[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. LOCKHART:: 1.	What are the total approximate amounts of cut limestone that have been used in the construction of federal public buildings in Ottawa during the last five years?
2.	What approximate amount of such limestone has been purchased from each of the provinces?
3.	What amount of Queenston limestone has been purchased during the above period for the construction of public buildings at Ottawa?


Mr. RINFRET (for Mr. Cardin):: 1.	3,967 cubic feet.
2.	From Quebec, 2,001 cubic feet; from Ontario, 1,966 cubic feet.
3.	1,966 cubic feet.
Note.-The above figures represent the actual quantity of cut stone used in buildings. No information as to total quantity of rough stone purchased for -this purpose.


SLOT MACHINES
Mr. LECLERC:: 1.	How many slot-machines were imported into Canada during the year 1937?
2.	Is the importation of such machines increasing from year to year?
3.	What are the customs and excise duties on such machines?
4.	Is the government aware that some are smuggled into the country?
5.	Is the ordinary operation of slot-machines in public places considered as legal?
6.	If not, would it not be in the public interest to have such importation prohibited?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1 and 2. This -information is not available from statistical compilation.
3.	Slot machines are dutiable according to the material of which they are manufactured and their finish. If nickel-plated to the extent of 50 per cent or more of the exposed metal surface, -they are classified under tariff item 362c at 33J per cent ad valorem, intermediate tariff, less a discount of 10 per cent, under the Canada-France Trade Agreement Act, to the benefits of which the United States is entitled as a most favoured nation. If not plated to the extent mentioned in the directly preceding paragraph, and the articles are composed in chief value of iron or steel, they are dutiable under tariff item 446a at 25 per cent ad valorem, under the Canada-United States trade agreement. The articles are also subject to the special excise tax of 3 per cent on the duty paid value and the consumption or sales tax of 8 per cent on the duty paid value.
4.	While an occasional seizure is made of smuggled slot machines, the government has no information of any systematic smuggling of such articles.
6* This involves a question of opinion and depends upon the facts surrounding each case.
6.	See answer to No. 5.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-ROLLING STOCK
Mr. BROOKS:: How much money was spent by the Canadian National Railways for purchase of rolling stock and equipment during the past five years (by years): (a) in the province of New Brunswick;
(b)	in the Dominion of Canada?


Mr. HOWE:: (a)	Nil. None manufactured in the province.
(b) 1933	$ 1,594.880 OS
1934		 6,109	00
1935		
1936	
5,561,322	811937	
15,493,614	84Total, locomotives, cars and other equipment	$22,655,926 73


MONTREAL POST OFFICE EMPLOYEES
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	How many post office employees in Montreal are over 65 years of age?
2.	What are their names and addresses?
3.	Who recommended an extension of time in favour of each of such employees?
Questions


Mr. EULER (for Mr. Elliott):: 1.	16.
2	and 3.
Employees over 65 years of age who have been given extensions of employment: Name-Extension Recommended by Brophy, D. M., Acting Postmaster General. Lavoie, J. W., Postmaster General. Brophy, W. P., Postmaster General.
Gagne, J. A. A., Postmaster General. Flynn, Edw., Postmaster General.
Francis, C. H., Postmaster General. Ferland, J. Alb., Postmaster General. Desilets, J. E. H., Postmaster General. Girardin, E. R., Postmaster General.
Employees over 65 years of age who have been granted an extension of employment but who are now on retiring leave prior to retirement:
Name-Extension Recommended by-Remarks
Francoeur, E. G.; Postmaster General; on retiring leave since February 23, 1938.
Gaudet, C. L. V.; Acting Postmaster General; one month's extension granted. On retiring leave since March 1, 1938.
Depocas, J. H. A.; Postmaster General; on retiring leave since April 9, 1938.
Employees over 65 years of age who have been given no extension of employment and who are now on retiring leave from the date they reached the age of 65.
A.	A. Archambault, C. J. Miller, J. A. Dubois, Edw. Moore.
The department does not keep a record of the addresses of the individual members of the operating service staffs.
retirement of judges at seventy-five Mr. FERLAND:
Is it the intention of the government to take any action upon the resolution of the Canadian Bar Association in favour of placing judges on the retired list with full salary on attaining the age of 75 years, but permitting them to sit ad libitum upon the request of the chief justice?


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: This question involves a matter of policy, and if action is taken it will be announced in due course. I must say, however, with respect to the last part of the question, that it would require provincial legislation.


Mr. BENNETT:: The acquiescence of this parliament.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, first.


DOMINION ARSENAL, QUEBEC, EMPLOYEES
Mr. TREMBLAY:: 1.	How many people were employed at the dominion arsenal in Quebec during each of the following years: 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937?
2.	Has the dominion arsenal been moved from Quebec to Valcartier? If so, when?
3.	How many people are presently employed at the dominion arsenal at Valcartier?
4.	How many people are presently employed at the dominion arsenal in Quebec?
5.	Is it contemplated to add to the present personnel either at Valcartier or Quebec?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Year	Number employed
1934		 261
1935		 253
1936		 346
1937		 506
2.	No.
3.	Eleven.
4.	Five hundred and thirty-nine.
5.	Not yet determined.


JULIUS MILLS
Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	Is Julius Mills, of Waterways, Alberta, holder of a tug-boat master certificate?
2.	If so, when was the certificate granted?
3.	Before whom was he examined?
4.	What experience did the said Julius Mills have previous to the granting of his certificate?
5.	What experience did he have in the forepart of a vessel of over 5 tons?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	June 27, 1935.
3.	Captain Lionel H. Lindsay, Supervising Examiner of Masters and Mates, Vancouver,

4.	Seven years and one month on the following ships from 1913 to 1935:
Gross
tons
Mackenzie River	 413
Grahame	 415
Fort McMurray	 661
Ryan Bros	 5
Canadusa	 21
5.	A portion of the above time was served in the dual capacity of deckhand and engineer, but considerably more than thirty-six months was served on deck, which service in such capacity qualified a candidate under the Masters and Mates Regulations then in force for the certificate above stated.


FRED HANSLEY
Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	Is Fred Hansley, of Waterways, Alberta, holder of a passenger mate's certificate for minor waters?

2.	If so, when was the certificate granted?
3.	Before whom was he examined?
4.	What experience did the said Fred Hansley have previous to the granting of his certificate?
5.	What experience did he have in the forepart of a vessel of over 5 tons?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	June 27, 1935.
3.	Captain Lionel H. Lindsay, Supervising Examiner of Masters and Mates, Vancouver, B.C.
4.	Two years, seven months and twenty-three days on the following ships, from 1930 to 1935, inclusive:
Gross
tons
Rallim	 15
Northland	Echo	 532
Canadusa	  21
5.	Served seventeen months and twenty-one days as wheelsman and fourteen months and two days as deckhand, which service in such capacities qualified a candidate under the Masters and Mates Regulations then in force for the certificate above stated.


CANNED VEGETABLES
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	What was the value of vegetables canned in Canada during each of the years 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, and 1937?
2.	What was the approximate number of cases of canned vegetables for each of the said years?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Selling Value
Years	at Factory
1932		S 8,296,652
1933		 8,257,296
1934		 10.876,830
1935		 12,101,138
1936		 13,963,401
1937	 Not yet
available.
2.	Number of
Years	Cases
1932		4,229,268
1933		 4,531,542
1934		  6,062.374
1935		 6,602,822
1936		 7,410,145
1937		 9,260,803 (*)
(*)Preliminary figures, subject to revision. MEAT EXPORTS TO UNITED KINGDOM


Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	What was the value of meats exported to the United Kingdom during the years 1936 and 1937?
Questions
2.	What proportion of such exports were ham and bacon?


Mr. EULER:: 1.
1936	 $28,267,137
1937	 36,190,212
2.
1936	 88'9 per cent
1937	 89-7 per cent


ST. SEBASTIEN, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. HEON:: 1.	On what date did the position of postmaster at St. Sebastien, Beauce county, province of Quebec, become vacant by the death of Mr. Jos. Michaud?
2.	Has a new appointment been made according to the law?
3.	Were there returned soldiers who were qualified for the position and who made application ?
4.	Did the Canadian Legion recommend a Mr. Belanger, military medal, of St. Sebastien?
5.	How many applicants were there to this position?
6.	Have returned soldiers the preference when qualified?
7.	If no appointment has been made, when will it be?
8.	Does the government always favour the appointment of a returned soldier when he is qualified ?


Mr. EULER (for Mr. Elliott):: 1.	2nd January, 1938.
2.	Yes.
3.	An application was received from Mr. J. A. Belanger, but he was not a patron of the St. Sebastien de Beauce post office and therefore, was not qualified under the residence regulation.
4.	Yes.
5.	4.
6.	Yes.
7.	Appointment already made.
8.	Yes.
l'etete, n_b., lighthouse keeper


Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	Who is the lighthouse keeper at L'Etete, New Brunswick?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	Was there competition for the appointment ?
4.	Is the present appointee a returned soldier?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Prescott H. Dines.
2.	Permanently August 7, 1937.
3.	Yes.
4.	No.
imports and exports


Mr. LAWSON:: _ 1. What was the total of all importations into Canada during each of the fiscal years 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938?
Questions

2.	Of such importations what proportion in
dollars came from:	(a) the United States;
(b)	United Kingdom, for the fiscal year 1938?
3.	Of our total domesti' exports what proportion went to: (a) UnitoJ States; (b) United Kingdom, for the fiscal year 1938?


Mr. EULER:: 1.
Fiscal years ended March 31
1933		 $406,383,744
1934		 433,798,625
1935		 522,431,153
1936		 562,719.063
1937		 671,875,566
1938		 799,069,918
2.	United States, $487,328,980; United Kingdom, $144,978,493.
3.	United States, $423,130,638 or 39-5 per cent of total; United Kingdom, $409,412,135 or 38-3 per cent of total.


BKACEBRIDGE, ONT., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	When was the former postmaster of Brace-bridge, Ontario, dismissed? What were the reasons for his dismissal; what was his length of service; will a copy of the letter, with all correspondence, be laid on the table?
2.	Will the dismissed postmaster, Mr. Perry, receive a retiring allowance in view of his long service?
3.	Who has been appointed to the position, what are his qualifications, and how long has he resided in Bracebridge?
4.	On whose recommendation was the present occupant, Mr. William Huckle, appointed? How many applications were received, and from whom?
5.	Who prepared the text of the letter of dismissal sent Mr. Perry?
6.	How many days elapsed after Mr. Perry was dismissed before his successor took over the office?
7.	Have any protests been received by the government against Mr. Perry's dismissal?
8.	Was the present occupant appointed by the civil service commission ?
9.	Will the special committee on civil service be requested to look into this case?


Mr. EULER (for Mr. Elliott):: 1.	(a) 30th April, 1938.
(b)	Postmaster over 87 years of age, deaf, leaving the supervision and management of the office almost entirely to his assistant.
(c)	59 years.
(d)	Yes, if the usual order of the house for return is passed.
2.	No. Postmasters in charge of offices of the class of Bracebridge do not contribute to any of the superannuation funds and are not entitled to pension or retiring allowance.
3	and 4. William C. Huckle, a returned soldier, and a patron of the office since 1928,

was placed in temporary charge on the recommendation of S. J. Furniss, M.P., pending a permanent appointment by the civil service commission. The civil service commission has since been requested to advertise the vacancy and to make selection of a permanent appointee.
5.	Prepared in the office of the District Director of Postal Services, Toronto.
6.	Dismissal was authorized on the 27th April, and the temporary transfer was effected on the 30th April.
7.	No.
8.	No.	[DOT]
9.	No information.


VEGREVILLE-VANCOUVER RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE
Mr. HAYHURST:: 1.	Which trains carry letter mail from Vancouver, British Columbia, to Vegreville, Alberta, and from Vegreville to Vancouver?
2.	Which trains carry parcel mail between the above points?


Mr. EULER (for Mr. Elliott):: 1 and 2. The routing followed in handling mail of all classes between Vancouver, B.C., and Vegreville, Alta., and between Vegreville, Alta., and Vancouver, B.C., is as follows:
Vancouver to Vegreville-
C.P.R. Trs. 2 and 4-Vancouver to Calgary; C.N.R. Trs. 525-527 and 521- Calgary to Edmonton; C.N.R. Tr. 6- Edmonton to Vegreville.
Vegreville to Vancouver-
C.N.R. Tr. 5-Vegreville to Edmonton; C.P.R. Tr. 524-Edmonton to Calgary; C.P.R. Tr. 1-Calgary to Vancouver.


