OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
House of Commons
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 4, 1938

[Stage Direction]
First report of special committee to inquire into the operation of the Civil Service Act.- Mr. Pouliot.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: If I might have the unanimous consent of the house I move, seconded by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power):
That the committee appointed on the 24th February last, with the powers of a standing committee, to consider the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to review the policy of the corporation, shall consist of the following members:	Messrs.
Ahearn, Barber, Beaubien, Bertrand (Laurier), Bouchard, Cote, Dupuis, Edwards, Factor, Hamilton, Power, Isnor, Johnston (Bow River), Lawson, MacKenzie (Neepawa), MacLean (Prince), MacMillan, Martin, Patterson, Ross (Moose Jaw), Turgeon, Wermenlinger and Woodsworth, and that the presence of at least nine members will constitute a quorum of the said committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. McAvity be substituted for that of Mr. Hill on the select standing committee on industrial and international relations.
That the name of Mr. McAvity be substituted for that of Mr. Hill on the select standing committee on marine and fisheries.


[Stage Direction]
Motions agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, as this is the twenty-seventh sitting day of the session, I should like to know if the government will be in a position on the first of the week to tell us when we may expect the report of the grain commission, the textile commission and the penitentiaries commission-and also the final report of the late lamented employment commission; do not forget that.



VALIDITY OF ALBERTA STATUTES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, at the request of some hon. members I desire to lay on the table of the house six copies of the answers of the Supreme Court of Canada to certain questions, by way of reference by the governor in council of certain Alberta matters, and the reasons for such answers. The questions and answers are as follows:
Question. Is power of disallowance a still subsisting power?
Answer: Yes.
Question. Is power, if subsisting, subject to any restriction, and, if so, what is nature of restriction?
Answer: No.
Question: Is Bill No. 1, entitled an Act Respecting the Taxation of Banks, intra vires?
Answer: No.
Question: Is Bill No. 8, entitled an Act to Amend and Consolidate the Credit of Alberta Regulation Act, intra vires?
Answer: No.

Coronation Oath

Question: Is Bill No. 9, entitled An Act to Ensure the Publication of Accurate News and Information, intra vires?
Answer: No.
Question: Is power of reservation a still subsisting power?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Is power, if subsisting, subject to any restrictions, and, if so, what is the nature of restrictions?
Answer: No.
The court stated that the only restrictions on disallowance or reservation were the statutory restrictions contained in the British North America Act, and the limitations on the power of the lieutenant-governor contained in his instructions.
The opinion on every one of the references is unanimous.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice, in view of the great interest taken throughout the country in the decisions handed down, if the text will be printed for distribution?


Mr. BENNETT:: Print them in the votes
and proceedings.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, that might be done. Of course it is a pretty bulky document, but if the house would agree it might be printed in the votes and proceedings, for the convenience of hon. members.



CORONATION OATH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably
absent from the house on Monday last when the Prime Minister replied formally to a question I had asked with regard to the coronation oath. His reply has been interpreted by some members of the house, and some people outside the house, as raising a question of personal veracity between the Prime Minister and myself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, no.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I did not think that any
such issue was raised.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly not.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But, as a personal explanation, I should like to say that in asking the question I was quite familiar with the statutory changes in the coronation oath since first prescribed by the Coronation Oath Act. I was familiar with the fact that originally the kingdom was referred to as the Kingdom of England, that upon the union in 1706 of the two kingdoms of England and Scotland the name prescribed by the statute was the Kingdom of Great Britain, and that by the act of 1800, providing for the union of Great Britain and Ireland, the name prescribed was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Since then there has been another change in that designation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which, since the organization of the Irish Free State as a dominion, has been known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
But when referring to changes in the coronation oath, as administered on May 12, 1937, I was not referring to any such statutory changes, because former changes in the name to that of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland were not, I conceived, changes in the terms of the oath. Those were statutory changes in the name of what was originally known, when the oath was prescribed by enactment, as the Kingdom of England. I * was referring to other terms. I do not wish to raise any further question at the present time which would lead to any discussion, but I wish simply to say that in asking my question I was not considering statutory changes. I had in mind certain alterations which I did not conceive to be statutory alterations, and with this statement I am quite content. I was sure from the beginning that no question of personal veracity had been raised by the Prime Minister's reply.
I also notice that newspapers from the Atlantic to the Pacific allege that I, in my capacity as a member of the house, was deemed by the Prime Minister to be guilty of gross impropriety in asking another question. I infer that his reply referred to the form of my question, and not to any real impropriety in the question which I asked.
I have nothing further to say except that in reading the reply I did not believe that the Prime Minister was making any imputation with respect to my personality as a member of the house.
d

