service northern Manitoba with network facilities. The board received an answer to that specific question, and I understand they were informed the C.B.C. had no immediate plans. The board of broadcast governors therefore authorized the application of the Yorkton television station for the construction of this satellite station. At the moment the areas of Dauphin and Swan River are receiving television programs through this satellite station.
Immediately after that we made further representations to the C.B.C. but we were told that we had a good case when we had Dauphin and Swan River along with us. Those areas are serviced now. We are faced with the problem of jumping this gap and trying to get service into The Pas and Flin Flon. I think these are some of the things with which the committee should deal. I do not believe there was a sufficiently thorough study made by the board of broadcast governors and the C.B.C. in relation to this situation. I believe that if these two bodies had discussed the matter fully the C.B.C. would be planning now to provide network facilities for these areas in Manitoba. This result might have worked to the detriment of the Yorkton station, because I do not believe it would have been given a licence for that satellite. I say that a big mistake was made at that time. I am not being critical of the Yorkton television station, because I believe it is doing its best to provide adequate service. However, I have been in both of these areas and, despite the fact Yorkton is doing its utmost to give them the best service, the people in those areas generally are not satisfied.
In some areas the service provided by Yorkton is good, possibly as good as they would receive on the A contour of any station. However, in other areas the reception is certainly not adequate. I believe, therefore, the C.B.C. should take another look at that

situation and get away from this idea that if they provided network facilities through Manitoba they would be duplicating the service. I think they would be improving the service greatly, and I think they should be directed to take a look at the situation.
I think the members of the house are well aware of the fact that some time ago, during the hearings on the station at Edmonton in which the C.B.C. received permission to operate a station there, the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr. Ouimet, made a public announcement to the effect it was the intention of the corporation to provide sufficient funds in this year's estimates for a kinescope service for The Pas and Flin Flon. Everyone interested in television realizes what a kinescope service is, possibly realizes it better than I do. My understanding is that this is strictly a canned service and that programs which are generally well received in Canada such as sporting events, the news and programs of that nature are not included in this service. I must admit that this type of service is much better than nothing at all, but I have a feeling that if this kinescope service is established it may be many years before another look is taken at these areas.
The frustrating part of the whole thing so far as I am concerned is the fact that during the study of this problem the C.B.C. was dealing with the Manitoba telephone system, the Manitoba government and various other people. The point which seemed to defeat the idea of putting live television into that area was the cost of renting the microwave facilities. The C.B.C. advises me that they do not construct these microwave facilities, but rent them from other carrying agencies in Canada. The cost of renting these services was the difficulty the C.B.C. could not surmount. I might say that I have been told a figure of $289,000 was the annual rental quoted to the C.B.C. for these facilities. This is a large amount of money, and I realize the C.B.C. would have to take a very serious look at that.
However, since that time various negotiations have been conducted and different types of service have been suggested, services without all the protective features of the service that goes across the main microwave system. Negotiations have reduced the gap to the point where there is only-I realize even this is a large figure-$100,000 annually separating the cost of providing kinescope and the cost of providing network facilities on the C.B.C. One hundred thousand dollars is a great deal of money. However, if they are going to put this kinescope service into northern Manitoba and are possibly not going to look at the situation again for another seven
Broadcasting
or eight years, I believe it will be a shame if this $100,000 annual charge is going to prevent these people in northern Manitoba from receiving network service for the next eight or ten years.
Those are some of the things that I think the committee should look at very carefully.
1 think they should look at them because I firmly believe that if they had been looked at and studied carefully by both the B.B.G. and the C.B.C. in the first place a network service would be going into that area at this time.
I also say that, as northern Manitoba is developing rapidly, if we put a kinescope service into Flin Flon and The Pas it will probably be not more than a year or two until the mining areas of Snow Lake and Thompson and Lynn Lake are going to be clamouring-and justifiably so-for the television service of the C.B.C.; and here again we are going to be confronted with the question, is it going to be kinescope or is it going to be live network? If it is going to be live network, then at that time it still has to be put through all the way to Flin Flon and further north. I think the committee should take a firm look at this matter and make a recommendation to both the C.B.C. and the B.B.G. to the effect that when any extension of services is contemplated the proper planning should be done so that duplication will not be necessary in the future. I sincerely hope that I shall have the opportunity of again being a member of the committee.
Before resuming my seat I should like to say that I am still of the opinion that this committee must come up with some recommendations and that it is up to this committee to see that those recommendations are carried out. That procedure, in my opinion, is not political interference. If a recommendation or a directive from a committee is going to be considered political interference, we have two alternatives. We have the alternative of rubber-stamping estimates in the neighbourhood of $80 million or there is no necessity for the committee to sit in the first place.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear the minister, when he introduced this resolution, say that it had been drawn in wide terms in order to provide a full and complete investigation of all matters respecting broadcasting and telecasting, both public and private. The act under which our system of combined public and private broadcasting was set up defines the functions and powers of the public corporation; but apart from mentioning the development of Canadian talent I could not

Broadcasting
find in it anything about the role which radio and television programs should play in serving the national interest.
We all know that radio and television facilities are powerful agencies for providing entertainment, information and enlightenment to our people. Present day realities, however, are far different from those of 40 years ago or even those of 1936 when the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was brought into existence. In those days perhaps it was not necessary to think beyond the three objectives I have just mentioned. Today, however, we are engaged in a war of ideologies, a deadly life and death struggle from which only one side can emerge victorious. Under these present day conditions we must keep in mind then the fact that radio and television facilities are not only the means of providing entertainment, information and enlightenment but are also the most powerful and useful weapons available in this battle for the minds and souls of men.
It is therefore evident that the role of our broadcasting service is an important matter. In right hands it can be a strong shield against subversion and a powerful offensive weapon in the cause of freedom. In wrong hands it can be used against us to destroy our freedom and to bring about our destruction. As the C.B.C. is a publicly-owned corporation, the management is charged with the tremendous responsibility of seeing to it that our public radio and television programs are of such a nature and are provided by such means and in such a manner that the national interest is at all times fully safeguarded.
In view of this change in conditions that has taken place over the past 30 years I feel that it would be helpful to the management of the C.B.C. if, in addition to defining the powers and the functions of the corporation, the Broadcasting Act contained some guide and direction as to the responsibilities of the corporation in safeguarding our national interest and as to the role the broadcasting service should play in achieving this result.
The C.B.C. can do much to strengthen Canada by helping to build a sound national character which is the real strength of every nation and by helping to build unity between our various groups and regions which have conflicting interests. The C.B.C. can do this by clarifying the moral issues involved and by helping us to unite on the basis of what is morally right.
The C.B.C. can strengthen democracy by defining and propagating the values and principles essential to the development of a free society. It can protect and strengthen

Canada against the penetration of foreign ideologies by broadcasting to the four corners of our nation the answer to division, disunity and subversion. It can alert us to the danger of ideological factors and it can bring an answering ideology to our people. It can do all this by utilizing programs which at the same time will provide entertainment of the very highest quality.
From personal knowledge I know that such programs are available for I have seen them. For this reason I feel that specific objectives of the role of the broadcasting service should be written into the act as a directive by parliament in the interest of national security and I ask that the committee consider this suggestion.
A moment ago I said that in wrong hands or in the hands of people not fully alive to the realities of the present day ideological conflict the C.B.C. could be used against us to destroy our freedom and bring about our destruction. It can do this by weakening and undermining our national character and in particular by weakening our loyalties and our will to resist aggression and by fostering division and disunity through keeping alive our old hates, fears and prejudices. It can weaken Canada by propagating a foreign ideology and this is done by emphasizing false ideas such as the idea of peaceful coexistence and the idea that democracy does not need any ideology. It can do so also by emphasizing false issues and alternatives such as "Better red than dead" or "Accomodation or annihilation". Those of us who have seen what has happened in Hungary, Cuba and other countries taken over by the communists know that being red is synonymous with being dead as far as fighters for freedom are concerned.
I would be the first to admit that the C.B.C. has provided some excellent programs both from the technical and from the artistic viewpoint, but as a member of parliament who is concerned about the security of Canada and the threat to our freedom, I must say I am a little frightened at the amount of brainwashing and subversive propaganda which goes out over the C.B.C. day after day at the taxpayers' expense. Even many of the high quality programs to which I have referred contain subtle, ideological messages which serve the interest of those who are dedicated to destroying us instead of serving the true interests of Canada. In addition to these programs, I am also appalled at the extent to which the C.B.C. provides a national platform for subversives, some well known and others not so well known, a platform from which issues a barrage of ideas and points of view which have their origin in the Kremlin.

There are many indications of a growing disquietude among the Canadian people with regard to this aspect of the C.B.C.'s operations. In the little time I have to watch and listen to the programs put out by the C.B.C., I have seen and heard enough personally to be able to give positive evidence to the committee in support of the statements I have just made. Letters which I receive, together with personal contacts, convince me that an ever widening circle of thoughtful people share my concern about the way the Canadian public is being brainwashed without realizing it.
This resolution gives the committee power to send for people and papers. In the past it has been the practice to send mainly for officials of the C.B.C. and representatives of the private broadcasting organizations. I think it is important that the committee should hear not only the views of the producers but also of the consumers of these programs. I suggest that the committee should provide an opportunity for representatives of organizations, such as the Canadian Legion, parent-teacher associations* religious bodies, and others to present their views. Representatives of the various ethnic groups and organizations representing our new Canadians might be asked to appear. All could make valuable suggestions and I hope, therefore, that the committee will make a special effort to provide these various groups with an opportunity to put forward their points of view.


Mr. McGraih:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would the hon. member identify the document from which he was reading?


Chesley William Carter: Yes. It was Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day.


Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):: I want to say a few words at this point. Having listened to some of the previous speakers give their views of the various problems which they suggest could be examined in the special committee on broadcasting it has occurred to me that we should perhaps first decide in our minds what exactly our responsibility is as parliamentarians to broadcasting, not just to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation but to the independent broadcasters and, of course, to the board of broadcast governors.
I say this in all seriousness because it seems to me that the line of demarcation between the direction or the persuasion that we might give is, indeed, very thin, but I think it is very important that we should have this line, thin though it be, very clearly defined. Each of us has the right to express his own views and I intend, before going
Broadcasting
into the area of examination, to give my interpretation of that responsibility. This does not apply only to the committee on broadcasting. It applies to many of the committees which this house sets up from time to time.
I suggest, though, that broadcasting does have some very special significance because those who are engaged in public communication of this type have for the most part a very exclusive licence, one which is largely created because, there are only so many available channels and consequently so many available licences.
Obviously, then, those who hold the licences, whether for television or radio broadcasting, have a responsibility to parliament which, in the final analysis, decides through its agencies who should receive permission to carry out their functions.
I suggest our responsibility is just this: that as a committee we are expected to give the most searching analysis to every facet of broadcasting, whether it be the Broadcasting Act, whether it be the public corporation, the private broadcasters or the board of broadcast governors. We would then proceed, as we have done in the past to prepare a report for submission to parliament. Such a report is not necessarily binding, either on the corporation or on the private broadcasters. If it were binding we should have to ask ourselves why we had set up the board of broadcast governors and why the corporation had a board of directors to govern its affairs. Indeed, we should have to ask ourselves why we had given regulatory officials responsibility to carry out the duties which they have.
That does not mean parliament has not still a very important responsibility. If at any time we are unhappy about the principle of the regulations which are being provided, or the way in which these regulations are being carried out, we have, of course, every authority and responsibility as a parliament to change the rules or the principles governing these particular agencies, or the officials concerned. But I think it is important before we go into committee to remind ourselves that we have only the right and the authority to produce a report and make recommendations and not at this stage to direct or legislate. We are not dictating to any of these boards or telling them how to carry out their responsibilities. I fall back on the argument that if this were the case there would be no purpose in setting up these responsible bodies.
I have suggested that the corporation should come back before the committee. Having made an examination some two years