IMPORTS OF FOX PELTS
Alfred Johnson Brooks: What was the value of fox pelts imported from the United States to Canada in each of the years 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1938?


William Daum Euler: Fiscal Years ended March 31
1935	S 89,386
1936	 184,581
1937		 270,567
1938		 172,224



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BERTRAND (Prescott):: 1.	Was any federal contribution made for public works in Ontario during the year 1937? If so, to what amount?

Questions as Orders for Returns
2.	Has the federal government contributed to any highway construction in the said province during 1937? If so, on what highways and to what amount?
3.	Is the federal government still owing the
province of Ontario on:	(a) public works;
(b)	highway construction?


LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES-ASSETS, DIVIDENDS, ETC.
Mr. FAIR:: 1.	What were the total assets of life insurance companies in Canada on March 31, 1929?
2.	What were such assets on March 31, 1938?
3.	What amount was paid out as dividends during the period from March 31, 1929, to March 31, 1938?
4.	How many policies lapsed during the above period, and what is the total amount of such policies?
5.	How many policies were surrendered for cash surrender value during the same period, and what is the total amount of such policies?


ARGENTINE CORN RECEIPTS AT QUEBEC ELEVATOR
Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	What quantity of Argentine corn arrived at the elevator of the Quebec harbour commission at Quebec city between September 25, 1936, and December 31, 1936?
2.	What grain firms were the importers of such corn, and at what rate or rates was storage charged and collected for the period such corn remained in store in the said elevator?
3.	What has been the expenditure at the ports of Windsor, Sarnia, Goderich, Owen Sound, Collingwood, and Midland, Ontario, and Three Rivers, Quebec, for the years 1922 to 1936 inclusive?
4.	What are the quantities of corn imported into Canada in each of the years 1930 to 1937 inclusive for each of the following purposes: (a) starch manufacturing; (b) cereal manufacturing; (c) distilling; (d) other purposes, and what, in each case, was the country of origin ?
5.	(a) What were the quantities of Argentine
corn imported into Canada between September 25, 1936, and December 31, 1936;	(b) what
were the quantities of corn arriving at each of the various ports in Canada where such corn was unloaded from ocean boats; (c) what was the highest, lowest, and average c.i.f. price of such corn?


ARTHUR AYRE
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	Has Mr. Arthur Ayre, of Turtleford Saskatchewan, been appointed to the Department of Indian Affairs or to any other position in the public service of Canada?
2.	If so: (a) when; (b) to what position;
(c)	at what salary?


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INSPECTORS IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	What were the monthly salary and expenses of the following federal government inspectors in the province of Saskatchewan:
S.	Banks, B. J. Brockman, R. V. Cameron, J. A. Davis, A. W. Daurie, B. S. Dermody,
S.	Forsyth, T. P. Hagerman, C. Henderson,
S.	Hogan, A. P. Humphrey, J. L. Laurie, S. McBain, W. Mitchell, B. A. Newton, H. L. Roberge, D. M. Robertson, J. F. Symington, H. S. Thompson, F. W. Widdifield, W. Hagarty,
0.	Parker, G. Andrew, L. S. Bricker, J. W. Rose, R. E. Gleiser?
2.	What were their home addresses, and where were they employed?
LOUIS DREYFUS & COMPANY


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Has the Minister of Transport recently concluded a special agreement with the Louis Dreyfus & Company or any of its allied or subsidiary companies for the handling of grain through the government elevator at Quebec?
2.	If so, what are the rates charged under this special agreement? Are the rates lower than those approved by the board of grain commissioners?
3.	What are the storage rates to be charged, if any?
4.	Do other elevators at Sorel and Three Rivers, privately or otherwise, participate in the said agreement?
5.	Were the terms of the said agreement submitted to and approved by the board of grain commissioners prior to its acceptance and completion?
6.	Under the Canada Grain Act, what authority determines or approves of the schedule of rates or tariffs charged in elevators operating in Canada?



RADIO LICENCE FEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I wish to refer to a question, which I asked *the other day, and in reply to which the statement was made yesterday by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe):
The information was sent forward by our department some days ago but apparently the return has not been brought down. However, for the information of my hon. friend I may say there was no correspondence.
I cannot quite understand that explanation in view of the fact that in the evidence before the radio committee it is mentioned in several instances-and I have copies in my hand- that there was correspondence. In fact, it
Farmers' Creditors Act

says definitely that there were letters, and extracts from the letters were read in the committee. I asked for copies, and the minister says there is none. But the chairman of the board and the vice-chairman say there were.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: Apart from my hon. friend being out of order, I might call his attention to the fact that he has the information, and yet he wants to get it from the house.


Charles Edward Johnston: I wanted copies of the letters, in order to ascertain the true facts for myself.



FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. 25, to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I desire to
point out only one factor which I think should be considered by the government concerning instructions which may be given to those who are charged with the administration of the act. I have had my attention directed recently to a case in which a value of about $9,000-$9,552, I think, was the exact figure- was placed upon mortgaged premises by the soldier settlement valuator. The mortgage on the property is for $11,500, and it was suggested that it should be reduced to $7,500. payable over a period of ten years, and that the rate of interest should be reduced from five to four per cent. I desire to point out one principle which, I think, has been overlooked with respect to the administration of the act. Bankruptcy contemplates the liquidation of the assets of the insolvent and the distribution of the proceeds pro rata among his creditors. That is to be kept in mind as the real basis of all bankruptcy legislation-realization and distribution. We applied the general principle of bankruptcy to the farmers' creditors and afforded them relief on that basis, but obviously we did not contemplate realization. The difference between true bankruptcy and the application of the bankruptcy principle is to be found in the fact that, instead of realization, we contemplate the retention by the debtor of his premises; but we afford him an opportunity to pay his creditors the same rate on 
the dollar as though there were an attempted realization, the theory being that realization would be at such a low figure that any amount of money which might be paid to the creditors would be so small that it could be easily discharged and met by his continuing to occupy his farm and to make out of his operations sufficient money to pay the rate on the dollar that would be realized by a forced realization or liquidation of his property. When the act was passed we contemplated the application of a principle which, I submit, has been overlooked. It is a very simple one: First, one that is now recognized, that there should be insolvency; and, second, that we should, in arriving at values, keep in mind prospective as well as present-day values.


Mr. DUNNING:: That is one of the difficulties.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As long as the minister
grasps my point-


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, quite.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -that is all it is necessary for me to say for the moment on that aspect. Inasmuch, therefore, as we contemplate a prospective value within, I submit, the period of time given for adjustment, it is incorrect for the boards to take the valuation of to-day, placed by their appraisers upon these properties, for the purpose of determining what the amount of the obligation on the property should be.


Charles Avery Dunning: Its earning capacity is
an important consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the earning capacity also involves an estimate based upon a present-day value, whereas we contemplate a revival of business in this country and an improvement in conditions that will be reflected in increased prices for agricultural commodities and products and a corresponding increase in the value of the properties themselves.


Charles Avery Dunning: I meant that earning
capacity is one of the factors in determining the present-day value.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Earning capacity for
the purpose of determining present-day value is not, as the minister knows, the sole factor.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it has been a factor. I do not want to get into a general discussion, but I wish to put my proposition to the government as clearly as I can.

C.N.R.-Refunding
1.	Bankruptcy, which is the basis of this legislation, contemplates realization and distribution of the proceeds. That is an essential earmark of all bankruptcy legislation.
2.	The Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act contemplates the retention of the property by the debtor, and distribution, not of the proceeds of what it is believed would be realized from a forced sale, but of what is regarded as the amount that would be realized from a forced sale of the property by his creditors, over a period of years.
3.	In arriving at the value of the property, consideration should be given not only to present-day conditions but, as the statute says, to prospective values.


Charles Avery Dunning: Right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I submit that this principle has been departed from in many instances, and that the whole principle upon which we proceeded, the bankruptcy principle, has been disregarded. That has been caused, I submit with deference, by the fact that people have seen their properties reduced in value on present-day valuations by the soldier settlement board without any regard being paid to the prospective values of the properties and their prospective earning power, and that the provision which has been made for the payment of debts has been on the basis of a valuation which is, shall I say, nothing more than an estimate of the amount that will be realized on forced sale, under present conditions.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my right hon. friend permit me? In communications regarding that particular complaint, I must say that in all the cases of which I have recollection the board of review always insisted that it did take into account not merely present forced sale values but prospective values as contemplated by the act. In any correspondence between the administrator under my direction and the judge who is the head of one of the boards of review, the matter comes down usually to one of opinion as to whether or not prospective value has been fairly taken into account. I am speaking now merely of experience, not objecting to what my hon. friend lays down as a sound principle, because I agree with it in every particular. But somebody has to decide. The words "prospective value" are in the act and have been called to the attention of the chairmen of the boards of review on many occasions, and this discussion will serve a useful purpose in again directing that feature to the attention of those responsible for the administration.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Are there not two or three valuators?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. I interrupted my right hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is all I have to say.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PELAGIC SEALING


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries) moved the third reading of Bill No. 98, respecting the North Pacific Pelagic Sealing Convention.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. 107, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for the refunding of matured, maturing and callable financial obligations.
He said: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) was not here yesterday. On a previous occasion he had asked certain questions and I believe I put on Hansard the desired information.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite.


Mr. NEILL:: I believe that this bill is perfectly in order, but in accordance with the ruling given last night I would point out that there are no explanatory notes. Will it be necessary to discharge the order and have the bill reintroduced?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Alan Webster Neill: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the ruling given last night, is this bill in order? I do not want to delay the house, and the suggestion that the bill is not in order because there are no explanatory notes is so patently absurd that I am prepared to withdraw any objection I might raise; but I would call attention to the absurdity of the ruling given last night.


Ernest Lapointe: I think my hon. friend will admit that the objection should be taken before the bill is being considered in committee. The objection should be raised before the second reading; but when the bill has been considered fully, studied
C.N.R.-Refunding

from every angle and reported by the committee, and when it stands for third reading, I suggest it is rather late in the day to raise the objection.


Alan Webster Neill: That is exactly what I thought last night. Standing order 70 reads:
No bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape.
If the Speaker finds that the bill is in blank or in an imperfect shape, he will decline to put the question and will return the bill to the member who must take another opportunity of bringing it up in conformity with the rules.
It is at that stage that the Speaker should exercise his discretion. He did not do so with my bill; he did not do it with this bill; and as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) truly says, it is too late to bring the matter up on second reading.


Ernest Lapointe: No; I said third reading.


Alan Webster Neill: After the Speaker has given official sanction and allowed the bill to be introduced, that is an admission that it is not in an imperfect shape; and that applies to one bill as well as another. I hope we are going to have the same rule apply in the house all round. I have before me a record of ten bills, one a private bill, the other nine, government measures, all introduced and considered. One of them is the relief bill sponsored by the Minister of Labour, and there are two by the Minister of Finance and two by the Minister of Justice. They are all in the same shape as my bill which was ruled out last night. Are they all to be thrown out and begun de novo? The question needs only to be asked to show how absurd it is.


Charles Avery Dunning: On the point of order, may I direct attention to page 348 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. It appears, from subsections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of section 7 there set out, that the ruling in question applies to bills amending existing legislation.


Alan Webster Neill: No.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is my reading of it:
1.	In the preparation of bills amending existing enactments the amendments . . .
That has reference to bills amending existing legislation.
2.	In the text of the bill, on the left hand page, new matter shall be indicated. . . .
That evidently refers to an amending bill.
3.	When a clause repeals an existing section. . . .
That must refer to an amending bill.
4.	A memorandum by the draftsman explaining briefly the reasons for each clause, shall be appended to the bill, or distributed therewith.

That again, in clause 4, evidently relates to an amending bill.
5.	The above rules shall also as far as is practicable apply to the reprinting of bills.
The bill under consideration is an entirely new bill. As I explained on the second reading, it is practically identical with legislation now on the statute books, but it in no way amends that legislation; in fact, it replaces it entirely.