Japanese Immigration


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is unnecessary for me to say to my hon. friend that no member of the house, and least of all myself, would make any reflection upon my hon. friend's veracity.



JAPANESE IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to a Canadian press dispatch from Vancouver, dated yesterday, to the effect that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) had announced in that city that the government intended thoroughly to investigate the Japanese problem in British Columbia. I should like to ask whether or not such is the case, and if so in what manner and to what extent an 'investigation will be made.


Thomas Langton Church: They will appoint another commission.


Mr. SPENCE:: Hear, hear-another commission.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to intimate to me that he would ask this question. As I indicated on February 17, the government has been investigating the question of surreptitious immigration into Canada, particularly on the Pacific coast. Officials of the interested departments have been considering the matter jointly and the government intends to intensify the investigation and do everything it possibly can to prevent anything in the way of illegal entry. In accordance with the statement made at that time the interdepartmental committee, consisting of representatives of the branches of the service chiefly concerned, namely, immigration, justice, national defence, labour, fisheries, statistics and external affairs, has been instructed to reexamine the whole situation and to report at an early date.
In addition it has been decided to appoint a hoard of review composed of representatives of immigration and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and external affairs to carry
51952-66J
on an inquiry in British Columbia. The board will not necessarily hold public sittings but will be prepared to receive representations from any persons claiming to have information regarding illegal entry and anyone having such information will be invited to present it to the board. These representations will be immediately investigated. A special detail will be assigned by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to work in collaboration with the board to carry out a thorough check-up. The report of the board of review will be given immediate consideration by the government.
I might add that any persons found to have entered Canada illegally will be deported. On the other hand no person who has been legally admitted to Canada need have any apprehension.
An announcement will be made in due course of the personnel of the board of review.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I ask whether it has
been ascertained, as a result of the investigations that have been made, how many Japanese have entered this country illegally? Perhaps the minister is unable to give an answer at this time, but the question arises out of what has been said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would prefer to give an answer to my right hon. friend's question on Monday.



VALIDITY OF QUEBEC STATUTE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. PELLETIER (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, is it the intention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) or the government to refer the so-called Quebec padlock law to the supreme court to determine whether it is intra or ultra vires?


Ernest Lapointe: The legislation my hon. friend is referring to is being considered by the Minister of Justice along with the petitions which have been received in relation to it. Whatever the recommendation of the minister may be, it will be submitted to the governor in council.
Harbour Commissions



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: While no request has been made, I understand that it will be appreciated by a number of hon. members of the house if when we adjourn this evening at six o'clock the house shall stand adjourned until Monday afternoon. It is the intention of the government to ask at six o'clock for an adjournment until that time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Speaking for those who are associated with me, as well as on my own behalf, I desire to express grateful appreciation of the courtesy the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has extended to us in dealing with the adjournment at six o'clock as indicated.



BONE CREEK, SASK., FARMERS LACK OF FEED FOR LIVE STOCK AND NEED OF RELIEF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: On February 25 the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) brought to my attention on the orders of the day a matter to which he said he did not expect a reply at that time but at a later date. His representation was:
It is alleged that some seventy farmers of Bone Creek municipality have received only from fifty to sixty-five per cent of their winter hay. It is claimed that the last delivery was made on February 2, and that their live stock is starving. They have interviewed the council without result and have wired Mr. Taggart and Mr. Kember at Regina.
A few days ago I passed over to my right hon. friend a wire which I received and which I should like to place on the record. It reads:
Re municipality of Bone Creek. Municipality asked for forty-one hundred and thirteen tons. To date twenty-seven hundred and twenty-four tons have been shipped. Ten cars are in transit, thirty-two cars are on order and orders are being issued every day for more hay for this municipality. Our field man will make an inspection immediately.
The inspection has been made and I am informed that feed is now going forward in sufficient quantity to take care of the situation.