Broadcasting
ago and produced a report I think it is important for us to analyse what has happened to our recommendations. I emphasize again that the bodies concerned are not bound to accept these recommendations, but they certainly have the responsibility to indicate what action they have taken or if they have ignored the recommendations, to indicate on what basis they have done so.
On the question of the corporation's whole financial structure I think the committee should be given some indication of whether there has been any attempt made to more efficiently commercialize the corporation and, if so, to what extent this has succeeded. I realize that for years to come the C.B.C. under its present structure, will have to be subsidized to a considerable degree. I have never disputed this fact.
But having said that, and as one who took part in an analysis of the financial structure, and because of the geography of Canada and the importance and necessity of the C.B.C., Canadian taxpayers of course, would have to subsidize much of the programming. My examination was based on this question: Is there any real effort made to recover any portion of the funds which the commercial operator is expected to recover as a private broadcaster? I will expect to receive an answer to this question.
I have one actual example of the C.B.C. taking to heart our recommendation. I refer to the Rose Bowl game. In my own city I raised a complaint that the Rose Bowl game was not televised throughout Canada. I received the highly logical reply that only a few stations had asked for it, that no sponsor could be found for the program and if it were carried it would represent a substantial cost that would have to come from the public treasury. That is an example drawn from my personal experience which indicates that the corporation has become conscious of the need to meet the cost of unsponsored programs, unless there is an overwhelming demand for them as a public service. I believe this is an indication that the committee's report last year has had some influence.
In fact, while this committee was severely criticized by some of the press in Canada it has had many beneficial influences. I agree with those who said that in some respects the committee was conducted rather like a circus.
I am not of course speaking of the conduct of the chairman but of the committee members themselves and the behaviour of the committee to which, of course, I contributed. Nevertheless, I think it was an excellent committee in that it did produce satisfactory results in many respects. I think it would be

wrong to discredit the work of the committee simply because there were unfortunate events which transpired in one or two of its sittings.
Turning to another aspect of the corporation, I think it should be asked to consider whether in its desire to be competitive, the corporation has perhaps gone to the opposite extreme in lowering its rate structure unduly. I am not sitting in judgment of the corporation at this point but I do think this relationship with private broadcasting should be closely examined.
Let us move on from the corporation to the responsibilities we expect to be met by the private broadcaster in view of the fact that he has this rather exclusive licence to communicate to the public. I think we should ask him whether in some instances he is really running a commercial or advertising vehicle and if he is living up to the principles enunciated by the board of broadcast governors. In our examination of the role of the private broadcaster we should make it clear that we, as representatives of the people, as parliamentarians, demand of him the same standards and integrity in broadcasting that we ask of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
What, then, of the board of broadcast governors? They have now had an opportunity to function for over a year. They have established certain principles governing the conduct of all broadcasting in Canada. I, like many other Canadians, am a little suspicious that perhaps some of the rules are not sufficiently flexible and I wonder if they have attempted to blanket the industry with certain fixed requirements such as the 55 per cent Canadian content regulation and, having applied it, said, "This is something to which all must adhere without regard to the quality of programming." We have the responsibility of making an assessment of the new regulations to see if they are beneficial to the broadcasting industry as such and to ensure that the individual consumer is receiving the standard of broadcasting to which he is entitled.
I return to my earlier point that even after conducting this examination committee members have the individual responsibility to report their considered views to parliament. We are not, however, in the committee stage dictating what must take place following the filing of the report.
I turn now to an area of this field where I have the most difficulty defining for myself where our responsibility lies. When the committee was set up two years ago I said I felt it would be difficult for us to attempt to define what was a good or bad radio or television program. Like most viewers we are laymen in the field even though we had

on the committee in the last two years many professionals with much experience. However, we will never have two similar views concerning the value of one program as compared with another.
We have the responsibility, first of all, to examine the chain of authority within the corporation. Our second responsibility is to examine its financial structure to see if the Canadian viewer receives a full measure of value for his broadcasting dollar without our deciding whether program A is as good as or better than program B. I would suggest that our third responsibility is to examine general policy and to attempt to answer the question: Where are we going in broadcasting as a whole in Canada? What is the current trend and direction? I think those are our basic responsibilities.
I do not agree with those who castigate the corporation by saying that it is not fulfilling its responsibilities. It has shortcomings, of course, but by and large I believe it is performing a satisfactory service. That does not mean, however, that we do not have a large area of examination and of possible constructive criticism.
Another part of our responsibility is that of making an assessment of those programs which have a vital influence on communities all across Canada. I can think of many in this category. It may be considered that I am contradicting my former statement that we should not evaluate one program as against another but I feel this is a different area in which we do have responsibility.
In my hand I hold a newspaper clipping dealing with a broadcast which I believe illustrates my point. The author of the editorial complains about television cameras invading Springhill and presenting what he considered to be a warped version of the disaster that occurred there. I saw that program and I considered that it was somewhat overdone. I can think of others as well including the well-known program "Background". On one occasion it attempted to explore the question of Canadian and United States relations. It started out on the faulty premise that relationships were not good and in support of the argument produced opinions garnered from the man on the street, so-called. To me the whole tenor of the program created an allusion and then set out to prove it with unsubstantiated facts.
Why is this matter important enough for consideration by the committee? Does it not fall into the category of personal criticism of a program? Have I not contradicted an earlier statement I made when I suggested it was not our responsibility to evaluate one program as compared with another? I suggest it is something more basic than that. In
Broadcasting
questions of vast national importance and widespread influence we have a responsibility to criticize the approach taken. In a televised discussion of the problem of unemployment, for instance, a subject of extreme importance, we as parliamentarians in my opinion have to assume some responsibility for examining and, if necessary, criticizing the approach taken.
I am not comparing "Hopalong Cassidy" with "Have Gun Will Travel" but I suggest that programs of the type to which I refer have an influence not only national but international and we have a real responsibility in this area. This is the general area of broadcasting I believe the committee should examine and the course I feel it should follow.
As has been suggested by other hon. members we should also examine the question of political relationships not only of the parties but of individuals. I confess that at this time I have no solution but I am confident that in our discussions we can arrive at methods by which we can make fair assessments. There will always be criticism on one side or the other but the corporation has the responsibility of reflecting the political aspect and environment of the country. What concerns me is that on some occasions they attempt to even things up by overdoing it with one party one day and then by going to the other extreme with another party the following day which is not a satisfactory way of carrying out that function.
In many of these areas of responsibility I shall attempt to do what I did last year. I shall attempt by analysis to come to some basic conclusions. As committee members we cannot ask more of one another. I agree with those who have said that this committee gives us an opportunity to attempt to achieve a constructive approach not only to small, isolated issues but also with respect to the future of broadcasting in exploring the question of what direction radio and television are following in the country.
In the meetings of the committee I will attempt as I am sure my colleagues on all sides of the house will, to see to it that the committee conducts itself in a manner that is a credit to parliament. It is my hope that the committee can return with recommendations that will win wide approval, not just on the basis of individual conviction but on the basis of sheer logic and which will be creative, constructive and beneficial to the broadcaster and public alike.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, the views of this group in general were very ably put forward this morning by

Broadcasting
that provocative, political parliamentary-prophet and philosopher, the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). I say "provocative" purposely because he is a man of ideas. He does not worship at the altar of fixed dogma, whether it is related to personalities, philosophy or ideas.
In reading my correspondence, Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting to learn that people do not all agree with the hon. member. I do not always necessarily agree in detail with the hon. member for Port Arthur, but at least he causes those people to think and that is a very important function of any agency or any member of parliament in our society.


Mr. McCleave:: He is a great help to your party.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In our opinion, Mr. Speaker, this committee could perform a very useful purpose-it does perform a useful purpose particularly in the changing conditions and circumstances that exist today with respect to radio and television

in an annual review of the circumstances with respect to the C.B.C., the public sector of broadcasting and the private stations.
The hon. member for Port Arthur suggested that there be recommendations, and if I heard him correctly one member rather criticized the suggestion that the committee should make recommendations. Let me say on behalf of this group that when the hon. member for Port Arthur mentioned a review and recommendations he did so in the same spirit as that mentioned by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith), that is, in the fashion of an opposition member moving a motion urging the government to give consideration to so and so. They are simply suggestions made in accordance with the opinion of the members of the committee and public opinion; they are offered to the administration of the C.B.C. or the private stations in Canada in a helpful spirit.
I am not going to repeat the excellent analysis of the situation made by the hon. member or deal in detail with his suggestions or criticisms; I am simply going to emphasize one or two points which he made and which I think were warranted. First of all let me say that without a doubt there is a great support in Canada for the C.B.C., and when we offer some criticism, or make some suggestion, we do so in the same spirit as you would correct a child in the family of whom you are very fond, but who you want to see take the right direction and the right course of action.
I hope that is clearly understood.
I think the hon. member made the point that there should be some clarification of the standard-and we agree it is necessary to set a standard-that the program content 
should be 55 per cent Canadian. I think he was on very sound ground. I think 55 per cent is good; you must have some goal to strive for. I do feel that what is meant by 55 per cent content of the program should be, as a result of the experience of the C.B.C. and the listening public in Canada, shall I say, more understandably and clearly defined.
The hon. member made some criticism of the fact that there was a tendency in the C.B.C. to confine the choosing of talent on radio and television to the Toronto area. I support him most heartily in that respect. Possibly it is not any individual's fault. Through some cultural inbreeding in the Toronto area I do think there has been a tendency on the part of those people to consider that creative activities are confined to small groups in the Toronto area and only a limited number of persons in Canada have the capacity to come up with new ideas. I am very pleased that the hon. member suggested that the C.B.C. should carry out a wider search for talent, I think he said in the bracken and the bush, if I heard him correctly. It did my heart good because I live in an area where there is a lot of bracken and bush.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It must be a Conservative area.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do not live in an area of swamps and muskeg where 55 per cent of the population is supposed to be drawing welfare payments.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That will get a lot of votes for your party.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am quoting the premier of Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Read the Toronto Globe and Mail of this morning and you will find that that is an error.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to make reference to some remarks made by the hon. member for Port Arthur and one or two other members, and some slight reference to the hour long television program with respect to President Kennedy's press conference. I am sure it was very informative, but we have to keep these things in balance. We in this group are doing the best we can, with the co-operation we receive, to put the present government out of power but at the same time we recognize that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) is the Prime Minister of Canada and we believe that more time should be provided for the Prime Minister of Canada,

for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and for the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) who is the leader of this group in this house-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or the premier of Saskatchewan.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -to bring before the people of Canada the important things which are being discussed and considered in this parliament and which are very directly related to their daily lives and the future of their children. I do urge that some consideration be given to that so that there is left on the public mind and on the young people's minds of this country the correct impression as to the importance of the parliament of Canada in relation to other governments and parliaments on the North American continent.
Having said that, I must say that I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) and his remarks about the C.B.C. brainwashing the Canadian public and suggesting some sort of, shall I say, code as to what they could do with respect to the presentation of ideas in this country. I think to most this is a new brand of Liberalism. I was thinking of some of the Gladstone speeches that I have read, and the speeches of Asquith, of Campbell Bannerman, of Lloyd George, and of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I am sure that not one of those great past leaders of the Liberal party would ever have suggested that there should be, shall I say, a control of thought on the national radio system of this country. We fought for freedom and freedom of expression, and every person in this country who obeys the law of this land and acts as a good citizen is entitled to that freedom of thought and that freedom of expression whether we disagree with it or not. I am one who believes that given freedom of thought and freedom of expression, in the clash of ideas truth will prevail. If we think otherwise, Mr. Speaker, we underestimate the common sense, the sanity, and the understanding of our democratic institutions on the part of the Canadian people.
I am now going to divert the direction of my thought from the general to the particular, and when I talk of particulars, Mr. Speaker, you will find me well within the confines of Kootenay West. Let me say that the people of the Rossland-Trail area and the Nelson area are very pleased indeed that finally the C.B.C. has erected a satellite station on Red mountain and also a satellite near Beasley bluffs in Nelson. Persons who are receiving C.B.C. programs now write me in numbers and express their pleasure at this opportunity to receive and hear the 90205-6-95
Broadcasting
programs of our national broadcasting system. But when you do that you create an even greater demand on the part of people in the smaller communities who are denied this opportunity to hear C.B.C. programs in the same way as their neighbours in other communities.
I believe it was the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson) who referred to the 18 or 20 per cent of Canadians who are still denied C.B.C. television programs. In my district, Mr. Speaker, there are some 5,000 or more people who to this date are denied the opportunity to hear C.B.C. radio programs while other places have had television service for years. I have had letters from these various places and I urge the minister to bring to the attention of the C.B.C. the great desire of these smaller communities to be served by C.B.C. programs, both radio and television. I have written letters on a number of occasions and have raised the question in the house year after year.
I was informed last year that the C.B.C. was reviewing the question. I realize all the difficulties. These are persons living in smaller communities of a thousand or less who are making a contribution to the wealth of this country, and I think persons living in the smaller communities are, if anything, entitled to receive special consideration because of the particular advantages that television and radio have given to those who are not denied the cultural activities that prevail in the larger centres. Therefore I do urge that this matter be given some consideration.
For years I have made representations in the house and to the appropriate ministers and officials about the need for some sort of satellite community television broadcasting stations, and I am not talking about cable stations at the present time but about those that simply receive the signal and rebroadcast it and which operate on batteries or some other motive power. I was very glad that the department under the former minister of transport gave consideration to this question, recognized the need and drew up a set of rules and regulations. I am very pleased to know that only two days ago the cabinet passed an order in council authorizing temporary licences for the Saddle mountain broadcasting station and the Mount Sentinel broadcasting station. These are temporary licences granted until these communities can in some way obtain C.B.C. programs.
All these stations pick up United States programs and in the first instance the people are pleased to receive them. But in conversation with hundreds of people and in letters I have received from my constituents they tell me that they want to receive the C.B.C. both on television and on radio.