Alan Webster Neill: As regards the rules quoted at page 348 by the Minister of Finance, it is only subsection 1 that has reference to the amending of existing legislation. The others, 2, 3, and 4, do not refer to amending existing enactments. I would point out further the provision that the rules of the House of Commons as to the preparation and printing of bills "must be followed by all departments." I did not know I was a department.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: You are an institution.


Alan Webster Neill: I leave it to the judgment of any legal member of the house whether the words in subsection 1 can be read into subsections 2, 3 and 4 to suit the momentary convenience of the Minister of Finance. The first subsection reads:
In the preparation of bills amending existing enactments the amendments shall not ordinarily be made by clauses which add or leave out words or substitute words for others-
And so on.


Charles Avery Dunning: Read subsection 2.


Mr. NEILL:: 2. In the text of the bill, on the left hand page, new matter shall be indicated. . . .
In certain forms that are set out; and "on the right hand page the enactment amended thereby, or so much thereof as is essential, shall be printed with the proposed changes," and so on. I entirely agree that this bill is in order, but if it is in order my bill yesterday was also in order. I do not see how the minister can escape that position. I should like to hear some legal member say that I am wrong in that regard. I do not think he would stake his legal reputation because he knows better.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I cannot pose as a legal member, but it did seem to me last night that the bill introduced by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) was ruled out on a technicality. I was opposed to the bill in itself, and I would have voted against it; but when it came to the question whether it was in order, it did not seem to

C.N.R.-Refunding
me necessary to rise to support the hon. member on the point of order. I was surprised that he was ruled out of order. It does seem to me, now we come to another bill in connection with which very similar conditions prevail, that we as members should insist that discriminations of this kind should not be permitted. This situation is similar to that which existed last night, and decisions should be uniform and applied impartially.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the Minister of Finance will be good enough to look at the opening clause of the rule to which he referred, he will see that in its application it is not limited to amendments. I was not present yesterday, but it seems to me that the objection taken then is one which would apply with even greater force to the measure now before the house.


Ernest Lapointe: On third reading?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no difference between third and second reading with respect to the matter except that on third reading the bill has gone a step further before attention is directed to the point. I recall once in this house-I cannot recall any other occasion- that the objection had to be taken when the bill was being introduced.


Ernest Lapointe: On second reading?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, before the bill is proceeded with on second reading.


Ernest Lapointe: It comes under second reading after being introduced. There is no other place.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It must be apparent from the bill itself that this has not been done; therefore it would have to be after introduction and printing. When the bill is printed, if there is no explanation it should not be proceeded with. If there has been a violation of the rule with respect to this bill, and attention is now directed to it, it does not seem to me it makes the position any better that the objection has been delayed, except that the Minister of Justice might have said that the discussion in committee obviated the necessity of further explanation.


Ernest Lapointe: That is what I meant.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course that would be true. I confess that on reading Hansard it is somewhat difficult to understand just why that particular rule should be applied at that stage of the proceedings, because the bill had already been proceeded with. The debate
on second reading had been delayed from time to time and no objection had been raised. It has always been uncertain whether or not the rule was limited to amendments. As you read the beginning of it, the rule appears to be intended to cover all; but as you proceed, it seems to be limited more to amendments than bills; it is not abundantly clear that it applies to all; the language is ambiguous at best.


Ernest Lapointe: I think by analogy the position should be taken as being the same as when a bill is standing for second reading and has not been printed in both languages. That is an older rule than this one requiring explanatory notes. I was in the house many years before this new rule about the explanatory notes was enacted, but the other rule was in force. Citation No. 748 in Beauohesne reads:
When the bill comes up for second reading in its proper course, one of the clerks at the table will read the order aloud, and the member in charge of the measure will then move its second reading. The member should take care to inform himself whether the bill is printed in the two languages, as that is absolutely necessary at this stage. The letters E.F. on the order paper will show whether that has been done. If any objection be made on that ground, it will prevent the bill being taken up for its second reading on that day. But if the motion has been made and the debate allowed to proceed thereon, it will be too late then to raise an objection as to the printing in French.
I believe the case is exactly the same when it comes to this defect of the explanatory note not being printed on the opposite page. When Bourinot wrote what I have just read the only rule on the matter was that which required printing in both languages. It is simply common sense that it is on the second reading that this objection should be taken. If no objection is taken then and the bill is allowed to proceed even though not printed in both languages and with no explanatory note, all the explanations required are being given by the minister or the member in charge of the bill, in answering any questions asked; so why should there be a rule asking for explanatory notes when the bill has been explained during perhaps two or three sittings? I think tire rules of common sense apply in parliament as elsewhere; in fact, they should apply more in parliament than elsewhere.


Alan Webster Neill: If the explanation were there, it might influence my vote on the third reading.


Mr. CAHAN:: I remember a previous occasion when I, as Secretary of State, introduced
C.N.R.-Refunding

a government bill, and on second reading objection was taken by the opposition that I had not placed on the opposite page of the *text of the bill the section or sections amended or affected. The Speaker of that day ruled the bill out of order, and I was compelled to reprint the bill and bring it again before the house. The same decision that was given by the Speaker last night was given on that occasion on the point of order then raised by a leading member of the opposition of that day.


Charles Avery Dunning: Was it an amending bill?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is true it did amend; that is, there were amending sections in the bill. If I remember rightly, it was a bill relating to the Companies Act. The Speaker of that day gave exactly the same decision as that given last night, on the same ground.


Charles Avery Dunning: Speaking of former decisions on this point, I find in Hansard for 1931, page 1412, an objection taken to a bill on second reading by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) on the ground that insufficient information was given on the opposite page. Referring to that decision I would call attention to the fact that the bill was an amending one, and the Speaker ruled that the information given on the opposite page was sufficient. The hon. member on that occasion was not sustained in his effort to have the bill ruled out of order. I desire to adhere to my original appeal, which is on the ground that the rules quoted, on page 348, obviously by their language apply especially to amending bills, and the bill of which I am now moving third reading is not an amending bill.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does that statement apply to subsection 4 on page 348?


Charles Avery Dunning: I admit that this is the foundation for the statement of the Minister of Justice that there might be some question, but there is no doubt in my mind that paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 clearly refer to amending bills, and that paragraph 4 may be deemed to do so because otherwise it would have no particular meaning.


Walter Edward Foster: I think the point of order taken by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) is quite correct; though I have not read all these clauses thoroughly, my opinion would be that they deal with amending bills. I should 'be inclined to take that view, but the most important point is that raised by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who quoted citation 748 of Beauchesne. I

think the point is well taken, that the point of order should have been raised when we were proceeding with the second reading of the bill last night. The point being raised at this late date, it is out of order, and I so rule.


Alan Webster Neill: I challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Walter Edward Foster: A point of order having been raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), on the ground that this bill was out of order because certain explanatory notes were not contained on the right hand pages of the bill; Mr. Speaker having decided that the point of order should have been taken prior to the second reading of this bill, and the hon. member having appealed from that decision, I would ask those in favour of the Speaker's ruling being sustained to signify by saying "yea."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yea.


Walter Edward Foster: Those opposed?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


Walter Edward Foster: I declare the ruling sustained.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed on division.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 10, consideration in committe of Bill No. 52, respecting radio in Canada-Mr. Howe-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 4, paragraph (e)

Ministerial regulations.
Mr. COLDWELL:: In the discussion of
this section last evening the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) took exception to some of the policies of the Canadian Broadcasing Corporation, and in so doing mades specific reference to a recent broadcast over the Columbia broadcasting system and the Canadian broadcasting system, in which I participated. The inference from the remarks of the hon. member, which I have read very carefully to-day, I think is both unfounded and unfair. May I just read the paragraph to which I refer:
When we as members of a free parliament start to discuss these matters points of order are raised, but the radio commission permit debates to be broadcast which are certainly objectionable to a large portion of the population of Ontario and some of the other prov-

Radio Broadcasting
inces. I have read a criticism that was made in the British House of Commons of such discussions. The hon. members for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and Essex East (Mr. Martin) spoke over the rado in a network linked up by the CBC with the NBC. I did not hear their addresses as I was on a train at the time. I read, however, with interest, their speeches on other matters.
They discussed what Mr. Cordell Hull said after the Brussels conference.
And so on. Then-and in my opinion this was much more serious-the hon. member for Broadview was followed by the right hon. Prime Minister, who said:
Mr. Chairman, I must say that X find myself very much in sympathy with the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) in the remarks which he has just made. At the present time rve have been very careful not to discuss in this parliament the proceedings of other parliaments, and I believe that a rule which we find it advisable to observe here should also be observed by the commission in connection with broadcasts that may be made under its authority.
These are very critical times, as all hon. members of the house know, and as the citizens of the country generally know. In ordinary times we would not think of criticizing in this parliament the policies of a government or the proceedings of a parliament of another part of the British Empire. The policies of Great Britain, of Australia and New Zealand are their own policies, their own domestic affairs, and it is not for this parliament to say whether Liberals or Conservatives or the Labour party of Great Britain are right or wrong in what they are advocating.
So far as any policy relates to our own affairs, wre are at perfect liberty, of course, to discuss as fully as we please the effect of government policy.
May I point out that in the broadcast in question there was no reference to the policies of Great Britain or even to the policies of this parliament or this government. The broadcast related purely to an academic discussion of the value of the League of Nations. And may I go one step further and say this, that if in a broadcast in the Dominion of Canada in the interests of free discussion to are not to be permitted to discuss policies that are of domestic interest, the moulding of public opinion in Canada is going to be very seriously interfered with. I would also draw to the attention of the committee this fact, that if Mr. Ferguson of the Winnipeg Free Press and Doctor H. L. Stewart, who are commentators on behalf of the radio corporation of this countiy, are to be prevented from expressing their opinions in their commentaries, then I say that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should prohibit the pro-Chamberlain broadcasts from Great
Britain that are re-broadcast over this country. I have particular reference to the broadcasts of Mr. Beverley Baxter under private arrangements with the Canadian broadcasting chain. I am of opinion that it is in the best interests of Canada that our broadcasting corporation should endeavour to get before the Canadian people the various points of view expressed in Canada and elsewhere at this time, because it is necessary that our people shall be well informed regarding all aspects of our domestic and international affairs.
May I point out further that the foreign policy of the Chamberlain government in Great Britain, which, as I have said, in my opinion does not represent the real feelings of the British people, as the recent by-elections show, may involve this country in a serious situation. I have before me a speech of the right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), made in this chamber on February 4, 1937, at a time when the house was discussing a resolution moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). At that time the right hon. gentleman said:
In the constitutional position of Canada today neutrality would mean that an enemy of our king could be a friend of Canada; that we could trade with him during a war in which the king might be engaged; that to nations with which the king might be at war we could send ordinary material, anything that a neutral nation could sell to countries actively engaged in war.
This question as to the right of the dominions to be strictly neutral is one of the questions yet to be solved, and it will not be solved in the way suggested by my hon. friend.
If that be so, the foreign policy discussed by Mr. Ferguson, Doctor Stewart and others over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation chain is a policy of domestic interest to Canada because, if the Minister of Justice is right-and I believe he is-the right of this country to be neutral in the event of war has not yet been established. Therefore the commitments being made by the national government of Great Britain with European dictators are commitments in which this parliament may find itself involved in the future.
I therefore urge upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the government to reconsider any decision they may have taken, to reconsider the statement made last night by the Prime Minister, and not to attempt to muzzle the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in connection with matters of this kind. I want to do more than that; I want to express on behalf of what I am certain is a very large section of our population, our
Radio Broadcasting

appreciation of the manner in which the present corporation is endeavouring to place before the Canadian people the many sides in connection with various problems. I believe that that is appreciated throughout the length and breadth of the country, and I am surprised that a Liberal government in Canada should take an attitude which I regard as distinctly illiberal, and different from the traditional Liberal point of view. After all, those of us who sit in this comer share that traditional viewpoint.


Mr. THORSON:: Just a moment; who is muzzling the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


Major James William Coldwell: I would advise the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) to read the speech of the Prime Minister delivered last night and reported at page 2752 of Hansard. He will find there that the Prime Minister agreed with the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), and that the hon. member for Broadview disagreed with the principle of free discussion of these problems over the air.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No; he simply agreed with the desirability of moderation of language.