HARBOUR COMMISSIONS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of Bill No. 32, to amend the Winnipeg and St. Boniface Harbour Commissioners Act.
He said: The purpose of this bill is to extend the jurisdiction of the Winnipeg and St. Boniface Harbour Commissioners to the waters of municipalities contiguous to the cities of Winnipeg and St. Boniface which desire to be brought under the act. The harbour limits now include the Red river within the boundaries of Winnipeg on the one side, and St. Boniface on the other. The municipality of East Kildonan has requested that the portion of the river fronting that municipality should be included. It is also probable that Kildonan West, Fort Garry and St. Vital will make similar applications. With the completion of the sewage system for Winnipeg it is expected that the Red river will be used more extensively by pleasure boats, and for that reason the city has asked the government to introduce this bill to extend the boundaries of the harbour commission.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johhston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
On section 1-Municipality.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the minister any real meaning to give to the word " contiguous "? It has no exact legal meaning so far as I know.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My understanding is that it means touching the city of Winnipeg.


Mr. MUTCH:: Am I right in understanding that this bill will not change the present jurisdiction of the municipal councils?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct. If these municipalities decide to come in, each council will have the privilege of appointing one member to the board.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: It is just enabling legislation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Inspection and Sale Act


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 3, consideration in committee of Bill No. 30, to regulate the inspection and sale of binder twine and salt, and to establish weight of bushel for certain commodities commonly sold by the bushel-Mr. Gardiner-Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: When this bill was before the committee yesterday certain sections were allowed to stand.
On section 7-Reconditioned or rewound binder twine.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, part II of this bill was under consideration yesterday, and I asked the committee to rise and report progress in order that we might check back further. I realized from the discussion that we were more or less at cross purposes because of statements which had been made with regard to what is contained in other acts.
I	have since had those acts checked. This bill as it is now before the committee is for the purpose of repealing all parts of the Inspection and Sale Act which have been covered by other legislation. I found on further investigation that these sections with regard to salt are fully covered in the Food and Drugs Act and the Feeding Stuffs Act, and that there was no necessity for these sections to be retained in the present act.
The proposal now is to remove sections 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 from the present bill, and pass the bill without Part II in it. That will require some further amendments in Part III afterwards. But I suggest that part
II	be dropped from the bill.


Mr. DUNNING:: I move that part II of the bill be struck out.


René-Antoine Pelletier: In clause 13 of part II mention is made of every sort of container and package. Why could not salt blocks be included in that designation?


James Garfield Gardiner: Section 13 is now out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
James Garfield Gardiner: It will be necessary to amend section 19 to read:
Every person who violates any provision of Part II of this act shall, for the first offence, be liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding twenty-five dollars, and for each subsequent offence to a penalty not exceeding fifty dollars.
And it will become new section 14.


Charles Avery Dunning: I so move. There will
have to be a renumbering of the sections.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have struck out
sections 13 to 17. Former section 18 now becomes No. 13, and former section 19 will now become No. 14.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 18-Manner of determining a bushel.
James Garfield Gardiner: Regarding this section
there was a question raised yesterday by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Both-well). We changed the wording above the list of articles, and the question was raised whether any offence could be proven with the wording we put in yesterday. I had that checked up and I am informed that the point taken by the hon. member for Swift Current was well taken. I suggest that the new section 13 in place of section 18 shall read:
In contracts for the sale and delivery of any of the undermentioned articles the legal weights per bushel shall be as follows:


Charles Avery Dunning: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Mr. STIRLING:: Is the minister satisfied
that there is no confusion between the penalty prescription in clause 12 and the penalty set out in new clause 14? The penalty in clause 12 refers to persons charged with the enforcement of this act, the whole act. The penalty in new clause 14 refers to the violation of a provision in part II, and the penalty clause in section 10 specifically speaks of part I.