Broadcasting
I realize the difficulties. They are small communities and you cannot expect the public authority to maintain a staff in a small area. I suggest that these co-operative community owned stations are a good solution of the problem but in order that these smaller groups who are doing something for themselves will not waste their limited funds and will take the right course of action I suggest that the Department of Transport, the other departments concerned and the board of broadcast governors should extend further cooperation by providing technical advice through sending engineers there to advise these people as to how they can proceed. I hope that this matter will be given consideration so that the co-operative groups who are operating these satellite television stations may be advised as to how they can now proceed to improve or extend their equipment in order to receive C.B.C. programs.
What I have in mind is this. There is a station now on Saddle mountain which picks up Spokane on one or two channels. Kelowna some 60 miles to the west has C.B.C. programs and I understand from the engineers that by installing another satellite station on a mountain of the range in between it would be possible for the C.B.C. programs from Kelowna to be received and rebroadcast in the Arrow lakes area. I use that as an illustration. Such a project requires technical advice and some investigation, and I urge that the C.B.C. give consideration to assisting these community groups to help themselves to receive the programs of the C.B.C.
There is one other question of local importance. Over the years I have been urging the need for low power relay transmitters and according to the annoucement of the minister I understand that authority was granted the C.B.C. and funds were made available for the establishment of several of these low power relay transmitters in British Columbia. Three of these were to be established in Kootenay West no doubt because the need was the greatest there, one at Nakusp, one in the Balfour-Procter area and one in the Salmo area. Because these people are denied the opportunity to listen to Canadian programs there is growing impatience over the delay that has gone on for years.
I have made some inquiries of the C.B.C. engineers in Vancouver and of Captain Briggs, the vice chairman of the C.B.C. in Ottawa. I am informed that the delay has been occasioned by reason of negotiations between the C.B.C. and the C.P.R. as to the line service to be provided and so on. I have discussed this matter with local officials of the C.P.R. and I am informed that the C.P.R. is the prime contractor in the provision

of line service for the C.B.C. in Canada, that even the C.N.R. has to subcontract from the C.P.R., and that this is the cause of the delay in our district.
For instance, the C.P.R. provides line service for a low power relay transmitter at a place called Slocan on Slocan lake. That line service is provided over their lines from Nelson to Slocan lake. The line service from Slocan lake or Slocan city as we used to call it-it is not a city now-to New Denver is sublet to the B.C. Telephone Company. Then the line service to serve Nakusp will be provided by the C.P.R. Because it is an old telegraph line requiring parallel copper wires, I understand, and a lot of renewals as far as poles are concerned, there has been some hesitation on the part of the C.P.R. to do this. This means that not only does the C.P.R. deny us our steamer service and our passenger service but they are actually denying the opportunity to thousands of people to listen to the C.B.C. over low power relay transmitters.
I have had a lot of letters about this matter, Mr. Speaker, and a good many of them from Conservatives who are, I might say, very disturbed about the government's actions in other directions, but I shall not go into that this afternoon. I urge the minister to bring this matter to the attention of the C.B.C. and see if something cannot be done to speed up the provision of Canadian low power relay transmitters to serve these small communities which even to this day are denied the opportunity to listen to Canadian radio in spite of the fact that we have had radio service in Canada for many years now.
The final matter I wish to bring to the attention of the minister has to do with a private station. We have a private radio station at Trail and one at Nelson and on the whole these stations are performing a good community service. A few years ago I used to receive a lot of criticisms but I find that the criticisms are becoming less from year to year. They are performing a good community service, and in that regard I think our system is excellent with its combination of publicly and privately owned stations, the one type serving the nation on networks and the other serving local communities. I believe a local station can provide the local colour and interest that it is not possible to provide from a central point in Ottawa. However, I do have a complaint to make with respect to station CKLN in Nelson.
Let me explain that the Nelson News and CKLN, the radio station in Nelson, are both owned by the News Publishing Company. The Nelson News is an advocate of free

enterprise. During the last provincial election this newspaper urged the people to support the principle of free enterprise, the spirit of competition, and keep them alive. This is what I am trying to do today, Mr. Speaker. This incident relates to the practice of this principle, and it is the one unfortunate slip in principle they have made to date. I have told them I am very seriously concerned about it as are large numbers of persons in that area.
Another newspaper has started in this area and it publishes bi-weekly. It is taking advertising away from the Nelson News. The publisher of the weekly made a contract with CKLN to advertise over the station by means of these flash broadcasts. The day before his newspaper comes out he advertises that it is coming out and mentions the topical issues he will be discussing, as well as the places in which the newspaper can be purchased. This is the letter he received from the manager of this private radio station: Dear Mr. Carlton:
We seem to be on the horns of a dilemma these days, a dilemma which must be obvious to everyone.
Now that your paper is establishing itself as a regular advertising medium, seeking its business from the same customers as ourselves, it is not reasonable that we should be defeating ourselves by building up in any way the success of a business competitor We, therefore, are invoking section 7 of our contract. As of today's date we are serving you with 10 days notice of cancellation of your advertising contract No. 726.
I would further bring to your attention items 4 and 6 of the conditions of contract.
Yours sincerely,
A. R. Ramsden, Manager.
Naturally the owner of this newspaper was indignant, as were a number of the businessmen who advertise in this newspaper. The point is that there is only so much advertising to go round and the Nelson News wishes to keep that advertising for itself. This radio station is a public utility operating under a licence given by the people of Canada. I have had a good number of businessmen speak to me about this.
In any event, I brought the matter to the attention of the chairman of the board of broadcast governors, and he had his legal advisers review the situation. In their opinion, there was no provision in the act to deal with the situation. The matter was considered also, under the direction of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), by the officers of the combines investigation branch, but it was not considered they could take any action.
I consider this is a matter which should be discussed by the committee. Here was the only radio station over which this newspaper 90205-6-95J
Broadcasting
could advertise, and the newspaper was denied those facilities by a station which received a licence to operate what is, in effect, a public utility.
I have introduced a private bill dealing with this question after receiving advice on the matter. We approached this question from the point of view of the Canadian bill of rights which was passed by this house last session. I should like to read one paragraph from the explanatory notes contained in the bill.
The Canadian parliament, for public convenience, interest and necessity, has by the Radio Act allowed the crown to grant monopolies by licence to individuals and corporations to operate broadcasting stations for private gain. Under the common law and civil law, therefore, such stations must sell advertising time without discrimination. In 1960, parliament confirmed this law by statute. Section 2 of the Canadian bill of rights applies to provide that the Radio Act and the Broadcasting Act shall not be so used as to violate the rights or freedoms of any citizen: e.g., freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Presumably, the governor in council might make regulations to control such excesses or the minister of transport arbitrarily remedy violations by revocation or suspension of licence.
I do suggest that these are questions which should be considered by a committee. I understand that rarely in Canadian history has it been found that a radio station turned down advertising. I believe there is a principle involved. I am sure the owner does not agree with this action because I know him personally. He served in the same battalion as I did in the war. However, things are a bit tough and there is a struggle for advertising. I think the people involved have forgotten their principle for a moment, and I do suggest this question be given consideration by the committee on broadcasting.
Now Mr. Speaker, that concludes my remarks in general and my remarks in particular as they apply to Kootenay West. I shall now give the floor to one of these gentlemen who appear to have been listening to me with great interest.
(Translation):


Mr.  J. J. Mariel@Chapleau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say only a few words on this resolution and start by giving a short historical account of the situation. I have no intention, of course, of stating the same arguments put forward by previous speakers on the matter, but I should like to acquaint the house with some representations that were made to me and which, in my opinion, are of general interest. Those representations should be carefully considered by this proposed committee which will look into matters of broadcasting in our country. Besides, as was stated earlier, a similar committee was

Broadcasting
established a few years ago. So It is only a matter of resuming the work, of pursuing it and seeing whether some of the recommendations made at that time have been put into effect and whether some improvement has been noted in that field.
Radio broadcasting started in 1922 in this country and has known a remarkable development since then.
Only a short time ago, the future of broadcasting could seem doubtful. In some cases, radio broadcasting was not understood. Its potential commercial value was being overlooked.
In the beginning radio broadcasting had two main features that it has retained since then, namely that its development is due to the capital and labour of Canadians.
In addition, in former years as well as today, private radio stations were often a one-man or a family enterprise.
From 1922 to 1929, Canadian funds made possible the operation of radio. That same financial support is also responsible for other broadcasting mediums, such as television, which has expanded not only in Canada but throughout America in the last few years, that is, since the war.
I have here a brief submitted in 1956 to the Fowler commission, more precisely the royal commission on broadcasting set up by the former government. Thait brief was submitted by the Canadian Association of Radio and T.V. Broadcasters in March 1956.
Summing it up would take too long, of course, but I should like however to underline the general ideas or suggestions contained therein. Quite a few of these suggestions have since been adopted either by the former government or by the present government, after 1957.
The government had been requested at the time to set up an independent commission on broadcasting. Such a commission would have made it possible to correct the existing situation where a state agency was at the same time an operator, a competitor and a regulatory body.
Such a commission would also have made it possible to apply to television and radio, regulations similar to those which operate in other free countries, and also to develop a control structure based on democratic principles.
Such were on the whole the suggestions submitted to the royal commission on broadcasting.
We know now that the independent body requested at that time has since come to life.