Major James William Coldwell: No; there was no question of moderation of language involved. And in the broadcasts in question, and particularly the one in which the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), Doctor Leggett and myself engaged, there certainly was no immoderate language. And yet that was definitely referred to last night by the hon. member for Broadview.
I would also draw attention to the fact that the Prime Minister concluded his observations with these words:
I think it is only right to say what I have said; and possibly more is not necessary at this time to ensure that by the commission itself a policy will be followed similar to that which all hon. members of this house seek to follow in their discussions.
I do not anticipate for one moment that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would permit many of the immoderate statements made in the house; and yet a direct criticism has been made on several occasions of broadcasts I have heard and to which I could take no exception.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: What part of
the Prime Minister's words does the hon. member object to?


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member will find it running quite largely through the entire speech of the Prime Minister. Let us take this statement, for example-


Malcolm McLean: Yes, read the first statement.


Major James William Coldwell: I read:
So far as any policy relates to our own affairs, we are at perfect liberty, of course, to discuss as fully as we please the effect of government policy. What I am referring to at the moment is not whether, with respect to some particular matter, a policy is right or wrong. Each country is free to discuss in its own parliament any policy from the point of view of that country itself. I do not think, however, that one parliament should become critical of the proceedings of another parliament in another part of the world, particularly in times like these.


Mr. GRAY:: Do you take exception to that?


Major James William Coldwell: My point is that the policies specifically referred to last night were not 'policies that concerned another parliament in another part of the world. They were policies which concerned this parliament, as the opinion of the Minister of Justice clearly indicates. Because a policy pursued by the imperial parliament or imperial government might lead us into a position where we would find it impossible to do other than to participate in a war; for when the king is at war, according to the Minister of Justice, we cannot remain neutral. And so I say that that is the 'point at issue. Last night the Prime Minister deplored the discussion of a matter which may be of domestic interest at this time to Canada.


Malcolm McLean: That is not what the Prime Minister said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Read the last paragraph of it.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Does the hon. member suggest-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; he told the corporation not to do it, in the last sentence.


Malcolm McLean: That is not
what he said at all.


Mr. HEAPS:: He was instructing the corporation what to do.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I interrupt? In the
first place, this is entirely out of order, has not anything to do with the present bill or any section of it. When the Prime Minister spoke he was replying to the speech of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) and began his observations in this way:
I must say that I find myself very much in sympathy with the hon. member for Broadview.

Radio Broadcasting
That is his speech. Evidently he was speaking his personal opinion. As for muzzling or attempting to muzzle the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in any way, no action is taken and no action can be taken, except in case of war or emergency. The only law we have on the subject is contained in the bill before us, in a paragraph of section 3 of which power is given to regulate radio in case of war, riots or conditions of grave emergency. The Prime Minister's reference was entirely to paid commentators, and every country in the world. I think, has had its troubles with paid commentators. I know that at least twenty members of the House of Commons have protested vigorously to me against the broadcasts of Boake Carter from the United States, which come in, not over the Canadian broadcasting stations, but direct from the United States stations. They objected on the ground that the broadcasts are most antiBritish. There has also been a great deal of protest against views expressed by our own paid commentators. But paid commentators are in a very different position from my hon. friend when he engages in a series of discussions presenting on the same evening two views of the same subject. Such a discussion, I think-, represents the greatest possible freedom of the air, in that both sides of any question may be presented on the same evening. But to put on the air a paid commentator to present a very biased view on a subject of international importance is something quite different, and it was upon that that the Prime Minister last evening was giving his personal opinion. I think nothing further can be read into his statement, and as far as that goes, the broadcasting corporation has its own legislation which requires it to control the material that goes over the air. The legislation before us permits the government to take over that control only in case of war, riots or grave emergency.
I might add that commentary on the news is absolutely forbidden in Great Britain. No news commentary whatsoever is allowed by the British Broadcasting Corporation.


Major James William Coldwell: Am I to understand that Mr. Ferguson and Doctor Stewart are paid commentators engaged by the radio broadcasting corporation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.


Major James William Coldwell: That is correct?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: I should like to conclude with this thought. The Prime Minister last night said:
-and possibly more is not necessary at this time to ensure that by the commission itself a policy will be followed similar to that which all hon. members of this house seek to follow in their discussions.
It seems to me that there the Prime Minister did lay down a policy, and read in the light of the remarks which preceded it, it would in my opinion make it very difficult for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to continue to broadcast commentaries and news items such as we get from Doctor Stewart and Mr. Ferguson, both of whom give in understandable terms an interpretation of the news.
With regard to Great Britain, I have listened occasionally to rebroadcasts from various places in Great Britain, and if they are not news commentaries I do not know exactly what they may be called. I am thinking at the moment of a number I have heard from a gentleman who was formerly employed in the diplomatic service. I am not certain of his initials, but I think he is Sir Malcolm Robertson. I have enjoyed his remarks, but they are certainly a commentary on the news of the day.
I think I am expressing on behalf of many people the hope and desire that the Prime Minister's remarks-shall I put it this way?- will not be interpreted by the radio corporation or by this house or the country as a warning to the radio corporation not to proceed with the discussion of public matters, giving all sides of the questions involved.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, I should like to state with regard to the broadcasts made by Mr. Ferguson and by Doctor Stewart-I do not know Mr. Ferguson, but I know Doctor Stewart and I have a great respect for him- that these gentlemen are engaged by the radio corporation and are paid what amounts to a stipend for the preparation of the broadcasts which they make. They are supplied with broadcasting facilities from one end of the country to the other, and on several occasions I have listened to them discussing acute international problems in which from my own personal knowledge they trusted to their imagination for the facts; and when on some occasions they did not trust to their imagination they were simply repeating, on occasion, the common twaddle which finds expression in some of the German and other foreign papers.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Will the hon. gentleman give particulars of the statement he has just made?
Radio Broadcasting


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am stating what I know to be the fact, and that is the ground of my objection. If I were to go into particulars I would have to exceed my forty minutes, but there are some things of which I have knowledge.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: If the hon. gentleman-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to make my statement? He may refer later to what he wishes to state.
My objection is made not to the expression of opinion over the radio, because any person who wishes to engage time over the radio to express opinions, which are permissible in the public press, should be permitted to engage the radio for that purpose under conditions prescribed by the radio corporation. which prohibits certain expressions of opinion which are profane or indecent or malicious misrepresentations of the facts. But here are two men, engaged and paid by the radio corporation, who are expressing opinions from one end of the country to the other for which those who engage them and pay them must in the public mind take responsibility. I refer, for instance, to this repeated reference to the Cliveden intrigue, which has been repeated by one of the commentators. Those who know the facts know that those representations emanate from a foreign press and a hostile press, and are not representations of the facts.
All that I took from the remark of the Prime Minister last evening was that with respect to broadcasts which receive the endorsement of the broadcasting corporation, and which are given free facilities, and for which the broadcasters are being paid by it, it is incumbent on those who are broadcasting under those conditions to be careful indeed as to the statements and the expressions of opinion which they disseminate. I think that is a view which is prevalent throughout this country. I have no objection to my hon. friend (Mr. Coldwell) going on the air from time to time, if he can secure radio facilities, to give arguments in favour of social credit theories.


Major James William Coldwell: I object; for I do not advocate social credit theories.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Or other expression of political opinion. He may discuss, if he wishes, .the Quebec padlock law and other measures which he deems reprehensible. But it is oondemnable, I think, and cannot be approved, that in grave international crises men should depend on their imaginations for expressions of opinion which they broadcast by radio. Listening to that Sunday afternoon
[Mr. Thorson.,
broadcast from time to time, you will find that they often do not even pretend to state facts but are stating hypothetical opinons which have no basis in fact. On one occasion I wrote to one of these gentlemen. He was discussing certain international events which arose when I was a delegate to the League of Nations, and the representations which he made he had heard or learned, I suppose, from some gossip. But those representations were utterly lacking in reliability, were a misrepresentation of the events which actually took place, and they had a most pernicious influence from one end of this country to the other, because time and again those statements were repeated by others as though, emanating from that broadcaster, he must have assured himself of the facts before he gave expression to those opinions. It is to that I object, and I know that I express the sentiments of many hundreds of people of my acquaintance. Many have communicated to me their opinions and have protested against that sort of misrepresentations being paid for and receiving free radio facilities worth thousands of dollars for broadcasting on Sunday afternoons from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


Mr. CHURCH:: With reference to what the hon. .member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) said, I think he is under a misapprehension. I was not attacking the hon. gentleman's speech on the radio, in fact I did not hear it. I made the statement about Mr. Cordell Hull of my own volition. The hon. gentleman will find the same observations in my address of March 24, and also on the same date the remarks of a member of the British house to the very same effect as to his opinion of this society. I said further that I had often read the speeches of the hon. members for Rosetown-Biggar and Essex East (Mr. Martin) on other subjects with a great deal of interest, but I did not hear these radio addresses. I did object to the policy of the corporation and these debates; I object to it now and I have objected to it all along. And since the remarks made by me on April 28 objecting to this broadcast the government brought down paragraph (d) of section 3 of this bill, a new section which gives the government of the day power to make regulations in case of actual or apprehended war, rebellion, riot or other emergency.
Dealing with the particular principle referred to by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) I may say that he has been a member of the house for only two or three years. He is a gentleman for whom I have some regard, and I would not make an

Radio Broadcasting
unfounded statement concerning him or anyone else, because I back up any statement I make.
Let me come to what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has been saying around the Toronto district. The effect of his words is nothing but pacifism. As a result of the British Broadeasting Corporation's policy with regard to this matter, objection was made to that corporation as I pointed out last evening to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). It was made by whom? By the secretary of state for war, Right Hon. Leslie Hore-Belisha, and by the Prime Minister of Great Britain. For what reason? Because of the activities of this society, the League of Nations society. Objection came from Poland, from Germany, from Italy and two or three other countries to what these people were saying on the radio, with the result that the British Prime Minister has brought in the very same provision that is contained in paragraph (d) of section 3 of this bill.
Pacifists, of whom the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is one, have had their day in this country, but it will cost us thirty-six millions for defence this year. I objected last night to this part of the radio corporation's program. Let it be understood that I am not criticizing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or any official connected with them. The corporation was created by the former prime minister, and I am one to give them a show, but I have always objected to these debates on controversial matters. They do not convert anybody. We have had several of them on the radio, and people are getting sick and tired of them; they would rather hear music. I may say to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, who purports to represent the younger people, that the young people take more interest in social matters and sports than they do in polities, pacifism, radio debates and that kind of thing. As a consequence of the British Broadcasting Corporation's program of debates of this kind and similar propaganda, the secretary of war, Right Hon. Leslie Hore-Belisha, said Britain was expending hundreds of millions on rearmament.
What has happened since 1921 as a result of trying to bring people together through the League of Nations? The league is dead, and the British Broadcasting Corporation have been instructed by the government of the day along the same line as the Prime Minister indicated here last night. I refer to the words I used on March 24 in connection with the national defence estimates as
proof of what I said last night. The secretary of war in England said that this propaganda through the B.B.C. had hurt recruiting and done the empire untold harm. He objected also to what some of the clergy were saying, and to all this campaign of pacifism. Now see where pacifism has brought the mother country. She faces insult and invasion, all as a result of this policy of disarmament in the old land. The minister of war has had difficulty in getting recruits. He brought the matter up in the House of Commons and told the pacifists in the house that they had had their day. They have had their day in this country, too, and I can say, as I said last night, that we are just where we were a hundred years ago. You have no army, no navy, no armed forces; you are depending on the people of the mother country for your liberty and defence. That attitude seems to be very popular in this house; in almost every question that comes up we are told that we belong to the American continent; and I was glad to see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) bring in this paragraph (d) because the minister and the Prime Minister were being blamed unjustly for the broadcasts to which I have referred. I alluded to the matter on April 28, and at the end of the discussion these remarks were made:
Mr. Church: You had better send for a lifesaving station.
Mr. Bennett: Was the consent of the government sought?
Mr. Howe: No.
Mr. Bennett: It was not sought or given?
Mr. Mackenzie King: No, that is right.
I objected then and I object now to this linking us up with pan-American propaganda on such a controversial subject as defence and foreign affairs. It is not in the interest of a united empire. We are not dependent upon the Monroe doctrine and pan-Americanism, we are depending on the British fleet, army and air force and the British people who are now so heavily taxed for Canada and the empire. Facts are facts. I agree with every word that was so ably said the other night by my right hon. leader m Chalmers church as to what we owe to Britain. I was sorry that the press, although it could publish four pages of ballyhoo about hockey, could devote only a few lines to the references made in my leader's speech to this matter of what Britain has done for us and the empire.
I say, as I said last night, that there are thousands of people, intelligent people, in this country who are sick and tired of the