James Garfield Gardiner: I judge from the wording that it is clearly defined. Section 12
says:
Every person who obstructs an inspector or other person charged with the enforcement of this act from entering any premises to examine binder twine as provided by this part . . .
The same inspector might be enforcing the whole act. but this relates to when he is working under this particular part. I am letting third reading stand over, in any case, to have it all checked.
Bill reported.
War Veterans' Allowances



WAR VETERANS' ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the War Veterans' Allowance Act so as to extend the allowance payable thereunder to a class of veterans of the great war not presently the recipients of such allowances who, because of tangible or intangible disabilities and handicaps, are incapable of maintaining themselves; to include certain veterans of the South African war; to include among the classes of moneys non-deductible from allowance, pensions or grants accompanying certain military decorations; to provide for the avoidance of over-lapping of benefits payable under the War Veterans' Allowance Act and those payable under the Old Age Pension Act, and to enlarge the membership of the war veterans' allowances board.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
Mr. POWER:: It will be remembered that the War Veterans' Allowance Act was passed in 1930 to provide for the maintenance of veterans who are in necessity and because of age or incapacity were unable to provide for themselves. It was based on the assumption that the people of this country do not want to see its veterans in the bread-line or suffering hardship from lack of the necessities of life when they become too old or too disabled to work, even though their disabilities could not be proved to be a result of war service and consequently are not pensionable.
The act provided for a maximum allowance to a married veteran of $40 a month, provided he had reached the age of sixty or was so disabled as to be " permanently unemployable.'' In addition to this $40 per month, he could earn or receive from other sources $20 per month, giving him a total income of $60 a month. With the single veteran, the amounts were half the sums named. Since the act was based on the assumption that the terrific strain on those in battle during the last war would pre-age the veteran as compared with the civilian, the act provided that the veteran must have served in a theatre of actual war. It provided however that those who received small pensions, no matter where they served, would also be entitled to its benefits. It also provided that those who served in His Majesty's imperial forces and in the forces of His Majesty's allies should receive the same benefits provided they were domiciled in Canada when they enlisted.
fMr. Gardiner.]
The government at the time this act was enacted in 1930 knew that the cost of legislation would increase as years went by. As a matter of fact the cost in 1930 was $318,000, and during the last fiscal year it was $3,178,000. It will continue to increase for almost another twenty years. The expenditure at its peak in about the year 1957 is expected to reach twelve to thirteen million dollars and will look after approximately 35,000 to 40,000 veterans.	At the
present time 12,800 veterans are in receipt of the allowance and $4,500,000 will be required to make provision for the recipients under this act during the next fiscal year, although a supplementary vote will be asked for to cover those it is proposed to bring under this amendment.
It has been stated that the legislation was originally enacted to provide for the veteran of sixty and the veteran who was "permanently unemployable." "Permanently unemployable" has, broadly speaking, been interpreted to mean totally incapacitated. After the act had been functioning for six years it became apparent that there was another class of veteran for whom the act did not provide but who was incapable of maintaining himself. For the main part it was found that this veteran was in his late fifties; he had not quite reached the age of sixty, and he did not have sufficient disability to classify him "permanently unemployable." Yet he was physically older than his years, and because of his pre-aging found it difficult to secure employment. The act was therefore amended in 1936, bringing in a third and additional class. The amendment provided for the man who, "having served in a theatre of actual war, has attained the age of fifty-five years and is in the opinion of the board incapable of maintaining himself because of disability, pre-aging and general unfitness." Over 1,100 veterans have been granted the allowance as the result of this amendment of 1936.
It is now proposed by this legislation to broaden the act still further, so as to enable the board administering it to provide for any veteran, regardless of his age, who cannot maintain himself because of industrial as well as physical incapacity or inadequacy. I refer to the veteran who is only partially disabled but whose tangible or intangible disability, combined with certain economic or industrial handicaps, such as having been unemployed for a long time, render it extremely unlikely that he will be able to maintain himself again.
The amendment will empower the board to award the allowance to any veteran, having