It is known as the board of broadcast governors, which is distinct from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Reference has been made in the past- and it is a point worth mentioning, I think, since it should be carefully examined-to leftist and communist influences and infiltrations which have been at work in the C.B.C. for a number of years and which at times were increasing.
A moment ago, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) referred to that situation. A few details have been given on that score. I think the committee should gather more information on the matter.
I would refer the committee to Hansard of July 25, 1955, where names of commentators on the English and French networks of the C.B.C. were mentioned.
I did not get a chance to ascertain all those assertions myself. However, I think that a detailed scrutiny of the charges laid against those people would be welcome and would at least give satisfaction to the public as well as result in a better opinion of the C.B.C. if those charges are not well founded.
If they are not true, let us give precise information, let us prove the contrary; in short, let us inform the public, and the C.B.C.'s reputation will but be improved.
I also have here an editorial written in 1957 about that famous communist infiltration which is reportedly based on information supplied by the trans-Canada anticommunist league. I never had the opportunity to check on that information, but I think the committee would be well advised to get in touch with the members of that anticommunist league, or to request further evidence or specific information with regard to those charges. If they are unfounded, I feel that the C.B.C. and the committee would do a service to the general public by putting the facts in their true light or by pointing out weaknesses that could have existed in the past, so as to prevent a recurrence of such mistakes or irregularities.
I also find in it some findings that impressed me and which were put forward over a year ago following the famous C.B.C. producers' strike.
Those findings are set out in a rather comprehensive article published in the periodical entitled Relations. I should like to emphasize one of its points in order to shed light on the situation. I do not intend to read out the whole article, but only part of it, if you allow me Mr. Speaker.
That article was published in April 1959 in the periodical Relations. I shall not read

all of the article because at one particular point, it does not seem quite exact. I quote:
The C.B.C. has lost the strike. Did not the C.B.C., publish in the Star March 7, on the very day the official agreement was signed, an advertisement which was no doubt sent before a final decision had been reached, clamouring its opposition to all forms of trade union activity on the part of administrative personnel?
A comment in English is added here in brackets, about that article.
I quote:
(Text):
The C.B.C. has not changed its position of being against any form of management union.
(Translation)'
After closing the brackets, the article continues as follows:
It can be surmised that on this point the government-owned organization had been under pressure by big business and had undoubtedly been "advised" by the political counsellors of the cabinet having connections with the magnates of industry and finance. If a C.B.C. representative can still maintain that a "professional union" of television producers, considered as being part of the managing staff, negotiating a collective bargaining agreement, and in a position to resort, if need be, to unbiased arbitration, does not constitute a management union, he should be returned to school.
To me this is nothing less than a charge, insinuating that there had been undue influence or pressure on the part of the political advisers of the cabinet alleged to have connections with industrial and financial magnates.
Mr. Speaker, I think the committee would do well to check up on this. I, for one, do not believe that any political influence was exerted during the strike either on C.B.C. or on the producers themselves. Of course, there was a march on Ottawa. At that moment, some pressure was brought to bear on the members, asking them to intervene, but I believe that, finally, everything was settled by the force of circumstances and by public opinion which, contrary to what might have been expected, I dare say, took little interest in the strike.
Mr. Speaker, let me again emphasize the absolute non-interference of the government which, to my mind, refutes and denies the charge laid in this article of the magazine Relations.
In that famous article I find another idea which I would like to bring to the attention of the committee. This part of the article reads as follows:
What is less known, but should be made known, is the shameful complicity of the Canadian Labor Congress in taking no effective means to see that justice be done, and that the C.B.C. recognize the right to establish unions. What was the reason for this? Many of its officials, being members of the C.C.F. party, felt that a government agency should not be made to lose face. Already political requirements are stifling union basic principles.
Broadcasting
I will go further than the article. According to information I was able to obtain, I would say that the strike might have been secretly instigated by the labour movement just mentioned as a means of determining to what extent the government would intervene.
Possibly C.C.F. members within the labour movement did not wish the strike to spread across the country. But I think they made use of the strike by employees on the French network as a test, with the intention of organizing producers into a management union, as it was called then. I would like the committee to go closely into that matter also. Naturally, much was said about the strike at the time, but I think it would be good to investigate that angle.
Resolutions or suggestions have been sent to us concerning some inquiries that should be carried out by the C.B.C. or perhaps by the B.B.G. In any case, the committee to be set up could look into that.
Then, I suggest that the brief presented last July by the Canadian home and school and parent-teacher federation should be considered. Since one of these questions is of special interest to me, and in order not to take the time of the house, I shall read a passage entitled:
(Text):
Re Television Research.
Be it resolved that the Canadian home and school and parent-teacher federation strongly urge the board of broadcast governors to undertake comprehensive research into the effect of T.V. upon the minds and personalities of boys and girls.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, this question might be studied during the sittings of the proposed committee. It is not a matter of dictating its course of action but by going to the core of this question, possibly supplementary information can be found in that area.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with questions which may be of local interest or with cases picked at random which were brought to my attention and which deserve to be mentioned here, even though they may concern my region more particularly.
Before going into those cases, I should like to go back to an answer given to me by the C.B.C. about a news bulletin broadcast at nine o'clock p.m., May 15, 1959, concerning the Unemployment Insurance Act. I asked for a copy of that bulletin and I will tell you later

Broadcasting
for what reason. This news bulletin reads as follows:
Last night the House of Commons gave second reading to the bill which will increase by 30 per cent the unemployment insurance contributions.
133 members voted for and 34 members of the opposition opposed the measure.
The bill does not make provision for an increase in unemployment benefits but provides for an extension of payment.
As soon as I heard this news, of course, I asked for a copy of it so that I could check it myself because I was under the impression that this bill, when it was adopted, provided not only for an extension of the period of the benefits but also for an increase in the amount of unemployment insurance benefits. It is true that in some cases, the rate of the unemployment insurance benefits might have become lower but on the whole there was a marked increase. I give this example to show that some news bulletins must be checked. And it is desirable that such things be revealed.
As far as I am concerned, I can say that there has been considerable improvement in the C.B.C. since the separation took place and since it has ceased to be the only judge in the awarding of permits; nevertheless, I feel there is room for further improvement.
Mr. Speaker, this is meant as a constructive criticism, and I hope it will be considered as such.
There is another suggestion I want to submit, in addition to those which might be considered by the committee. It is about a particular case which, in my opinion indicates that at times the C.B.C.-and possibly not C.B.C. top officials-does not care about public opinion and does not even care about the opinion of those who take part in some programs. I would like to give a factual example of that.
This year a very interesting T.V. series was started. It goes on at nine o'clock Sunday nights. It is called "Passe d'armes" and is produced with the co-operation of the junior chambers of commerce of the province of Quebec.
I have it from reliable sources that, during its negotiations with the C.B.C., the federation of junior chambers of commerce of the province of Quebec rejected the idea of having a lady on each of the teams invited to face each other on that series, because the junior chambers in general are comprised exclusively of men. To be sure, there are a few

groups of ladies auxiliaries called "Jaycettes", affiliated with the Jaycees-in fact there is one of them in Montreal-but usually the Jaycees admit only men, even though wives or girl friends of members are often invited to help in social activities.
In the first telecast of "Passe d'armes" two teams of male Jaycee's were representing their respective districts.
However, for the second program, the C.B.C. took upon itself to invite a lady to sit with each team and stated that this policy would apply to all programs until the end of the play-offs which will oppose teams from different areas in the province of Quebec.
Thus faced with an accomplished fact, leaders of the jaycee movement, who had participated in the first two programs of the series, could hardly withdraw their cooperation.
I realize that the presence of a lady on each team adds charm to the program. But that is not the point-for there is no doubt in my mind about that-but why did not the C.B.C. try to obtain, through the moderator of the series or the producer, the approval of the junior chamber of commerce. It might have been because of a specific requirement of the sponsor, I would not know. However, one thing is sure, and it is that the C.B.C. has little regard for the opinion of others, and that the co-operation asked of the chambers of commerce does not seem to have received C.B.C. support. In other words, it was a one-way decision.
In my opinion, it goes further than that, since in fact the C.B.C., after making changes or inviting a lady of its choice on each team for a particular program, imposed its will on the junior chambers of commerce.
I may be accused of personalities, but I only want to give an example. On the January 8 program-
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. I have been listening very carefully to the hon. member. I think Mr. Speaker made it quite plain when the committee started that while it would be in order to discuss things which could be brought before the committee it would not be in order to go into details such as might be presented before the committee itself. The hon. member is

now going into specific details of a particular matter which is one which would, perhaps, be better taken up before the committee.
(Translation):


Mr. Martel:: Thank you Mr. Speaker.
Of course, I do not think I will be appointed to the committee that will be established this year. I was not on the committee last year. That is why I saw fit to point out some particular cases which should be considered in the light of facts. In any case, if the committee wishes to consider the question, I will be delighted to provide it with the information I have on hand.
Mr. Speaker, I will abide by your decision and continue with the few remarks I have to make.
There is another somewhat peculiar case. I will not go into details, but it concerns representations made to me by the director of the operations of Radio Nord Incorporee, a radio and television station that may not be located in my riding but whose television programs reach us, as do radio programs of stations affiliated with that network.
I am referring to a program given on December 9, 1960, when all the private networks telecast the conference of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker).
Station CKRN-TV did not have the privilege of telecasting that program, whereas the stations of the province of Quebec, Jonquiere, Rimouski, Matane, Three Rivers and Quebec-in a word all private stations in the province of Quebec-were able to do so.
I want to mention a complaint addressed to me, and on which I might give more ample information to the committee if the matter was found to be of interest.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that, in the northern areas, as the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson) indicated earlier, there are vast stretches of land, and a member who spoke after the representative for Churchill seemed to want to make fun of the great empty spaces and swampy areas, but I must say that in those isolated districts, there are citizens without any means of communication, who can hardly get any news. In short, they are almost cut off from the rest of the country. Yet, those people are entitled to better treatment.
I am thinking of some districts in my constituency, such as Parent, Clova and Senne-terre. With regard to Senneterre, I know that its request for a low frequency station was accepted by the B.B.G. and that it is now only a question of time. I think that people in the
Broadcasting
Abitibi region, and more particularly the people of Senneterre, will enthusiastically welcome the opening of that station.
But as they also would like to have television, various ways of going about it have been suggested to them. A collective tower or antenna, for instance, was mentioned, or the setting up of a satellite station. Those requests are being analysed at this time because some centres are sufficiently populated to warrant a serious study of a network that would reach them.
I want to point out that the mining population of the Chapais and Chibougamau districts has been established there for several years and has contributed not only in pushing the frontier further north, but also in helping the advance of civilization.
Mr. Speaker, I shall now end my remarks and I hope that the committee will study the responsibilities of the C.B.C. in detail and submit suggestions and recommendations to this house, in order to improve the present service as much as possible.
Moreover, I hope that the committee will voice some constructive criticism when necessary, in order to give people in the remote areas more consideration. These people are not second class citizens, but Canadian citizens and proud of it; consequently, they deserve to be treated with the greatest consideration, like all other Canadians. They also pay taxes, and as the population in the remote areas is gradually becoming more numerous, it is time that they get the C.B.C. services.
For all these reasons, I shall vote in favour of the motion to set up this committee.
(Text):


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has served the Canadian people well for many years. The corporation, under successive governments, has been necessary to the development of the Canadian nation and to the development of the bilingual nature of its culture.
There has been evidence in recent years that the government has been prepared to remove some of the powers of the corporation and has been interested in having the C.B.C. develop its commercial revenues to a much wider extent. In my judgment this has weakened the corporation and has called into question the standards of the broadcasts it has been able to deliver.
Because of the size of our country and its bilingual nature it has been deemed necessary to have a national broadcasting system not dependent in its entirety on revenues obtained in a commercial way. Therefore

Broadcasting
governments and the Canadian people have been prepared to support by way of public vote these important services. In our judgment it is essential that the corporation should be independent of political interference. To this end I would suggest that moneys for this service should be provided by statute over a period of five years so that the independence of the corporation will be all the better assured.
I believe that the C.B.C. as a national broadcasting system has the overwhelming support of the majority of Canadians. Many organizations across the country which take an interest in broadcasting have come to the defence and support of the corporation whenever they felt it was necessary. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is one of the great organizations that has taken much interest in the C.B.C. and has presented briefs to the government and the committee on broadcasting in support of this system of broadcasting and has made recommendations as to its improvement. I should like to quote a short paragraph found at page 12 of the submission of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to the committee on broadcasting under date of July 29, 1960. At page 12 of the brief we find these words which set out very well the purposes of a national broadcasting system and the issues involved:
The issue here is basic. Is the content and quality of our national broadcasting service to be guided by commercial interest and necessity, or is it to be guided by the goal of a varied broadcasting service of a high standard which will make its maximum contribution to Canadian life and Canadian culture, and which will be used commercially only to the extent possible without endangering this goal. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and it has been the opinion of many that the quality of television broadcast fare in Canada was and is not good enough, and that moreover this inadequacy could be attributed in considerable part to increasing pressure to meet commercial standards and requirements and to be commercially successful.
Any of us who has the opportunity to watch television has noted the increasing number of commercials that appear on our screens, I think to our own distraction. I feel they make little or no contribution to the cultural life of the Canadian people. I think advertising in this field is being overdone. I suggest the committee should inquire into the ethics of the whole advertising business. I feel there should be a thorough inquiry into the type of advertising used in the sale of drugs and a careful selection made of the kind of advertisements that should appear on our television screens and on the radio. I think the policy has gone overboard in demanding increased revenues from advertising at the expense of the listening public and the standards of programs.