Radio Broadcasting

League of Nations society and the pacifist ideas which are spread through the schools as well by this agency. I object to it as a citizen and on behalf of the constituency I represent. This League of Nations society is doing and has done a great deal of damage to rearmament, as it did in England until it was checked by the Right Hon. Neville Chamberlain.
In conclusion, may I say I have nothing but the kindest regard for hon. members in the group on my left. They may have their views, and I respect them, but those views are not mine. I am sent by my constituents to represent them, and I believe that the overwhelming majority of the people of this country is in favour of the policy of England and of rearmament and in favour of putting brakes on the sort of thing we have been hearing from radio speakers and pacifists. Let me remind -the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar -that the British labour party voted 2,250,000 "for" to 262,000 "against" on the question of rearmament, and the support of a policy of putting a brake, in difficult days like these, upon these mischievous broadcasts. I believe that the minister and the government are to be commended for having inserted -this clause (d) in the bill in such difficult days as these.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think it is interesting that support for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) should come from the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) -and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). I have no desire to enter into the details of the broadcasting which has been done by Doctor Stewart and Mr. Ferguson, but I content myself with saying that I disagree entirely with what has been said by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. I too have read something of -the English press, and that part of the English press that is not inspired by Germany-or Russia, as someone says-and I quite agree with what has been said elsewhere that many of the statements of these commentators to which objection is taken are very well founded indeed.
However, I wish to come back to the speech of the Prime Minister last night which gave rise to this discussion. The Minister of Transport rather seeks to excuse the Prime Minister's statement by suggesting that he spoke as a private individual. I do not think the Prime Minister can very well speak as a private individual in this house, especially when he lays down such important propositions as he did last night. I regard them as

a very serious menace to the freedom of speech which we should -have in this country.
What are these two propositions? First of all the Prime Minister says:
In ordinary times we would not think of criticizing in this parliament the policies of a government or the proceedings of a parliament of another part of the British empire.
Why not?


Malcolm McLean: Because it is
not good form.


James Shaver Woodsworth: When, as my hon. friend from Rosetown-Biggar points out, these policies that are being discussed in the British Empire may involve us in war, I should like to know why it is not "good form." I have nothing of the sense of the inferiority of our parliament to that of Great Britain which some hon. members seem to have. As a British citizen I have as much right to speak in Ottawa as if I were a member of the parliament at Westminster. I have just as much right to discuss these large questions. I cannot see why we should be told that simply because these things are being discussed at Westminster, or in New Zealand, or somewhere else, we should be prohibited from discussing them here.


Malcolm McLean: That is not the statement at all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Let me read the statement once more:
In ordinary times we would not think of criticizing in this parliament the policies of a government or the proceedings of a parliament of another part of the British empire.
I leave my hon. friend to make his own interpretation.


Malcolm McLean: Is not that a part of the rules of the house?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No; there is nothing whatever in the rules to that effect. It is absolutely a new rule that the Prime Minister seeks to introduce at the present time. Further, in commenting on something he believed had taken place in Great Britain, the Prime Minister extends that rule and says:
... it is not proper either in parliament or out of parliament for criticisms to be made of the internal affairs of other countries. . . .
What an extraordinary statement! Am I not to make any statement in parliament or outside regarding the internal affairs of Germany-of Germany's action in invading Austria? Am I not to make any statement with regard to France's position, or Italy's?

Radio Broadcasting
Am I not to make any criticism here of what takes place in Russia? It is a preposterous proposition that we cannot here, either in parliament or outside it, criticize what is taking place in other countries, lest perchance we should get some government into trouble somewhere. A statement of that kind on the part of the Prime Minister ought not to go unchallenged. As far as I am concerned, so long as I am a member of this parliament I propose to speak definitely regarding anything that concerns the interest of my country, whether it is being talked about in New Zealand or Great Britain or Germany or Russia or anywhere else. I do not think that any doubt should be left as to where this parliament stands when the Prime Minister will venture to make a statement of that kind.
Then he goes on to the broadcasting side of the matter, and this is the second proposition:
What applies to debates in parliament should apply equally to broadcasting under a commission which derives its authority and powers from parliament.
If that is not a new proposition I should like to know what it is. We have a commission that controls or is supposed to control broadcasting, and here we are told that we must not discuss on the air anything that goes on anywhere else.


Malcolm McLean: No, no.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Oh, yes.


Malcolm McLean: What about the second paragraph of the Prime Minister's remarks?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Let the hon. member read that when be pleases and make his own interpretation.


Malcolm McLean: On a point of order, I would say, it is not a matter of interpretation, but of the literal reading truthfully of the second paragraph.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Read it all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I will read the whole paragraph:
So far as any policy relates to our own affairs, we are at perfect liberty, of course, to discuss as fully as we please the effect of government policy. What I am referring to at the moment is not whether, with respect to some particular matter, a policy is right or wrong. Each country is free to discuss in its own parliament any policy from the point of view of that country itself. I do not think, however, that one parliament should become critical of the proceedings of another parliament in another part of the world, particularly in times like these. What applies to debates in parliament 51952-176}
should apply equally to broadcasting under a commission which derives its authority and powers from parliament.
That is what he said.


Malcolm McLean: And it is entirely different from what the hon. member said.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Let the hon. gentleman express his own opinions. I am willing to leave it to the general public to read that paragraph and make their own interpretation. The Minister of Transport suggests that the Prime Minister must have been speaking as a private individual. What words did the Prime Minister use in closing? They have already been quoted by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar:
I think it is only right to say what I have said; and possibly more is not necessary at this time to ensure that by the commission itself a policy will be followed similar to that which all hon. members of this house seek to follow in their discussions.
Is that a warning or a threat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think, after listening to my hon. friend, who is a member of this house, that the Prime Minister has given the radio corporation ample latitude.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not quite catch the point.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He suggested that the radio corporation should observe the same reasonableness that all hon. members of this house do, and in that I suggest he has given them ample latitude.


James Shaver Woodsworth: He might have, after listening to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George! Unfortunately this statement of the Prime Minister goes much further than that. The Prime Minister did not hear this debate.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. member has referred to the member for St. Lawrence-St. George. My objection was to placing public funds into the hands of a corporation to pay certain commentators to broadcast certain particular opinions in certain cases. That is the pith and substance of my objection. I would have no objection to my hon. friend broadcasting any opinion he has expressed in this house or out of it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I appreciate the very good opinion of my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George, but I was referring just now to his expressions of opinion not with regard to myself but with regard to Mr. Ferguson and Doctor Stewart.
Radio Broadcasting


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was dealing with what I knew in certain cases, very particular cases.


James Shaver Woodsworth: These words of the Prime Minister with regard to the commission do seem to be in the nature of a warning or of a threat. I cannot think that any private individual would say things in just this way and confidently expect that nothing further than his own private opinion would bring about the required change of policy. Since when did we in Canada adopt the arbitrary methods that prevail in authoritarian countries? Is it possible that a ukase or declaration can be issued by the Prime Minister as to what public boards are to do? I thought responsibility with regard to these matters lay with the broadcasting corporation. I thought the ultimate responsibility lay with parliament. I did not think it was possible for a prime minister to tell this country what its policies were to be. It comes to that.
It is true this kind of arbitrary action might be considered necessary in times of war, but certainly it should be confined to times of emergency, and should be preceded by a proclamation. We are still, I am glad to think, in comparatively normal times, even if they are difficult times. If I understand anything of the principles underlying democracy, we must preserve the fullest right to freedom of speech even in difficult times and even when considering the very complicated problems confronting the world to-day. With the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) I hope that the statement of the Prime Minister-and it is a statement of the Prime Minister-will be reconsidered; that it will not be regarded as the policy of the government, either with regard to members of this parliament or with regard to the broadcasting corporation.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: With what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) had to say I am generally in accord. We in this parliament should not let the opinion go abroad to the Canadian people that we are seeking in any manner whatsoever to curtail the fullest possible right on the part of the Canadian people to discuss public matters in any way they see fit. The right of free discussion of public affairs is one of the most sacred rights that we in a democracy enjoy. It is one that men have fought to win, and we must not permit any encroachment upon it. I regard some of the opinions expressed by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) as an attempt to insert the thin end of the wedge of repression. If commentators are employed by the broadcasting corporation to comment upon the news of

the world they are employed for the purpose of expressing their opinions as to the significance of international events. They are not employed merely for the purpose of narrating the events; that is done by the press. They are commentators upon international events, and being such it is desirable that they should express their opinions. If they are not to express their own opinions and views, whose views and whose opinions are they to express? Is anyone to be set in authority over them to say to them, " You must not express this opinion "? Here are two men who have been commenting upon the news of the day, and their hours of comment are eagerly awaited by thousands of people from one end of Canada to the other: is it necessary that their opinions or views shall coincide with those of all their listeners? What would be the value of comment of that kind?
If comment is to be of any value it must be a clear and honest expression of viewpoints. What is going to happen to comments of this sort upon the news of the day if after a commentator has expressed an opinion upon some controversial point he knows that on the following Monday on the orders of the day the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George is going to rise in his place in this house and say, " I object to that expression of opinion "? Is that going to be conducive to honest expression of views and opinions? I would much rather have inaccuracy than suppression of opinion. If these broadcasts are to have any educational value whatever our commentators must have assurance of the fullest and freest right to express the views that they honestly hold. I do not believe for a moment that either Mr. Ferguson or Doctor Stewart are dishonest men or that they are expressing views that they do not honestly hold.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No one suggested it.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Well, it was intimated. If there is going to be a debate in this house about every expression of opinion with which some hon. member of this house may disagree, what is going to happen to free discussion?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have no objection to expressions of opinion over the radio. But, when .the most critical of international matters are being dealt with, I suggest that if one or two men are to be paid a stipend for the expression of their views, and given broadcasting facilities worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars an hour, then other people who differ from them, and who have

Radio Broadcasting
closer knowledge of the facts than these people can possibly have, should have the right of reply.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Who would those people be?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, I know one or two events in which I was actually participating, which were entirely misrepresented. If the hon. member for Selkirk refers to -the broadcasting by a gentleman from his own city I say that he, without any knowledge but trusting to mere gossip, has no right to make statements with respect to what he called the Cliveden intrigue, concerning which he can have no personal information, and which are denied as being untrue.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The hon. member can
make such statements as this if he wishes, but I do not think he has any justification for saying that Mr. Ferguson invented what he said in that broadcast or made it out of whole cloth.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I did not say that.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I have a distinct recollection of the occasion on which the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George objected to the broadcast in question, and my recollection is that he objected to the opinions expressed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I objected both in this
house and in the public press to the expression of such opinions by paid propagandists, paid out of the public funds of this country, without any permission or opportunity being given to others to controvert the statements so made.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Whose opinions is the
commentator to express, if not his own, if they are honestly held?


James Earl Lawson: The point is that he
should pay for expressing his own opinions.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It is a service that is
welcomed by thousands of people from one end of Canada to the other.
Mr. MeLEAN (Melfort): You can build up a demand for almost any service if you pay enough for it.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It is a good service, giving countless people throughout Canada an understanding and appreciation of what is going on in the world which otherwise they would not obtain.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: A very erroneous one sometimes.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: And through listening to these broadcasts they are given an opportunity for education. The free right of public discussion of public affairs is the very foundation of our democracy.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I entirely agree.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: We have very recently-


The CHAIRMAN:: I would point out to the hon. member for Selkirk that this discussion has been allowed a very wide latitude, and I should like him to confine his remarks to the bill.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: We are dealing with
radio broadcasting.


Frederick George Sanderson: Quite true; we are on paragraph (e) of section 4.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: And that, as I understand it, has to deal with the extent to which the government shall deal with radio broadcasts, and everything I have said is strictly in order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I may interrupt, this deals with the regulation that no radio receiving set or apparatus for installation or use as or in a private receiving station may be sold or serviced by any person until a licence has been obtained for that station. It has to do with the licensing of receiving sets.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Then perhaps my remarks, would be more appropriate under another section, but why should I be called in question when so far the discussion has centred around these radio broadcasts?
We had a decision by the Supreme Court, of Canada recently that I think is valued by every Canadian. The decision was to the effect that the right of public discussion of public affairs underlies our whole constitution. That is new ground to be broken by the courts of this land, and it is splendid ground. There are fundamental rights that must be maintained and preserved at all costs; for only by the exercise of these fundamental rights can progress result. We must not stifle free discussion in this house. We must not stifle free discussion in the press, and we must not stifle free discussion over the radio; for the radio is now the greatest instrument for the free discussion of public affairs.
There is a distinction to be drawn between the proprieties that ought to be observed in the discussion of certain matters, and the rights of people to discuss them. I do not think it was ever the intention of the Prime Minister that there should be any attempt to abridge the right of any hon. member of this house to say what he likes about public
Radio Broadcasting

affairs. The Prime Minister indicated the desirability of moderation in language and of refraining from discussing in this parliament matters that solely concern the parliaments of other countries. In 'this regard the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has raised a question. He has expressed the view that what is happening in Great Britain as a result of British foreign policy may have a direct result upon the people of Canada. He has the right to express that point of view. There are many people in Canada who hold the same view, and they have the right to express the opinion they hold. The government of the day can indicate its policy, and naturally it will seek to avoid gratuitous comment upon what is happening in other countries; but any member of this parliament or any Canadian who thinks that what is happening in Great Britain or in Europe has a direct or indirect effect upon the people of Canada and upon the welfare of the people of this country as a whole, has a duty and an obligation to express his viewpoint fearlessly and courageously, without any apprehension that some member of this house will rise in 'his place and say that he must not say this or that. Every member of this house should be as zealous as possible to safeguard this fundamental right of free discussion of public affairs.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I should like to ask the hon. member if he believes that this man, expressing his own views, should be paid for doing so, through a government agency.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I thought I had already expressed an opinion in that regard, when I said that thousands of people in Canada welcomed these broadcasts; and for the purpose of making available this service, which thousands of people in Canada are very glad to receive, the broadcasting corporation has employed two paid commentators. All right; if they are commentators and not merely narrators of what has happened it is desirable that they should express the opinions and views which they honestly hold. It matters little whether those who listen to them' agree with those views. That is the opinion I express.


Malcolm McLean: For some minutes now we have had the peculiar spectacle of members of this house setting up straw men at great length in order to knock them down again. The hon. gentleman who just resumed his seat protested vigorously against the remarks of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), remarks which were moderate, reasonable and dignified.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
fMr. Howe.]


Malcolm McLean: Some of my
hon. friends laugh. I venture to say that if any hon. member, when he thinks the matter over seriously to-morrow and reads the remarks of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George as they were uttered in this house, fails to find them reasonable and moderate and dignified, he will not be condemning the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George; rather he will be condemning his own powers of reasoning and judgment.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George was protesting against paid commentators making statements that were not warranted by the facts and giving opinions that were not wise, at public expense. The hon. member for Selkirk protests that this means limiting the freedom of discussion, which he says is the foundation of democratic government in this country. I can see no connection between the two.	On the other
hand the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), set up another straw man and knocked it down. He took the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in this house yesterday; he had them before him, and there was no excuse at all for misquoting what was said. But the hon. gentleman said the Prime Minister had told us that we must not discuss anything going on anywhere else, in any other country or any other parliament, whereas in the second paragraph of the speech, which afterwards he was good enough to read, the Prime Minister distinctly stated:
Each country is free to discuss in its own parliament any policy from the point of view of that country itself.
And the last words of the Prime Minister:
I think it is only right to say what I have said; and possibly more is not necessary at this time to ensure that by the commission itself a policy will be followed similar to that which all hon. members of this house seek to follow in their discussions.
Does any member of the house or does anyone in the country think that policy is not wide enough for any paid commentators of the corporation? Should the paid servants of the corporation have more latitude in remarks and criticisms of either parliamentary or other subjects than do the representatives of the people in this house? To me it is a most amazing doctrine that the servants of the crown should be given more licence to spread their doctrines not only throughout this country but throughout other countries.


Abraham Albert Heaps: They are not doing that.


Malcolm McLean: The principle
is that they should be allowed to do it,

Radio Broadcasting
according to the hon. member's leader. He states that they ought to be permitted to do it, because he has said, "Surely these kinds of programs are not to be taken away-"


Abraham Albert Heaps: My hon. friend is confused.


Malcolm McLean: No; "my hon.
friend" is not a bit confused. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) made that statement in words something like those I have given the committee:	"Surely this is not to be the policy
laid down by the Prime Minister of this country. That is what is done in authoritarian states." He knew that was not so at all. All that the Prime Minister suggested was that the corporation would see to it, not in response to a ukase-I believe that was the word used-or a decree of the Prime Minister, but in deference to the discussions in this house, that critics on the air-not commentators alone by the way-should be as fair in their way of talking and as decent in their public discussions as members of this house are supposed to be.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: The Prime Minister did not refer to it in that way; it was not "as members of this house speak," but as he believed members of this house should speak. Those are two different things.


Malcolm McLean: I can admit quite readily it is different, so far as the hon. member is concerned.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is the principle which was indicated.


Malcolm McLean: These are the words:
... a policy will be followed similar to that which all hon. members of this house seek to follow in their discussions.
I would say the Prime Minister was being charitable when he used those words. My hon. friend and I, and many others, sometimes go beyond the bounds of the most moderate discussion, and sometimes take ourselves a little bit seriously. I admit that my hon. friend, if his conscience sees fit to do it, is sufficiently educated to permit him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Sensitive" is the word.


Malcolm McLean: If he is not, that is not my fault. However, I believe the hon. member, or any other hon. member, does possess a conscience which is sufficiently sensitive. Hon. members do believe there should be reasonable and moderate discussion, and that should be latitude enough.
The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) reproached the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Cahan), when that hon, member was only protesting against the hired com-mentaters paid for by the people of Canada, who were going on the air. Probably they were giving their honest opinions, but that has not anything to do with the matter. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George said it was most important that state paid propaganda should not be permitted. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre spoke of those who supported the attitude of the Prime Minister.
The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more), and members from other parts of the house do so. I do not believe there is anything to complain of. I would suggest-and I am going to follow my own advice-that we have spent a lot of time on this subject, and that we should discuss the matter more immediately before the committee. I did not begin this discussion; I believe it was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth).
I must say that hon. members who have been speaking, each and every one of them, would be the first to protest if any civil servant of this country, any deputy minister or member of a bureau, went on the air, on a platform or anywhere else, and advocated his own opinion on contentious matters, without being paid for it particularly or being asked that that opinion should be given. They would not permit that sort of thing to run freely throughout Canada.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Setting up another straw man.


Malcolm McLean: What would the hon. member say if the deputy minister of finance, or the head of the tariff division, or any other officer of the kind went out next Sunday and preached a sermon in favour of high tariffs, giving his opinions on the subject?


Abraham Albert Heaps: That has nothing to do with the principle, has it?


Malcolm McLean: The hon. member does not see the point. Here are men who are engaged to deal with affairs in the world, and throughout Canada. Here are men who are hired by the people of Canada to do certain work. They have gone out and at public expense expressed private views, which they have a right to hold, but they have expressed those views.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: They are hired to comment on the news.
Radio Broadcasting


Malcolm McLean: Such things as this will bring about a condition whereby either the corporation will have to engage men to give out views of the commission, or-


Abraham Albert Heaps: They are not their own views.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: They are truthful.


Malcolm McLean: The question of truth is difficult to decide. In the opinion of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George the facts were misquoted. But when it comes to a question of opinion-


An hon. MEMBER:: Who will decide that?


Malcolm McLean: A question of fact may be proved, but a question of truth is a matter of opinion. However, I do protest against the expenditure of public money on political propaganda which may have-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It is not political.


Malcolm McLean: Oh, "it is not
political "! I was referring to political propaganda which may have serious effects upon people in this country, our friendly relations with other countries, and our relations throughout the world.
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum) Which of the two commentators we are now discussing does the hon. member consider was a propagandist?


Malcolm McLean: I am not discussing an individual commentator at all. I am speaking of a principle underlying our institutions and our state.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Which of these two gentlemen whom we have been discussing to-day? Those are the two gentlemen who have been discussed.


Malcolm McLean: The hon. member may discuss those gentlemen as much as he likes, but I am not doing it. You cannot make me say anything about them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But the point is that those are the two gentlemen referred to by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, and we now find that the hon. member for Melfort is agreeing with those views. Which of them does he consider to be a political propagandist?	[DOT]


Malcolm McLean: The views of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, if he will pardon my giving my interpretation of them, were that it was wrong to spend public money to put propaganda over the air, and to give views or opinions which might be held quite sincerely in the minds of commentators -but which, in some instances at least, were not accurate, and did not reflect

accurate news. I have not mentioned the names of the commentators, but am simply outlining the principle that it is not wise to spend public money on propaganda of that kind.


Mr. STEVENS:: The section under discussion raises a question which, in my mind, ought to be considered at some stage. The discussion which has been proceeding for some time bears directly upon the point I wish to raise. The whole section is one by which the minister may make regulations. The paragraphs define the kinds of regulations he may prescribe.
In the old original bill the application was to a large extent to ship operations and radio stations including ship stations. The establishment of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the ownership by the Dominion of Canada of a portion of the broadcasting stations have introduced a new feature. I am coming to question the wisdom of operating broadcasting stations through a government corporation. In saying that, I admit frankly that in its original form, patterned somewhat after the British Broadcasting Corporation, there was in the minds of those who fostered the Canadian organization the desire to improve broadcasting conditions. I am under the impression that it was the abuse of broadcasting by advertising agencies which really suggested the move. However, as the years have gone by, we are now facing just the condition indicated by the discussion this afternoon.
I find myself wholly in accord with the member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) when he advocates freedom of speech. Whether that freedom of speech is in the form of public expression, or of the written wTord -through the press, or whether it is through this new medium of radio broadcasting, I am in favour of freedom of speech, and I am opposed to the restriction of freedom of speech. But the limitations on -that freedom in broadcasting ought, in my opinion at least, to be the same as the limitations on the newspapers or on utterances from a public platform, with respect to libellous, seditious and such like utterances, which are controlled by our ordinary criminal law. But by introducing control of the administration of a part of broadcasting, and only a part of it, by a government agency, we introduce at once a very difficult proposition, because while we are in favour of freedom of speech we are then faced with the position which has been stated by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), that a government employee or someone paid out of the taxpayers'