There have been some interesting comments made in the debate today. I have been in the house almost all the time. There have been fewer attacks on and less criticism of the corporation in this debate than on previous occasions. I welcome that indication of greater support.
Reference has been made to some of the programs that appear in Canada. The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) referred to the telecast of Mr. Kennedy's press conference and the great interest this type of program undoubtedly creates. I suggest that the United States in the field of press conferences and national political coverage have given us splendid examples of programs which examples should be adapted to use in Canada.
I have been asked on occasion whether the C.C.F. would support a national televised debate participated in by all political parties and I have answered strongly in the affirmative. I believe such televised debates would create much public interest, would be a good political education to Canadians and would lead to an increased interest in the democratic process.
However, in our country we seem to be going in the other direction. President Kennedy has had a press conference of a particular kind, a genuine press conference. We used to have a program on television called "Press Conference", and on this conference a person connected with the public life of this country would be questioned by a number of members of the press gallery. I am certain this program created a great deal of interest across the nation. The people interested in public affairs enjoyed the programs, and they learned a good deal not only of public policies but of the personalities in the nation who are directing those public policies. We all know the program "Press Conference" has gone by the board. 1 am not certain in my own mind of all the factors contributing to this decision, but I should like to know whether the Conservative members in this house had come to the conclusion that their cabinet ministers had better stay off "Press Conference" and that this was a very poor medium for them to use.


Mr. Morris:: Nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member who has the floor has strayed a bit away from the subject that is before the house at the present time, namely the setting up of a committee. This may be a matter of general interest, but it relates rather to the conduct of political leaders.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, there have been references to a type of press conference that might be used on television. I think it is in

order. The fact that it might be a bit controversial does not lead me to think that that would make it improper to mention it in the House of Commons. However, on that particular point-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member would agree with me that it is not a matter for decision by the house now. What we are deciding is whether to set up the committee. In so far as it is a matter that might be discussed in the setting up of the committee, the hon. member will be within his rights in raising it by way of indicating the desirability of the committee, but I would hope he would not pursue it too far.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, along with the hon. member for Port Arthur, I think this is certainly an area to which the committee might direct some attention. I should like the committee also to make some inquiries as to what happened to the program which was being prepared into the workings of the political parties in the country. I might tell you, sir, that I had a very interesting interview with one of the members of the press gallery, which was directed to this program. The information I have is that somewhere along the line the Tories would not show up and the program was then dropped. They did not want to be on the program and the Liberals said, "If they do not want to go on, we do not want a Liberal-C.C.F. affair, so we will not have anything to do with it, either."


George Clyde Nowlan: On a point of order, I think the hon. member is speculating now on matters for which, if he is serious, I am sure he has no basis in reality whatsoever. If he has not, he should sit down and let someone else rise and we will get this committee appointed and then we will deal with the truth of these fictions that he is creating.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister has no point of order; he is taking part in the debate. I suggest that this is not a fiction at all. If there is an inquiry made into this it will be shown that at the Conservative headquarters someone representing the Conservative party said, "We do not want to take part in this particular program that is being undertaken-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is introducing a subject which, if it is pursued, will of course give the right to other hon. members to deal with it. Maybe this is something the committee will be well advised to take cognizance of, but I think it should not be pursued here in the form of debate other than to refer to it, as the hon. member has already done. I would hope he would pass to some other matters.
Broadcasting


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to do that with this concluding sentence on this particular matter. It is perfectly within the right of hon. members opposite or their organizations to say that they will not go on the program. I am not saying that they have not that right; but I would suggest the committee should look into this whole question of setting up such programs. I think the practice might be considered that if one party will not show up the program should be continued with those who are prepared to take part.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to another area of C.B.C. activities of great importance to Canada and to a great many of the people whom I represent. I refer to the question of an increase in the number of French television outlets in Canada. The C.B.C. has been active in the creation of French radio and television facilities, and I congratulate the corporation on the progress it has made in this direction; but I have felt that parliament itself and the committee should give consideration to providing the necessary funds to speed up the acceleration of this development.
Last fall I had the experience of speaking in one community in my riding which is largely a French speaking community; I refer to the town of Willow Bunch. I endeavoured to say a few words in the French language and made a short reference to the need for French television facilities in the province of Saskatchewan. I indicated that I would support and was supporting this extension of C.B.C. facilities. I was absolutely amazed at the tremendous response that this very short reference has received. I can think of no other item that I have raised in recent months on which I have received more correspondence. I must have had 150 letters or more. I sent out to my mailbox a few moments ago and I now have another letter on this subject. As I say, I have received, I estimate, 150 letters, all of them in support of French television facilities for the province of Saskatchewan and the extension of those facilities to French speaking communities where facilities do not exist at the present time.
I raise this matter in the house at this time to impress upon hon. members the desirability of increasing those facilities within Canada. We in this group feel that those facilities are desirable to emphasize the bilingual and bicultural nature of this country, to give to French speaking Canadians the opportunity to watch and hear programs on television in the French language and to give to our French speaking colleagues all

Broadcasting
across the nation the chance to educate their children in the atmosphere and traditions of their own culture.
I realize that there are certain economic difficulties, since sums of moneys are needed to provide those facilities. I hope the government will give sympathetic consideration to increasing the appropriation in this regard, and I believe they will receive the support and the congratulations not only of the French speaking parts of our nation but of all Canadians who are interested in the development of a distinctive nationhood, and a nation based on the traditional cultures from which this great land has arisen.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member referred to commercials on the C.B.C. Would he do away with them completely?


Hazen Robert Argue: No. If I left that impression I should like to correct it. I think that people who have much more knowledge of these affairs than I would suggest that there is a place for commercial advertising but it is being overdone. There are too many commercials and too much emphasis is being given to obtaining greater and greater revenues from advertising.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker I should like to put forward one point. I hope that the committee will consider increasing the number of low power transmitter stations. I come from a mountainous constituency with numerous valleys and most of these areas are very well served indeed by the C.B.C. or private local stations. The quality of the transmission is excellent and most people are able to receive it. But there are one or two places, and I have one in mind particularly, which are shut off entirely so far as reception is concerned except during certain hours in the evening. They are not able to receive Canadian programs either through the C.B.C. or private stations. To my mind this is a mistake. Their only source of culture or whatever you like to call it, in any event radio reception in all its phases, is the United States, and I think this is a mistake. It is true that the community is not very large but it is actually within two miles, I would say, of the Canadian Pacific railway whose telegraph lines serve low power transmitter stations efficiently within 30 or 40 miles on either side.
To me it seems to be wrong that there are growing communities in Canada which are not served by the C.B.C. or private Canadian stations. Certainly as far as the smaller communities are concerned it is not fair to say
that they should have only a privately owned station and I believe that where feasible such communities should be served by the C.B.C.
I have one point in mind that I think is important. In British Columbia the regular transmission of school programs is now being undertaken and this community is cut off from receiving them. I do not know the exact number of children there but the community has its schools and they should have this facility.
I was quite interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) who mentioned that possibly the difficulty had something to do with the availability of lines. I suggest that the broadcasting committee should look into this matter. For the record, the community to which I have been referring is Christina Lake in the boundary country of my constituency of Okanagan Boundary.


Mr. C. R. Granger (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson) and other hon. members who have made a plea for more consideration of remote areas. I hope the committee will find it possible to make a practical suggestion so that the C.B.C. television and radio stations at Goose Bay, Labrador, can give greater coverage in that remote area. I think it might be in order for me to mention that the C.B.C. radio station at Goose Bay does not reach the northern settlements along the coast of Labrador but the Eskimos there listen to programs in Eskimo broadcast from Greenland. Russian radio broadcasts also come in very well farther north while the C.B.C. does not. I thought I should leave this thought with the committee and perhaps I might also express a word of appreciation for the educational programs which fairly recently were included in the C.B.C. programs broadcast from Goose Bay.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, there are four or five matters which I think the committee on broadcasting, to be formed I presume when this debate ends, should consider. The first one is the fact that we are faced with a rather monumental increase in the amount of money that is to be voted by parliament for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, an increase somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15 per cent. Therefore I think it becomes our duty on behalf of the owners of the C.B.C., the people of Canada, to examine not only the efforts toward economy within the corporation itself but its efforts to find new revenue.
At one time I worked for the C.B.C. in a summertime capacity and I have also worked in private broadcasting so that, so

to speak, I have been on both sides of the fence. I know it is fashionable among some people in the industry to speak of peaceful co-existence with each other but for my part I decry that notion. There has to be co-existence of course, but I would hope that it would be competitive and that the C.B.C. would have no reluctance in getting into the fray and fighting for the advertisers' dollar. In an organization where so much emphasis is placed upon the development of native artistic talents there is always, I suppose, horror at the idea of having an aggressive sales force, but I think that can be done. There is no reason why the cash register and the grand piano should not, as it were, exist in the same room.
In debates of this kind previously I have mentioned the question of advertising salesmanship on the part of the C.B.C. and I also took it up with the officers of the corporation two years ago when they appeared before the broadcasting committee. I understand, though only from a chance remark that Mr. Ouimet made to me one day in the hall in passing, that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation now has some "super-duper" salesmen employed. I would certainly want to find out in the broadcasting committee or have somebody find out what they are achieving and whether it is possible to obtain more of them.
In short, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the C.B.C. will not be shy in the matter of obtaining commercial revenue. I agree to a certain extent with the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) that it can be overdone. I think in the course of a week one gets a complete range of all the soap products that are manufactured in Canada through sponsorship of various programs by the manufacturers of such products. Maybe some other advertiser could be given a better break with regard to sponsoring some of these programs.
The second point that I think should be studied by the committee has to do with the new areas which have been opened up or may be opened up by second stations in different parts of Canada. This is a rather live issue in Nova Scotia where the people in the eastern part of Halifax county, Mus-quodoboit valley and along the shore from Musquodoboit harbour have complained for some time about not receiving satisfactory television service. There is a second Halifax station in operation now and I understand it will be at full power in two months' time. Again, another station farther east will shortly be in operation. This may solve the problem.
90205-6-96i
Broadcasting
However, I think we should have some indication from the board of broadcast governors as to the new areas that are being opened up by the development of second stations because I think second stations not only have a responsibility within the competitive market when they start to operate in competition with the C.B.C. but they should also try to beam their signals in such a way as to give coverage to some people in outlying areas who do not now receive satisfactory television service.
The third point in which I would be interested, and this may be for the broadcasting committee or for the committee on external affairs, deals with the recent curtailment of the budget of the international service of the C.B.C. The result has been to cut the C.B.C. out of several areas in Europe, including Italy I believe where a rather enthusiastic fan club had developed for the C.B.C. international service, one member of which had even sent the head of the government of Canada a cake on behalf of this fan club.
Another point which I believe should be studied relates to the operations of the board of broadcast governors. I say this because there are those who, for political purposes, have been somewhat braver outside the House of Commons than they have inside during this debate in making rather loose allegations against the operations of this board. Knowing the men involved I would say that any scrutiny by the committee- this is my forecast based on the information I have-would result in a decision that the operations of the board of broadcast governors were above reproach. I believe, however, we have to make that examination in view of the remarks made concerning the award of some of the licences in Canada.
If I may take my own area as an example, there have been suggestions that one station manager, a successful applicant, made remarks beforehand that he had the licence in the bag. I believe this remark was made. I know also that remarks were made by the unsuccessful applicant to similar effect. This suggests to me that those who apply for T.V. licences are like the people who fight for the heavyweight championship of the world, and who claim their victory in advance. None the less, remarks like these are presented at political meetings out of context, and they make some people suspicious of the operations of the board of broadcast governors. I hope we will be given the opportunity to expose such remarks for the tripe they are. I have every confidence in the integrity of Dr. Stewart and the other members of that particular board.
Another matter which I think should be studied by the broadcasting committee deals

Broadcasting
with the somewhat thorny subject of comment on the publicly owned broadcasting system. At the first meeting of the broadcasting committee I think we were successful in persuading the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to change its previous policy and to take the step of appointing a full time man in Ottawa. We who have watched Mr. Norman DePoe on his television broadcasts know that an outstanding and impartial choice is made. He praises or damns without partiality at all. I hope the C.B.C. will give more thought-this can be examined by the broadcasting committee-to the appointment of similar commentators elsewhere. I believe this is the practice of the British Broadcasting Corporation, and it is something the C.B.C. could usefully study for Canada and give the broadcasting committee their opinions, pro and con.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think that the committee might-I am not so sure about this point-study the costs of microwave transmissions in Canada with relationship to the second network problem. This may be an unfair thing to ask of the committee in the light of the fact the C.B.C., in maintaining its competitive position, might wish to keep this information confidential. If they do, then I would not favour public exposure of it as it might hurt their competitive position. However, there is this massive and expensive system, and I feel something could be worked out so that the public corporation and private stations might use it, each bearing a fair and proper share of the costs. These points and others I feel should be developed in the committee. I hope I am lucky enough to be a member of that committee because it is a very enjoyable one.


Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay the passage of this resolution, but I should like to say one or two words. I believe that in a large country like Canada broadcasting in all its forms is very important. When we consider the impact and the influence of broadcasting in Canada and also the amount of money which the federal government now spends on all forms of broadcasting, we come to the realization that broadcasting is a very important operation in our country and one deserving the attention which a parliamentary committee can give. It is for this reason, sir, I would support the establishment of this committee.
I know that in this committee there will be a good deal of talk about programs, the type of program and the timing of programs. I should like to make some comments on these subjects, too, but I am not going to do so at this moment. I would think the main

purpose of the committee would be to improve, where possible, the reception in all parts of Canada. If broadcasting is going to be improved-I am including in "broadcasting" radio and television-then it must not only be improved where programs are being received but provision must be made for the reception of programs where no programs are now being received. I would hope that when the committee meets it will not only give consideration to the programs that are received in the various centres all across Canada but will give some consideration to the possibility of providing both radio and television service to those areas which are not now served.
I should like to give one or two examples, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to go into detail as this is not the place to do so. However, I should like to mention one or two points that have a relationship to my own constituency in order to explain the point I am trying to make. On a number of occasions I have brought up the question of the radio station at Corner Brook, CBY. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) will recall the fact that I have referred to this question on a number of occasions. At that time I wanted this radio station to increase its power, change the ground pattern or change the frequency, so that the people who have received this radio station for a number of years, even before Newfoundland came into confederation and who are not now receiving it because of interference from CHEY, Newcastle, which operates on the same frequency, could receive it again. Apparently it was impossible to get this done.
A new station was licensed within the last two or three months, and that station is now covering the whole area which CBY was not willing to serve. Now after the new station is providing the service which these people require the C.B.C. decides that they are going to increase the power. Those are things of the type that I think the committee should consider if they are going to talk about improving radio and television services in areas where they are not received.
I am thinking of another case. We have had within the last two years or so a new television station at Corner Brook. May I say to the minister now that it is doing an excellent job. The only difficulty is that the station has a radius of only about 17 miles. Then 30 miles away from that city of Corner Brook is the large town of Deer Lake-that is to say, large by Newfoundland standards-one of 5,000 people who are not able to receive this station. They are getting no television reception at all.

Another case I have in mind is that of a radio station at Harmon Field where the equipment is owned by the United States authorities and where the station is managed by the C.B.C. with the help of United States personnel. When this station was first built it was to provide television coverage for the United States nationals at Harmon Field and those who happened to be on the outskirts of that air force base. Since the time when the station was built electricity has been provided to a much larger area than that to which is was provided at that time. It is possible now for people to receive television broadcasts if the power of the station were sufficiently strong to provide them. I believe it is possible for the Canadian government to come to some agreement with the United States government whereby the power of this station can be increased.
These are some examples of the type of problems to which I would think the committee, some time during its deliberations, would give some attention, so that they will be talking not only about the programs that are received in the larger centres across Canada but wil also be inquiring into the efficiency of C.B.C. operations in some of the fringe areas. I know that many persons believe that the committee will have much to say about the type of program that is received. They will be talking about commercials and all that sort of thing. These, of course, are legitimate items to be discussed in the committee. However, I would hope that they would broaden their activities and make some inquiries as to those areas in which television and radio reception is not being provided and not being distributed fairly so that if this is a national service, all parts of this country, where possible, will be able to receive the benefits of that national service.


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


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am am glad to have the opportunity of speaking on this occasion. I do not propose to deal with all the matters which have been raised in the two-day debate we have had. It has been a good debate, I would think. Most of the arguments which have been brought forward have been of a constructive nature, and I appreciate the attitude shown by practically all the members who have taken part in this debate. At the moment I am going to deal only with one or two matters which were raised by the hon. member who spoke first in the
Broadcasting
debate, namely the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), who spoke immediately after I had made the motion.
The hon. member was critical of the contents of the motion. He suggested that it was vague and in fact he thought if possible that something had been left out. Actually, Mr. Speaker, nothing was left out. The resolution was that of the law officers of the House of Commons. I checked with them again afterward as whether this was their drafting and the fact is that it was not only their drafting but nothing had been left out. It was drafted in that way for one good reason.
I wanted the committee to have full scope in dealing with any phase of broadcasting with which the committee wished to deal. Last year we were criticized because the committee was set up at too late a date to conduct, as the committee finally decided, any sittings whatsoever. Two years ago the committee was set up fairly early in the session but even then it was under pressure. I wanted the committee this time to be set up as early in the session as possible and I wanted it to have full scope to deal with any point or any matter with which it wished to deal.
It is not for the minister or for the government to instruct the committee as to what matters should come before it. The C.B.C. is not a creature of the government. It is a creation of parliament. It is under the control of parliament. I wanted the parliamentary committee to have absolute control with regard to any aspect of any investigation which it wished to make. Therefore the wording of the motion is such that this control will be permitted.
The hon. member also referred to a statement which he attributed to me-I have not checked the record but I assume he is probably right-to the effect that an opportunity should be given-I may say this was two years ago-at a subsequent session to review the act under which the board of broadcast governors and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation were operating. I hope the com-mitte will decide to make such a review. I should like very much to see them do that. I would hope that in the very early part of their deliberations they would go over the act with the officials and would get the opinion of the officials as to how it is working.
The hon. member-and I will say this before I close this debate this afternoon-said that he also wanted to see an investigation as to the basis on which television licences are granted by the board of broadcast governors. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no matter which in the opinion of the members of the board is more important than

Private Bills
that one. They want an investigation. They resent the imputations and the snide suggestions which have been made in connection with their actions in considering this matter. I personally have a great deal of pride in the record which has been established by the board and I know that Dr. Stewart and the other members of the board, full-time and part-time, are looking forward to appearing before this committee and answering any questions and dealing with criticisms.
I believe it is now five o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and that under the rules we must proceed to the consideration of public and private bills. I would therefore move the adjournment of this debate.


PRIVATE BILLS
Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of public and private bills, the former having precedence pursuant to the standing order in that behalf.


INDUSTRY
Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-4, to provide for a Canadian preference in government construction, purchase and service contracts.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of Bill No. C-4, an act to provide for a Canadian preference in government construction, purchase and service contracts, I think I should first of all set out the reasons why I believe this bill is necessary. It is a well known fact that the policy of this government, as well as of previous governments, is to buy Canadian products wherever possible. It is only right that public funds raised from the people of Canada should be spent as far as possible in Canada.
According to an article in the Financial Post of December 31, 1960 the federal government spent in 1959 a total of $1,362 million for goods and services, apart from wages, salaries and military pay. Government spending, therefore, is of major significance to our economy, and any increase in government spending in Canada which might be brought about by this bill will undoubtedly have a beneficial effect on the Canadian economy in increasing employment and also in the way of being returned to the public treasury in part in increased income and corporation taxes.
As long ago as July 23, 1921 order in council P.C. 2648 directed that all departments
-make purchase of goods of Canadian manufacture only for departmental and other requirements, except in cases where such action would result in the purchase of articles or goods of so inferior a quality as to make this action undesirable.

This particular order in council is certainly not being followed today and, in fact, the vagueness of its wording is such that it would be almost impossible to implement.
Individual purchase orders or contracts in excess of $15,000 are reviewed by treasury board, and it is a well known fact that treasury board does give a preference to Canadian products. This preference is approximately 10 per cent. Therefore, in this area of government purchasing the present practice follows the principle embodied in this bill.
Under very special circumstances, the cabinet has occasionally ruled on Canadian preference. For instance, at a cabinet meeting on March 8, 1955 the coal situation was considered and it was decided that Canadian coal would be used in all government coal burning installations where the laid-down cost of such coal did not exceed the competitive cost of other coals by more than 10 per cent. This decision was reviewed at a cabinet meeting on February 18, 1958, and because of the difficulties facing the Canadian coal industry this price preference, on the recommendation of the dominion coal board, was increased to 20 per cent of the laid-down cost. The government annually buys about a million tons of coal, nearly all of it for building heating, and this increase in price preference was of major importance to our depressed coal industry.
Contracts for the building of ships for the navy and the Department of Transport are negotiated by the government or else, if competitive tenders are called, only Canadian yards are allowed to bid. We have shipbuilding yards on both the east and west coasts and on the great lakes, and government shipbuilding contracts are divided between these three regions.
It is certainly in the national interest to maintain ship construction and repair facilities in these three areas and to maintain the highly technical and skilled staffs necessary for this type of work. Therefore, I think it can fairly be assumed that the government has had in the past, and has now, a policy of "Buy Canadian" and extends a price preference to Canadian manufacturers. I think it can also be assumed that where government purchasing will help a depressed area with chronic unemployment problems, this preference can go as high as 20 per cent, as in the example concerning the purchase of coal I have just referred to.
Another example of how the government can take special measures to help a particular industry or company is the case of the subsidy given to Britannia Mines in British Columbia a few years ago. If this subsidy had not been given a whole community on Howe sound would have had to move in the depth of winter because even

the supply of heat and power for the miners' homes depended upon the operation of the mine's power plant.
Nevertheless, there are wide areas of government purchasing which have no clearly defined directive setting out a policy of Canadian preference. I refer to the thousands of purchase orders and contracts under $15,000 which are placed by scores of purchasing agents in the various departments of government. There may be individual departmental directives according to the thinking of the individual minister responsible for the department, but there is no clear-cut over-all policy applied uniformly to all departments. The one rule which does apply to all departments is that the lowest tender meeting specifications is to be given first consideration. On contracts over $15,000, treasury board does have the authority to take into account whether the lowest tender is the proper tender to accept, having due regard for the interest of the taxpayer and the well-being of the Canadian economy as well. In other words, treasury board can and does approve a higher tender if in its opinion the beneficial effect in terms of employment outweighs the increase in cost. Treasury board can do this because it has cabinet representation and is in a sense a policy setting board. The individual departmental purchasing agent does not have this authority and must go by the general rule in regard to the lowest tender being accepted as long as the tender meets all requirements.
There is another area of government purchasing which is not subject to any control at the present time in this regard. I refer to crown corporations such as the Canadian National Railways, Trans-Canada Air Lines, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and other government boards and commissions which report to and are responsible to parliament but which are not direct government departments under the immediate control and direction of a minister of the crown.
Crown corporations have multiplied in the past few years and have increased in importance to the point where their purchasing impact on the Canadian economy has become of major importance. These crown companies need pay no attention to the policy of the government but can set their own policy, and in many cases this policy does not conform to either the policy of this government or of previous governments in regard to a Canadian preference.
Government departments have from time to time been given directives to "Buy Canadian" but crown corporations have never been given any such instructions. In fact, in several
Private Bills
instances at least, Canadian companies have not even been given equal consideration with foreign suppliers.
For instance, all of the engineering services for the building of the C.N.R. multi-million dollar Place Ville Marie project in Montreal were contracted to engineering firms in New York city, although we had equally competent engineering firms in Montreal, Toronto and, I might add, Vancouver. It is safe to say that literally hundreds of engineers, draftsmen and technicians were employed in New York on a Canadian job though these same skills may have been unemployed in Montreal or Toronto.
The C.N.R. would say in advance that this is the responsibility of their agents, but I do not think it would have been too difficult for them when they were negotiating this contract to have given instructions to have written into the contract that Canadian engineering services, Canadian products and Canadian materials were to be used in carrying out this project.
The same instructions could have been given to R.C.A., the C.N.R. agents who are now building a microwave system in northern British Columbia and the Yukon. If this instruction had been given I know of several contracts, now gone out of the country, which could have been retained in Canada. I know of one project which would have resulted in approximately 100,000 man hours of labour in Vancouver which was, in fact, lost to this country as a result of the operations of the present system.
I wish to repeat the statement I have already made, namely that there are wide areas of government spending which are not covered by present government directives. An act of parliament would cover all these areas as they exist today and as they may exist in time to come. An act of parliament would give legal sanction to a Canadian preference and an act of parliament could declare this preference in wide terms which would be a guide to officials of government departments and agencies subordinate to this house who have the responsibility of spending public moneys in the purchase of goods and services. Government policy would be set by this house rather than being left to the discretion of scores of purchasing agents in government departments and crown companies who now have no clear rule to guide them. I believe the adoption of this bill will be equally beneficial to the Canadian economy by giving leadership to the various provincial governments.
Provincial purchasing policies usually favour local products, and in certain provinces local products have price preference over products from other provinces. I have pointed