Radio Broadcasting
money may advocate views which are distinctly at variance with and do offence to a very large number of taxpayers. It is all very well for the hon. member for Selkirk to argue that a man has the right not only to tell the news but to give his opinion of the news. That is all right if he is doing it at his own expense and under his own agency, whatever that agency may be.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: But he is paid for doing that very thing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is exactly where my hon. friend and I differ in our viewpoints. When it comes to a government paying a man to express views for which the government would not hold themselves responsible, from which views they may indeed differ, then I think we are entering upon a dangerous field.
That brings me to my comment upon the principle which is involved in this whole business, that is whether it is advisable for a government agency to administer and operate broadcasting stations. I believe the radio corporation should be limited to a supervision of the technique of broadcasting-wavelengths, licensing, the times at which stations shall operate, and their .power. I think it would be better, in the light of the circumstances that have gradually developed, if broadcasting were in the hands of private corporations.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: In other words, have the broadcasting emasculated.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend can apply any interpretation he likes to put upon it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is a fairly recent convert to this view, I take it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: As I said in my opening remarks, I had come to this view after watching the operations of the radio corporation for a few years. Let me say to the minister this: I think this is the first time I have offered what might be considered criticism of the radio corporation, and I am not now criticizing that corporation. Generally speaking, I believe it has discharged rather difficult duties in a fairly efficient way. I am inclined to the view, although my opinion is not, I think, one of the best, the present radio corporation is an exceptionally able body of men, and they are doing a very fair job. But that does not prevent me from taking exception to some of the policies which are being followed, and I do take definite exception to a government body paying individuals to express opinions upon controversial subjects. We do, for instance, carry
on a debate over the air, and I think that probably is good, if it is very carefully supervised. I think the corporation should know beforehand what is going to be said by the two persons taking contrary sides of a question. Such a debate might be useful on some subjects. I am not taking much exception to that. But to give an individual carte blanche to express his opinion on the news of the day, and to use his half hour, or whatever his time may be, for the dissemination of his own views at the taxpayers' expense is, in my opinion, a wrong use of the radio.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What about the news items, the broadcasting of news? Does not the selection of the news really involve discrimination?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was coming to. that question, and I might as well deal with it now. There has been a good deal of suggestion, shall I say, that we should be very, very careful about the news which is disseminated to see that nothing is done to disturb other nations. I was in the old country for some time this winter, and the whole of Great Britain and the continent were just seething with bitterness one way or another because of the use that was being made of government broadcasting agencies to attack other countries; for instance, Italy was disseminating in Arabic views that would stir up the Arabs in Palestine, and that was carried to a point where it became quite serious. Germany also has its form of broadcasting propaganda. On the other hand, Germany and Italy charged speakers in Great Britain with giving views contrary to their interests. The controversy became very bitter; but fortunately, so far as Italy and Great Britain are concerned, they met and one of the chief points agreed upon between Mr. Chamberlain and the Italian government was that there must be an abandonment of that form of broadcasting. It only goes to illustrate that care ought to be taken in announcing the news not to make the announcement in a form which is distinctly offensive, and calculatedly so.
As to the ordinary news commentators in Great Britain and the United States-and we get them over the short-wave from other countries-1 think they are excellent, and I have no objection at all to that. It is not difficult for a person trained in newspaper work or in headline work in the newspapers to pick out the important news items and to give them to the public in a fair and true light. That is of the very essence of good newspaper work, as newspaper men will agree; that is, the ability to give a news item without
Radio Broadcasting

colouring it with editorial comment. The same principle should be applied to broadcasting. I can see no objection to that. But I do object to engaging commentators and paying them with public funds to give their own interpretations of the news items. If they wish to do so at their own expense or over private broadcasting stations, that is another matter.
This brings me back to. my main point, whether the time has not arrived when we might well consider the abandonment of the actual administration of broadcasting stations by the government of Canada through this corporation and the turning of them back to private ownership, the corporation, of course, retaining control of what affects the public generally, such matters as wave-lengths, the power of the stations, and matters of that kind, which by the way, of course, are definitely affected by international agreements. I think that this discussion brings quite vividly to the front the need of great care in the exercise of the minister's powers under this section, and the point that we are treading on very dangerous ground when commentators are allowed to use their discretion in commenting upon the news of the day.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Before this subsection carries I should like to move an amendment to clarify the clause. The words "sold or serviced by any person" are used. "Serviced" is, in my opinion, a word that needs to be clarified. I would ask my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to move that clause 4, paragraph 1 (e) be amended by [DOT] striking out the words "sold or serviced" in line 3 and substituting therefor the words "sold, repaired or maintained."


Ernest Lapointe: I move
accordingly.


Mr. STEWART:: Does that make it the
obligation of the firm that repairs a radio set to ascertain whether it has a licence or not, before they make any repairs on it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is not that going a
long way?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Why should it be the
business of an individual partnership or a company who repair radios to be concerned about the licence? Does that apply to private radio sets?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is that not going pretty
far, to make a man engaged in the repairing of radio sets-when all he does is, perhaps to put in new tubes or make repairs on a receiving set when he is called in- concerned in the question whether a licence has been issued for that radio set? Do I understand that the subsection goes that far? It seems to me that it does.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The old regulation provided
that it was not legal to sell a radio without a licence being secured.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Quite so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This goes a step further
and makes it illegal to repair a radio unless there is a licence issued for that radio.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I	admit the accuracy
of the position with respect to a sale. I think that is quite sound and proper. But it does seem to go pretty far to require the man who makes repairs on a radio set to find out at his own risk whether the owner has a licence for it, before he can do any repairs on it.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I	do not think that
the point raised by the hon. member for East Kootenay (Mr. Stevens) should be allowed to pass without at least some comment. There is no doubt that private owners of radio broadcasting stations and others who are opposed to public ownership, have within recent times put up a great barrage against government ownership of radio broadcasting. The point which was emphasized by the hon. member for East Kootenay, as far as I could ascertain, was that it was not right that paid commentators or commentators paid by the government should be engaged to comment upon the news, particularly upon the foreign news. I have listened for quite a long time to these Sunday evening broadcasts by Doctor Stewart, I believe ever since they began. I did not agree with him on all occasions, but it does not follow that because I did not agree with him he was wrong and I was right; the reverse may have been the fact, and even though I did not agree with him, the broadcasts are in my opinion a good thing for the people of Canada.
I should be interested to know what complaints have been made to the minister in regard to these broadcasts. I have heard very few complaints myself. The complaints that were made to-day are merely matters of opinion. The statement was made that the commentator was using his imagination without having the facts, and the person who made that complaint did not bring any



193S

[Stage Direction]
Radio Broadcasting
evidence to show that he had the facts and that the other fellow was using his imagination. If there is anything which would make me more favourable to government ownership of radio broadcasting than I have been, it is that we had a government which, although I do not regard it as very progressive, had engaged commentators of the calibre they have engaged for the purpose of analyzing foreign affairs to the people of Canada.
Mr. MARTIN:: If the hon. member will
permit-he is confusing the government with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Angus MacInnis: I assume there is some
connection, and that if they were not acceptable to the government they would not hold their positions very long, I may be wrong in that.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Angus MacInnis: I believe we can assume
there is some connection. However, I am glad that the hon. member brought the point to my attention. I believe that parliament should consider this matter very carefully before it departs from the principle of public ownership which has been in force since 1932.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Could the minister inform
the committee what length of time these commentators have on the radio each week- the ones who have been particularly referred to this afternoon?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I listen to them occasionally. I would say, fifteen minutes, but if somebody assured me that I was wrong I would accept their statement.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Fifteen minutes each?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. I think they alternate.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I wonder if some of the hon. members who have been complaining this afternoon about the addresses of these commentators have not slightly overstated the case, if, as has been mentioned by the minister, these commentators occupy the radio for only fifteen minutes a week. If we compare that with the whole length of broadcasting by the corporation in a week, it will be seen that very little time is given for comments on the news of the day. I have heard no complaints from any source as to the comments of the gentlemen referred to. I do not know whether the minister or the department have received any. But I have listened to them for quite a long time, and I have been very much interested in what they say. Although very often I find myself in disagreement with their viewpoints on the news of the day, that does not mean that
they should not be permitted to comment over the radio. Similar facilities are granted over the private stations in the United States, and if private corporations can give comments on news in that country why cannot a public utility do the same thing in Canada? If definite complaints are made with regard to the comments, it would be a different story, but so far nothing specific has been stated in this house by way of objection to what has been said. If there is anything definite I should be interested to hear what it is. So far there has been no real complaint except that comments have been made over the radio. These commentators are not propagandists, as suggested by some hon. members. They do not give their own points of view on questions, but merely interpret as best they can the events of the preceding few days. Knowing some of the opinions of some of these gentlemen who give comments over the radio, I am sure that they do not give their own personal points of view, and I do not believe that they are propagandists. I am sorry that my hon. friend from East Kootenay comes out in opposition to public ownership of radio in Canada. Those who remember the kind of broadcasting we had a few years ago, and1 who note the broadcasting that we have to-day, will have observed the tremendous strides we have made in Canada in the past two or three years. Excellent service is given, and I would say that our broadcasts are far superior to those in the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We get most of it from there.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Some of the main broadcasts do come from the United States, as the leader of the opposition has pointed out; but anyone who has lived in the United States for even a few weeks and who has turned on the radio to get some entertainment knows that one is compelled to listen every few minutes to some form of obnoxious advertising. No one who has had that experience would say for a moment that the broadcasting in Canada is not preferable to the broadcasting in the United States. The moment you tune in on any American station, apart from expensive broadcasts, you are in for a long series of advertisements. I am thankful that we in Canada have not broadcasting of that sort.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It would be inopportune to go at length this afternoon into what I know to be some of the misstatements made over the radio, but I would direct the hon. gentleman's attention to references made by Mr. Ferguson to what he called the Cliveden
Radio Broadcasting

intrigue, when he broadcast throughout Canada that there were meetings at Cliveden, at Lady Astor's house, which brought the government of the United Kingdom under the influence of the ambassador of the Fuehrer of Germany-sayings such as that, which were mere scandal and which started first in foreign propaganda. I could refer to other matters but it is not worth while; it is not worth the time. I simply call attention to this fact, that if extreme propaganda of that kind is to be made freely at public expense, some similar opportunity should be allowed to others to controvert these statements. But such opportunity is not given under present conditions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does not the minister think that this is carrying bureaucracy rather too far?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a shade further than my right hon. friend went, just a shade.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is going just a bit too far. In the light of present knowledge, does not the minister think that a man should be able to have his radio repaired without being under the necessity of disclosing to the workman who repairs it whether he has a licence or not? Surely that is carrying bureaucracy too far. Bureaucracy has a great hold in Canada in many directions. I have had occasion in the last few days to look into its application in another department of our activities, in our national parks, and now we are going to apply it to radio. I can understand our going a certain distance in the direction proposed here, but when it is suggested that a workman coming to my house to repair my radio should ascertain whether or not I have a licence-well, the average man would say, "That is none of your business; I have employed you to repair my radio and I am prepared to pay you." But the workman will answer, "The government says that I must inquire whether you have a licence before I can repair your radio, and if you want me to do it you will have to satisfy me that you have a licence." Is not that going too far? I do suggest to the minister that it is going a bit too far and that the section might very well disappear.
Frankly I have always had grave doubts, and I have graver doubts ,to-day, whether it is quite sound to apply the principle in question even to the sale of radio sets. Are we not carrying our powers perhaps beyond our jurisdiction? I put this to the minister, because once more we have the old conflict. The courts have decided that we have jurisdiction, but they have not decided that our jurisdiction extends to the sale of radio sets. That surely is a matter of property and civil

rights. We have no right to fix prices and things of that sort ; they are still within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. I have grave doubts whether we have the power, with respect to the sale of radio sets, to impose this condition, and I certainly have graver doubts with respect to the repairing of radios. When I employ a workman to come and repair my radio, when I go to the telephone and ask that a man be sent around to put in a couple of tubes that are worn out, and he comes and says that before he can do that work he must know whether I have a licence, I think we are going too far. What happens then? Is it his business to be a common informer? Is it within the competence of this parliament to deal with the matter? Is it not a question of purely provincial and local jurisdiction, a question of property and civil rights, a question of contract between the workman and myself? Shall we say that such a contract cannot be enforced unless this condition here proposed is complied with? I submit that it is going too far.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am told that the only
change here is to embody in the act itself a regulation that has been in effect for many years under the Minister of Marine, and more recently the Minister of Transport. Parliament has decided that the operation of a radio shall be illegal unless a licence has been obtained, and certain penalties are prescribed. I see no great objection to putting this regulation in the act. I do not think it is bureaucracy to use every means to enforce the intent of the radio saot. That is the principle on which we have been collecting radio licence fees from the start. A man can bring a policeman into your house to see whether you are operating a radio without a licence. When dealing with a situation of this kind I do not think that it is going too far to have a regulation of this sort, which has been in effect for many years, embodied in the act. It is not a new departure.


Mr. McDONALD (Souris):: Would it not be better to have the system followed in connection with automobile sales? Every automobile salesman must report to the province when he has made a sale. I do not think we should make radio dealers and repair men collect for the government. It is asking too much, for all they get out of it. If they report the sale that ought to be enough; it is then up to the government to collect the licence fee.


Charles Edward Johnston: I understood the minister to say some time ago that if those who are on relief are not able to get

Radio Broadcasting
a radio licence they would not be pressed too hard by the department. Must the owner of the machine, no matter whether he is on relief or not, produce a licence before he can get repairs done? What is the department's attitude in such a case?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a matter of leniency. We do not change the law; we simply do not apply it to people on relief. Similar leniency would apply in the matter of repairs. For instance in the area in the west known as the drought area the instructions have been not to press the collection of radio licence fees. A similar instruction would go out in that area regarding the production of licences in case of repairs.