Private Bills
out that the federal government does try in certain ways to give a Canadian preference but I know of no province which does this. The provinces tend to think of 10 Canadas rather than one and I know of instances where foreign goods have been purchased instead of Canadian goods when the price difference was as little as 2 per cent or 3 per cent.
The provinces pay lip service to the purchase of Canadian goods by saying that Canadian goods shall be purchased, all other things being equal. This is no preference at all. The only preference which has any validity is a price preference.
We cannot have regional prosperity in Canada if we do not have national prosperity. This house can give leadership to all governments in Canada, provincial and municipal, by adopting the principle of this bill.
No discussion of this bill would be complete if we ignored the possibility that it might jeopardize our trading relations with other countries. Prosperity in British Columbia is dependent upon a healthy export trade as is indeed prosperity in most of western Canada. We want a continuing export trade pattern. We know that trade is not a one-way street. If we wish to sell we must also be prepared to buy. We are extremely proud of the fact that since this government took office each year has seen an increase in our export trade and also a healthy diversification in our trade pattern with record sales to the United Kingdom and commonwealth markets, and to Europe as well.
In spite of these substantial increases the United States still remains our most important market. The United States could not take exception to the provisions embodied in this bill because their own laws extend a preference in United States government purchasing two or three times greater than that set out in this bill. In fact, all western industrial nations through either formal laws of their parliament or by government directives give a preference to their own citizens in government purchasing. As long as the preference we extend is reasonable and does not become all exclusive because it is set at too high a figure, I am convinced we will not be subject to criticism by other countries. In fact, under the present system, importers have a legitimate criticism of the government in regard to contracts valued at over $15,000 which are reviewed by treasury board, because they do not know where they stand. They do not know what preference will be given to their Canadian competitor.
Treasury board has a leeway. Treasury board has a range in which it can make a

decision. If a foreign competitor happens to be as much as 11 or 12 per cent lower than the Canadian bid the Canadian firm may still be chosen by treasury board, particularly if this contact would give aid to a depressed area suffering from chronic unemployment.
At this stage of the bill we are concerned only with its principle and not its details. Nevertheless I should like to touch upon some of the clauses of the bill in a general way. I have already received a letter from the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers who are also speaking for the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada pointing out that the proper method of retaining a consultant in either of these fields is by negotiation and not by tender. At some later stage, therefore, this bill will have to be amended and a new clause written to cover professional services and to delete reference to this service in the general clause dealing with service contracts which would still be allotted on a tender basis.
This is a highly complex bill and there may be other clauses which will require either slight or major modifications as well. I would suggest that if this bill is given second reading today it should not be proceeded with further but should be sent to the standing committee on banking and commerce where interested organizations and individuals can be heard. This committee could act as a sounding board for Canadian opinion on this subject and the evidence secured would be of tremendous advantage in helping the government draft its own legislation on this subject.
A private member does not have the resources for research which are available to the government and it is therefore not too difficult to point out flaws in legislation proposed by private members, yet many of the ideas behind these bills are worthy of further consideration.
For instance, I have had on the order paper for the last two sessions a bill dealing with the publication of financial statements of wholly-owned Canadian subsidiaries. In the throne speech this year the government indicated that it would bring in its own legislation on this subject. Undoubtedly some department of government is now attempting to draft legislation in line with announced government policy. I am quite sure that if my bill on this subject had been referred to a committee of the house for study the evidence given before that committee would be of great assistance and guidance now in the drafting of government legislation on this matter.

Private Bills
If this bill is sent to a committee the clauses which define a Canadian company will certainly be given very close study. This problem was faced by the Right Hon. James Lorimer Ilsley. Mr. Ilsley set out three requirements which must be met before a corporation could be considered a Canadian company. These requirements are found at pages 27 and 28 of the report of the advisory committee on war claims. The first requirement was that the central management and control should be in Canada. The second was that it should be engaged in active trading activities in Canada either directly or through subsidiaries. The third requirement was that a substantial part of the corporation's capital should be Canadian. Mr. Ilsley felt that as the policy of this country for many years had been to encourage the inflow of capital in resources development and secondary industries it would be inappropriate to require a large proportion of the capital to be Canadian before regarding the corporation as Canadian.
In fixing the proportion of Canadian capital Mr. Ilsley followed the agreement of 1948 between the United States and Yugoslavia regarding claims of the United States government against the government of Yugoslavia on account of the nationalization of United States companies. Under this agreement the United States government considered a company to be a United States company when Americans owned 20 per cent or more of the stock. Mr. Ilsley concluded by saying:
If the passing of these three tests is required in determining whether a corporation is Canadian, it will in my opinion have the effect of singling out corporations whose real interests are Canadian and whose successful operations are of importance to Canadians.
Provision for exemption of contracts singly or by group is contained in clause 3 of the bill which reads:
(2) The governor in council, where it is in the public interest or necessity so to do, may by regulation provide that this act shall not apply, in whole or in part, to a class or group of contracts or may by order provide that this act shall not apply to an individual contract but every regulation or order so made shall be tabled in the House of Commons within fifteen days after it is made or, if parliament is not then in session, within fifteen days after commencement of the next ensuing session.
I believe hon. members on all sides of the house should support this bill, Mr. Speaker. It may well be that its objectives could be covered by a new government directive which would clearly set out a policy for all government departments and would cover crown corporations but, in my opinion, an act of parliament can accomplish this objective in a much better way.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, with a proper respect for the usual rules of procedure I hesitated, in all modesty, before rising to give an opportunity to one of the non-commissioned officers or one of the privates on the official opposition benches here this afternoon. Possibly they are going to speak later. Because of the ability of the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Tardif) to get into the Ottawa papers and to do battle with Charlotte Whitton I would give him the rank of sergeant-major. I am the first parliamentary broom from the opposition benches, Mr. Speaker, to start sweeping on this bill introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome).
First of all, I must say that we in this group agree with the spirit and intention of the bill. We look upon it as a pro-Canadian bill, not an anti-American bill, one designed to tidy up, shall I say, our own housekeeping in the public sector of our economy by showing some preference, when it comes to public purchases and so on, for Canadian goods.
I listened with interest to the hon. gentleman's remarks. It is obvious that he has given some considerable thought to this question and I think that merits mention. When a member takes the time to give some thought to a problem of this sort it means he is interested in the problem and he is doing his best to perform his duties as a member of parliament. It is obvious, as he says, that it is a complex bill. There are 10 sections dealing with the definitions and making provision for the administration of the purposes and intentions that he expressed during his remarks.
In looking at the bill I was interested to know that an order in council had been passed on July 23, 1921, P.C. 2648, which in a somewhat ambiguous way, I would say a completely unsatisfactory way, attempted to do in some respect what the hon. member is attempting to do by the introduction of this bill. I presume the introduction of the bill by the hon. member was prompted by his knowledge of this order in council, by the circumstances that exist in Canada today and by the past and present government's failure to do anything about it-on that score we give him full marks-and to deal with the situation objectively and to seek definitive authority as a result of legislation brought before this house.
However, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did say that this is a complex bill. I have read it through a couple of times. There are many aspects of it that require a thorough examination. While we agree with the spirit and the intent of the bill, we think that before legislation of this type is adopted hon. members must have more information as to

Private Bills
all the circumstances surrounding the situation that exists and the situation the bill aims to correct.
We agree with the hon. member who introduced the measure that the bill should go before the banking and commerce committee. This committee would have the opportunity to call witnesses and hear evidence and obtain the views of the witnesses for or against the bill. In this committee there would be an opportunity to call officials of the appropriate departments of government to give information as to the effect this measure would have in achieving the objectives outlined by the hon. member who introduced the bill.
It is a complex subject, and its many ramifications want a thorough study, in the opinion of this group. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard):
That this bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Mr. J. A. Habel (Cochrane):: Before the question is put, Mr. Speaker, I would say I have no doubt in my mind of the sincerity of the intention of the hon. member who introduced the bill. I represent a riding which has a large investment of United States capital, for which we are very thankful indeed. My riding contains an industry which provides employment in the whole district, for which I am thankful. It seems to me that this bill is being introduced at a very bad time. In fact, if one just thinks of the happenings of a few days ago one recalls that two ministers of the present government went to the United States to meet the new administration down there to try to sell more oil in that country. The more we talk about preventing the United States selling or investing in this country the more harmful it will be to good understanding between the two neighbouring countries.
I hold in my hand a number of clippings. I will not mention them all; but only a few things in connection with them. I have a clipping from the Ottawa Citizen dated January 25, 1961, and the heading of the article is:
Bark of Canada worse than bite,-U.S. Investors.
I find the following in the article:
Most expressed annoyance, not alarm. They feel that the move will not hit their present holdings too hard, but they might be reluctant to invest further in Canadian plants if they are to be singled out by the tax collectors.
This indicates how careful we should be when we are dealing with our neighbour. [Mr. Herridge.l
I have a clipping from the Montreal Gazette, dated January 26, which reads in part as follows:
Canada's trade relations with the United Kingdom have reached a critical point where imports from the U.K. may be restricted by measures designed to solve other problems.
This goes to show that if on the one hand we are to lose the United Kingdom market it would be wise for the present government to consider our neighbour's market. As I said a moment ago, a delegation went to the United States to try to bolster our oil sales to the United States.
Regardless of what my good friend in the C.C.F. party who just preceded me had to say about our being more or less silent, I think I can speak on behalf of the official opposition and say it was simply a case of giving way to the hon. member because it was understood that I was going to speak on this matter. I thought it was my duty and also the duty of the official opposition to make our position quite clear about the whole matter.
I should like to refer to an editorial in our local newspaper, the Timmins Press of January 25, which is headed, "What Is Our Trade Policy?" If I try to link trade policy with the bill, Mr. Speaker, it is because we must be careful if we want to find markets in which to sell our own goods. The first paragraph of the editorial reads as follows:
In any discussion of worsening relations between Canada and the United States, the Diefenbaker government must be regarded as the chief sinner.
The last paragraph reads as follows:
What they are concerned about-or should be- is the development of our business and industry. The vacillating and self-contradictory position of the government has puzzled United States investors. Perhaps it may force Canada to go it alone economically at a time when more investments are vital to our continued economic growth.
So, Mr. Speaker, although the bill may have been presented in all earnestness and sincerity, I think this is a matter that should be dealt with, very carefully; and we should seek to understand what would be the result of such a move with respect to our trade with other countries.
I also noted that the sponsor of the bill stated there was a clause in it providing that the governor in council may, when it is found to be in the interests of the public, exempt any group or class of goods. What is the use of having such a bill if it has a clause in it stating that the governor in council can do whatever he likes? It means that the bill will be absolutely useless. In the explanation of that clause it is stated that group exemption regulations become invalid if not approved by the house in 30 days. What would happen if

contracts were signed two weeks after a session ended and the next session did not begin until six months later? What would be the worth of having such a clause in the bill? I leave it to the house to judge as to the necessity of much a measure. For myself, I do not even see any necessity of sending the bill to a committee for further study.


Mr. J. F. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few remarks in connection with the bill I can only say that I was very surprised indeed to hear some of the comments made by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel), and I understood him to say that the views he expressed were those of the official opposition. With the number of representations I have had from trade unions across the country and particularly from my own area urging that a policy of buying Canadian products should be followed in order that the members of these unions may be employed, it is certainly surprising to me to find the opposition taking this position.
Personally I do not have any great objection to United States firms. The principle I would follow is that the goods are manufactured in Canada and produced by Canadian workmen is the essential fact that we must consider. In view of some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Cochrane it would surely be a ridiculous position for the government to provide for winter works as it is doing and to make money available for sewage projects throughout the country if that money is going to go to the United States to provide employment in that country. That is what I understood the hon. member to say.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: That is not what I said.


John Ferguson Browne: The
hon. member will correct me if I am wrong. I understood him to say we should not worry about bringing in goods from the United States. I also find it surprising that he should have taken that attitude because preference for goods made at home is a policy that has been applied by many other countries. I wrote to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association some time ago regarding their program to encourage Canadians to buy products made in Canada in order that employment may be provided in this country. Here is one point they make in their reply:
I might note here that many other governments, notably Great Britain, Australia and, to a certain extent, the United States of America have seen fit to make domestic buying an instrument of national policy.
So that the very country to which the hon. member referred takes the attitude that
Private Bills
they should follow a policy of giving preference to purchases in their own country. I mentioned earlier the representations I have had from trade unions. I think we should perhaps give some consideration to an extension of the provisions of the bill and that when the federal government makes money available to municipalities or provincial governments they should see to it that the money goes to purchase goods made in Canada wherever possible. Money spent in this way involves a growing portion of our national financing. Much of the money spent by the federal government is spent in the form of grants to provincial and municipal governments to provide for various projects.
I can see some other benefits in the government pursuing such a policy at this time. It is true, as the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) has said, that the general policy has been to buy Canadian products wherever possible but it has been left to individual departments of the government and in many instances purchasing agents are not as aware as they might be of the policy of the department. In the letter I have from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association there is this statement:
Many cabinet ministers have already expressed their desire that their departments follow the buy Canadian principle when buying. There have been many encouraging reports that their desires are being met.
I think the proposal that the government should give preference to Canadian products is only part of the whole problem because to be of real consequence the same policy has to be followed by everybody in the country. The only thing that can keep Canadians working is the production of goods in our manufacturing plants throughout the country and when these goods are produced they have to be sold. No one can expect people to buy goods if they are completely outrageous in price or of inferior quality, but generally speaking I do not think the people of Canada have realized the necessity of buying Canadian goods where possible.
When goods are of equal quality and equai in price I do not think that in many instances our people are conscious enough of buying Canadian products. In many cases this is perhaps brought about because of the advertising of United States products over and over again on television and in publications, a problem that the royal commission on publications is dealing with at the present time. People are familiar with the names of United States products and companies to a large extent. When our own products are equal in quality and equal in price, surely under these circumstances there should not

Private Bills
be the slightest doubt that we should follow a policy of preferring to buy Canadian goods.
I was very pleased to hear the hon. member for Vancouver South suggest that the bill should be sent to a committee for study because in my opinion it is a most important matter. It is one upon which an opportunity should be provided for the expression of views in order to ascertain what action this parliament might take. I do not know of anything else that could be done that would do more to create employment in Canada if it were pursued to the fullest extent.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I should like to correct the impression left by the hon. member who just took his seat. I must say that I never had in mind the giving of preference to United States goods. The point I was trying to make was that it is this kind of bill that creates the impression in the United States that we are trying to prevent them from investing in this country. My point was that as a young country we certainly need their investment.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the amendment before the house is one to which there is no opposition and perhaps it should be endorsed with the greatest amount of speed in order that the subject matter may be dealt with by a committee of the house, and in order that the interested parties might appear before that committee to present their views. I shall have more to say about that in a moment.
I think the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel), by deferring his opportunity to speak, as it were, to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), has really proved a statement made a few weeks ago by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) to the effect that the C.C.F. is the effective opposition. I understood the hon. member for Cochrane to say, and if I misunderstood him I certainly hope I will be corrected, that the position of the official opposition was that it was opposed to this subject matter going to a committee. I hear no voice raised to correct that understanding, so I assume it is correct. This is typical Liberal philosophy. Let us not be concerned about what other people think, but let us cram our ideas down their throats. You know the type of C. D. Howe activity that existed for so many years.
I support the idea of giving this matter extensive and detailed consideration such as can be given by a committee. You will note that it has always been our approach here that private members' bills should be given this treatment and not just left to die on the order paper as most of them are. One or two interesting things have been drawn to my attention which touch upon the subject matter [Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway)
of the bill. I have in my hand a joint Canadian National Railways-T.C.A. pass or credit card such as has been issued, I imagine, to every member of the house as well as to a number of other people in Canada. We know that both the Canadian National and T.C.A. are crown corporations and, presumably, would have the interests of the nation at heart. I have noticed that on the back of this particular credit card there are the words "Printed in U.S.A."
This really makes one wonder whether the Canadian National or T.C.A. even bothered to inquire as to whether there was a company in Canada in a position to print credit cards of this nature. I understand that there is such a company in existence. Perhaps this is something that these companies should clear up for us. I think perhaps T.C.A. and the Canadian National should review their policy in this regard and perhaps follow out the general idea we all have about Canadian purchases.
I have been told also, and I have no reason to believe it is incorrect although I did not take the opportunity of checking for myself, that there is a new men's washroom on the sixth floor close to the parliamentary restaurant. This is in the process of being decorated and provided with coat hooks. There is a stamp on these coat hooks which indicates they were made in the United States. It would seem to me that perhaps the people who purchased this particular item might have shopped around a little bit more to ascertain whether coat hooks of this nature are made in Canada. I am of the opinion that they are.
I only want to reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that I think we all realize the government-I do not confine these remarks to this particular government-has not all the brains in the country or all the brains in parliament. One of the reasons that private members, such as the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) introduce these bills is the hope that they will become law. When an individual prepares a bill and introduces it he is sincerely of the opinion it is a good piece of legislation and will be beneficial to the interests with which he is concerned. I know that this is the case here.
I think perhaps what should happen, not only to this bill but to all such bills, is that they should be referred to committees in order that they may be tested in the arena of public opinion, and tested against the statutes to ascertain whether there is any conflict and whether the idea should be advanced, rather than have such bills talked out day after day and die on the order paper. I feel that in this way we would be showing more respect for the ideas and views

of the private members of this house, and we would be assisting the government in coming to a conclusion about those matters which it has not yet considered.


Mr. R. C. Coates (Cumberland):: I should like to take a few minutes of the time of the house to make a few comments on this bill. First of all, I should like to indicate my surprise and shock at the attitude of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel) when he spoke for the official opposition and indicated his opposition to this bill. In effect, the official opposition is saying that they oppose this 20 per cent preference provided for Nova Scotia coal which is moving to government institutions throughout Canada. This attitude is quite a shock to me because I would have thought that with the situation as it is at the moment the official opposition would be more than willing to adopt the attitude that this bill should be referred to the committee on banking and commerce in the hope that consideration would be given to increasing this 20 per cent preference rather than eliminating it altogether. The elimination of this preference would only result in far greater damage to an industry that is now having tremendous difficulty in finding markets.
I know when some people read this bill they might feel that the 20 per cent preference being provided for Nova Scotia coal is rather high. When we consider the tremendous benefit that the sale of Nova Scotia coal has on the economy of Nova Scotia, and indeed on the whole of Canada, I believe people would be more than willing to continue to provide this preference and, under present circumstances, give serious consideration to increasing it.
One of the main reasons why this 20 per cent preference has not accomplished all it might have accomplished is the tremendous transportation costs which coal is obliged to bear in order to arrive at the market where it is in demand. From the attitude of the hon. member for Cochrane I am forced to assume that he would be much happier if thermal plants and government institutions in Ontario and Quebec were to use United States coal. Certainly from his words it would be most difficult to assume otherwise. In his statement he said that this was the view of the official opposition. We must therefore assume that this is the view of Liberal members in general, namely to withhold this preference from Nova Scotia, even though we on this side of the house at least are aware of the tremendous difficulties being faced at the present time, with the closure of the mines imminent.
Private Bills
I should like also to say that it was this government that increased this preference from the former 10 per cent to the present 20 per cent, thus indicating our belief that at least 20 per cent in the way of preference should be placed on coal. Indeed, it is my feeling that an even greater preference should be provided at the present time.
I should like to go further and say that this bill in the form in which it is presented, contains many of the things that I feel are necessary. Certainly we have undertaken to do many of these things through treasury board and by other means. However, as the mover pointed out, there are many purchases made under the $15,000 limit to which there is no positive direction given to those making the purchase on the 10 per cent preference that we feel is so necessary.
I can point out a specific example in my own constituency in which a great deal of reinforced steel is produced and sold to contractors in the Atlantic area. When I was first elected I immediately ran into the problem of European steel coming in and usurping a great deal of the market that had once been available to this firm that provided steady employment for over 100 of my constituents. This European steel was coming in and was being used in public works projects and in projects under contract to the Department of Transport. I learned of this situation and brought it to the attention of the departments. They acted quickly and saw to it that a 10 per cent preference was provided. In many instances I found this European steel was coming in at a price that even a 10 per cent preference could not look after. It could almost be said that it was being dumped in the country, having regard to the price being asked for it in comparison with the cost of production in Canada. However, I will say this. The departments of government acted quickly and efficiently, and today I am happy to report that on most of the contracts that are let in the Atlantic area Canadian materials are again being used. Certainly from an employment standpoint, from an income tax standpoint and in fact from every standpoint it is wise to use Canadian goods whenever possible.
I am certainly happy to support this bill and to support the recommendation that it be referred to the banking and commerce committee. Again I want to say how greatly shocked and alarmed I was to learn that the official opposition opposes this bill and opposes in principle the 20 per cent preference that is at present given to coal.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Never.


An hon. Member:: You said it.
1520	HOUSE OF
Private Bills


Robert Carman Coates: If this is their attitude when they are in opposition certainly the people of Nova Scotia can be well aware of what their attitude would be if they were ever in government again. We would be back to the sad old 22 years when we received nothing, nothing, nothing.


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenporl: Mr. Speaker, if there is a minute left, I should like to point out one thing in connection with this bill. Although the emphasis is on the matter of preference to Canadian goods, no matter how well we may deal with this preference and no matter how well we may phrase the language of this act, unless we do something with respect to the specifications that are submitted for the tenders, all our efforts will be to no avail. If these departments and the officials who are making up the specifications were more Canadian conscious and tried to specify Canadian goods, I feel we would have a preference for Canadians even without this act. However, I often get the impression, when we are finding out whether or not a Canadian firm is getting the work, that the specifications have required some item for which they must go to a United States firm in order to get it. That situation is prevalent in many of our departments. As far as this bill is concerned, my opinion is that if our officials were more Canadian conscious we would have less requirement for this bill. However, I think it is a good bill and I want to compliment the hon. member for bringing it before the house.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It is now six o'clock by my clock and I note that it is some minutes past six o'clock by the one on the left. It must be the weather.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Chevrier:: May I have an indication of what the business will be on Tuesday and Wednesday?


George Clyde Nowlan: I cannot go beyond Monday at the moment. As I told the house last night, on Monday there will be a motion to go into supply. It may be that the usual pattern will be followed and that this debate will go into Tuesday. At the moment I can only say that on Monday we shall be dealing with that matter. On Monday night I believe the house leader will be back and he undoubtedly will be able to inform the house what the business will be.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the acting house leader say what the business will be after the motion to go into supply has been disposed of?


George Clyde Nowlan: I cannot give a definite commitment but I assume that it would be the conclusion of the debate on the setting up of the broadcasting committee and the setting up of the committee on railways, airlines and shipping. I shall have to consult with the house leader when he returns tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, January 30, 1961