Charles Edward Johnston: Would the same thing apply to people on relief in Calgary, or would they have to be definitely in the drought area?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Definitely in the drought area.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not think there is anything very objectionable in this condition. I understand it has been in effect by way of regulation for some time, and I rather applaud the minister for having the courage to put it in the act instead of taking advantage of w'hat is unknown to the members of this committee, doing- it in a more or less underhand way by way of regulation. It has not worked any hardship to me. As owner of a radio set, if I ask a man to come and repair it I know I have to have a licence, and if he asks to see it I ought to be prepared to produce it. I do not think it involves making the mechanic act as a collector, for he does not sell me that licence; all he does is ask if I have it, and if I have not he does not repair the radio. Collecting these radio licence fees is rather difficult because of the difficulty of knowing who has them and who has not.


Mr. HOWDEN:: What are the provisions of the act as to the collection of radio licence fees? As the matter stands there is something very wrong about it. The sale of these licences has been placed to a large extent in the hands of department stores and other large establishments, no doubt for the convenience of the public. But the government have also appointed collectors, who unfortunately seem to be as impotent and helpless in the matter as new-born babes. I do not mean to say there is lack of ability on their part to collect, but apparently they have no power. I know of one such man who has made a dozen calls at one home trying to collect, and has been told by the owner to go-wherever he likes; he does not have to pay a licence fee and he will not until he is
good and ready. Surely that is an absurd situation. If the government is merely making a mock gesture of giving men the right to collect these fees, on a commission basis no doubt, and if they have to call on owners of receiving sets over and over again and have no power to force payment of the licence fee, there is something wrong. I have been told by this collector, who is not very far from me, that he knows for a fact that many people in the vicinity have not paid their licence fees and he has no power to force them to do so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He should report the case to the department.


John Power Howden: Well, I shall ibe glad to point that out to him, but there are collectors in the part of Canada I come from who have the impression that they have no power to make people pay.


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: I understood the minister to say just now in answer to a question that only people in the drought area in Saskatchewan are exempt from the payment of radio licence fees. Does that not apply to any other part of Canada? I represent a section of Toronto in which many people are on relief. They have not the money for licences. I think if something is granted to people in another part of Canada it should be granted to people in similar circumstances in Toronto. I do not see why people in one part of the country who are on relief through no fault of their own should be charged for a licence or deprived of the pleasure of having a radio while people in another section are favoured.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Of course no one is exempt from the payment of radio licence fees, but there is a general instruction to all those collecting radio licence fees that if the owner of a radio can show that he is on relief, or indigent, whatever that means, and is unable to pay, has no earnings, the demand for payment is not pressed. The reason I mentioned the drought area was that the question asked by the hon. member for Bow River had to do with the drought area. But it applies to all people on relief or indigent, and repairs could be included.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: When a licence has been issued for a radio set and a repair man comes and asks to see the licence, how does he know that the licence shown him is for that particular machine? Is there any way he can tell?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.
27S6
Radio Broadcasting


Harry Gladstone Clarke: A man might borrow his neighbour's licence; they might have one licence for the whole street.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The name and address is on every licence. But if there are two or more radios in the house and one licence is shown there is no way to check that.


Mr. KINLEY:: It seems to me that a radio is a bit of a luxury, and the question arises whether a man on relief should be encouraged to have it.


Mr. WEIR:: In connection with the requirement that anyone repairing a radio must assure himself that the owner has a licence, what about a man who comes in and buys a set of tools from the dealer to fix his own radio? Also what about a radio that is in a house but is not being operated? If I correctly understood what was said last night, if an inspector finds his way into the house and discovers a radio there, he may oblige the owner to obtain a licence even if it is not in operation. We have some radios that are Obsolete; perhaps new ones have been purchased and the old ones have been allowed to remain. I hope a man will not be under obligation to purchase a licence for a radio of that kind.
With regard to the amount of the fee, last night the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar asked whether the owner of a battery set in a home where there is electric power would pay $2.50, and the minister replied that he would. I do not know what distinction is going to be made with respect to electric power in homes. We have a good many people operating ordinary automobile generators with little windmills and thereby producing electricity which they use to charge their radio batteries and perhaps in other ways. In addition, we have the ordinary 32 volt farm lighting plant, which in some cases also charges the radio batteries. I should like the minister to clear up those three points for me, particularly the question as to what is going to be considered electric power in a home.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Taking the last point first, the case to which my hon. friend refers is a local source of supply for that one home. That would be considered a battery set, and the fee would be $2. The act provides that if the house is connected to a central power station the $2.50 fee will apply.
In connection with a radio in a house but not in use, under the act the presumption is that if the radio is in the house it is in use. If the owner can show to the satisfaction of whoever is handling the matter that the radio
f.Mr. Howe.]
is not in use, of course there would be no fee; but under the act there is the presumption, which I think is fair, that if the radio is in the house it is in use.


William Gilbert Weir: What about the repair man?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Under the act, before a radio is repaired, the repair man is required to ask if a licence has been obtained. I do not know that it is necessary for him actually to look at the licence; I suppose it is.


William Gilbert Weir: Suppose he sells me half a dozen tubes and I take them home?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That would, I think, be a little different from repairing a radio.
Mr. MULOCIv: Under subsection 2 of section 4 the minister may authorize the imposition of a penalty not exceeding $50 and costs or three months' imprisonment for the violation of any regulation. Under the proposed amendment that would extend to the repairs, and may I point out that a man on relief, could not get his radio repaired, even though the person doing the work did it without charge, without the latter being liable to go to gaol for three months. From what the minister said I know it was not his intention that people on relief should not be allowed to use their radios, and I would suggest that the wording of the amendment be changed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The question of dealing with . relief recipients is entirely a matter of leniency. There is nothing set out in the law providing that if a man is on relief he does not have to pay his licence fee. I was simply explaining that in the administration of the act our instructions are very strict; that a man on relief is not to be pressed for the collection of a radio fee, and the same thing would apply to the repairing of a radio for a man on relief.


John James Kinley: Have you the power to do that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, we have not. It is a matter of leniency; we have the power to sue or not to sue.


John James Kinley: The law should treat everybody alike.


Mr. MULOCK:: I would point out that it says a person may not make repairs unless the licence has been obtained. It is the man who makes the repairs who will be responsible for the fine or imprisonment, not the man on relief. The man making the repairs is not protected by that statement.

Radio Broadcasting


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend will look at subsection 3 of section 10, he will see this provision, which has been in all radio acts since the inception of licences:
No proceedings shall be taken against any person under this section except by order of the minister.
The minister has to sign personally the complaint, and the minister does not sign complaints against persons on relief.


James Earl Lawson: But that relates only to an offence under that section.
Mr. MULOCIv: That has to do with establishing stations without authority.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Surely the minister does not have to authorize every police prosecution.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Every one. I sign them
personally.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then I think the minister will be very busy for the rest of the year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has always been done in that way. My hon. friend was a member of [DOT]the government which drafted these regulations in the first place, and nothing we are doing here changes them particularly. There is only one very slight change in this act; we are changing the language slightly in order to modernize it, but the only real change arises out of a court case which made the old act unworkable. We are changing it in that respect, but these are all old regulations. Ever since I have been minister I have had to sign an authorization for every prosecution.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There are several new
sections and new definitions and sections revised. You will find that right through.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But, as I pointed out, it is simply transferring the regulations, which were issued under ministerial authority, to the act. Those regulations have always been there.


James Earl Lawson: I have no desire, while
we are on this section, to deal with section 10, subsection 1; but as we come to sections 5, 9, 10 and others throughout the bill, I [DOT]think we shall be able to satisfy the minister that these are not merely enacting things that were in the regulations before. I just do not want to allow his statement to pass without calling attention to that fact.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister says these regulations were here before. He must recall the difficulties that attended the creation of this enterprise in the first instance, and the criticism that was always being made. The
hon. member for Comox-Alberni says the government is to be congratulated upon having transferred the regulations to the act, but they are still doing it by regulation. This section authorizes the minister to make regulations; that is what we are dealing with. The section says, "The minister may make regulations," and this is one of the items about which the regulations may be made.
Will the minister submit these two questions to the Department of Justice? 1. Has this parliament power to legislate with respect to the sale and conditions of sale of radios in Ontario? 2. Has this parliament the right to insist upon a repair contractor ascertaining whether or not a licence has been taken out by the owner of the radio upon which he is to work, and to make him liable to a penalty if he fails to do so? I shall not take up the time of the committee beyond this.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad so to refer those questions, and in the meantime I would suggest that this paragraph stand.
Paragraph (e) stands.
Paragraphs (f) to (k) inclusive agreed to.
On section 4, paragraph (1).


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is the kind of
paragraph about which, in former times, it was the habit of hon. gentlemen now forming the government to complain. After having provided for special matters and special regulations which may be passed, in paragraphs using most of the letters in the alphabet, the minister then puts in a paragraph covering them all, whether those regulations are or are not contained in the preceding paragraphs.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Opposite it says:	"No
change."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nothing surprises one so
much in the house in the last few years a3 to see the justification the government puts forward for its conduct by saying, "No change."


Ernest Lapointe: We are
keeping what is good.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And then one must turn up Hansard and read the speeches of the present Minister of Justice on those occasions when he said there was much danger; the sacred rights and liberties of the people were being taken from them. Then there were references to the powers of the governor in council, and how that bureaucracy was tightening upon the very lives of. the people, and choking them to death. Now the minister says, "No change."
Paragraph (1) agreed to
Radio Broadcasting

On section 4, subsection 2-Penalty for violation.


James Earl Lawson: I assume the Minister of
Justice will move a similar amendment with respect to this subsection, as he did with respect to paragraph (e) of section 3.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; that will be done.


Ernest Lapointe: I move:
To amend section 4 of Bill No. 52, by striking out subsection 2 and substituting therefor the following:
"(2) Any person -who violates any regulation made under this section shall be liable upon summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding $50 and costs or three months imprisonment."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
Section stands.
On section 5-Station licences.
James Earl Lawson: This section illustrates
as well as if not better than any other the protest I raised, when the bill was first introduced. to the effect that the notes in respect of the different sections are deceptive. The note at the side of this section is in these words:
This is existing section 6 reworded to clarify the intention.
As a matter of fact, the section does not clarify the intention at all. The section in the bill has the same effect as section 6 of the Radiotelegraph Act, with the exception of the added words "operate or have in his possession any radio apparatus at." The effect of those words is to make a radio contained in an automobile subject to licence. I do'not believe the minister would seriously suggest that under the old Radiotelegraph Act there was power to licence a radio in an automobile; yet this very section is designed for that purpose.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


James Earl Lawson: The minister says, " No." Why, then, does he put in a proviso exempting the cars of tourists who happen to be in Canada? In the first place, I say that the section in the bill creates a new offence. It had previously been an offence to install or to establish a radio station. Under the bill it becomes an offence to operate or to have in one's possession any radio apparatus. The expression " in any place " in the old section has been changed to " at any place " in the new. The proviso is:
Provided that the governor in council may exempt from the operation of this section any radio apparatus installed in any automobile

or other vehicle temporarily in Canada which is owned by a person who resides outside of Canada in a country which accords a similar privilege to residents of Canada.
Therefore I say that in view of the fact that the section creates a new offence, these notes are deceptive.
Let me show another respect in which they are deceptive. We are told that this is the existing section 6, reworded to clarify the intention. It is reworded to clarify the intention of what? Surely it must be to clarify the intention of the original act, which was passed in 1913, and known as the Radiotelegraph Act. Did any one in the house or the country ever hear of such a thing as a radio being installed in a motor car in the year 1913? Is it conceivable that any House of Commons sitting in 1913 intended in a section of an act then enacted to provide for the installation of radios in automobiles? I say that on every possible ground the information is deceptive and is not in accordance with the facts. I point this out in particular at this time because of what was said last night by the Minister of Transport when I raised the matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I assume it was the intention in the original act that radios ought to be licensed. This arises out of Rex v. Gignac, quoted the other day by the hon. member.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, May 12, 1938