War Veterans' Allowances
served in a theatre of actual war, who because of a combination of conditions and circumstances is not likely again to become selfsupporting, and it will exclude only those veterans who are physically fit to maintain themselves as and when work is available to them.
The veterans' assistance commission, whose report was recently tabled, found there were approximately 15,000 veterans unemployed throughout the dominion who had service in a theatre of actual war and were unprovided for by pensions or allowances. They classified these veterans into three groups, "fit," "partially fit" and "unfit." Over 10,000 of these veterans were classified by the commission as being "fit" and 5,171 were classed as "partially fit" and "unfit." It is this group of just over 5,000 veterans that the amendment contemplates providing for, subject of course to investigation and approval by the board. The anticipated annual cost will be about $2,000,000.
Summarizing the situation, therefore, it may be said originally the act provided for the veteran of sixty and the totally incapacitated veteran. Later it was broadened enabling the board to give special consideration to the veteran over fifty-five. Now it is proposed to amend the act further to the end that the board administering this legislation is empowered to grant the allowance to any veteran, regardless of his years, who in its opinion, because of economic conditions and handicaps combined with disabilities, is unlikely again to become self-supporting.
It may be said that in passing this legislation we shall be fulfilling to the utmost the requests of the returned soldiers themselves as expressed through the dominion convention of the Canadian legion held in Fort William early in February when a resolution was passed on the subject of cash bonus to veterans of the Great war. The resolution reads in part:
That this convention endorse the resolution passed by the dominion executive council to the effect that it is unalterably opposed to the principle of any bonus for service in the great war, conceiving it to be the responsibility of the government of Canada to adequately provide only for those disabled as a result of war service and dependents and dependents of the fallen and to ensure adequate assistance for those who saw service in a theatre of actual war and who are now by reason of economic conditions combined with their disability, tangible and intangible, resulting from war service, unable through no fault of their own to secure employment.
With respect to this resolution I submit that provision has already been made through pension legislation to "care for those disabled as a result of their service and dependents and the dependents of the fallen," and I further submit that this amendment is intended for and will take care of those who "by reason of economic conditions combined with their disabilities, tangible and intangible, are unable to secure employment."
The veterans' assistance commission, with regard to the War Veterans' Allowance Act recommended as follows:
That the act be amended by removal of age fifty-five years where it refers to the granting of an allowance because of disability, pre-aging and general unfitness, and that it be amended further so as to permit a more liberal interpretation of legislation covering the granting of the allowance at any age to a veteran who saw service in a theatre of actual war and who because of his unfit condition or other handicaps is unable to maintain himself.
This recommendation is being fully implemented by this amendment, and moreover, certain classes of veterans with respect to whom recommendations were made by the commission involving lesser allowances will now, by this amendment, be provided for under the War Veterans' Allowance Act which provides a more generaus scale of assistance.
I have no hesitation in stating that with this amendment the War Veterans' Allowance Act of Canada will be broader in its scope and more generous in its terms than similair legislation in any other country.
It is also provided, in accordance with the undertaking given last year that if it was feasible to do so it would be done, that South African veterans shall be brought within the provisions of the War Veterans' Allowance Act. While it was very difficult to get at the exact figures, it is estimated that this will cost approximately $30,000 to $50,000 per annum.
It is also provided that, in view of the increased amount of work placed on the shoulders of the members of the board, the board be enlarged from three to five members.
Provision is also made for the exemption of the grants which accompany certain decorations such as the Victoria cross and the distinguished conduct medal. These grants, as hon. members know, amount in the case of the Victoria cross to approximately $50 per annum, and a somewhat lesser amount accompanies the distinguished conduct medal. There was no legislation providing for an exemption in respect of these amounts, and it is now provided that there shall be.


Howard Charles Green: I have no wish at this stage to start a debate on this resolution, particularly since the government, like St. Paul on the road to Damascus, has apparently now seen a great light
War Veterans' Allowances

and is adopting a suggestion that we have pressed earnestly upon it during the last two sessions. However, I should like to have a more complete report from the minister. He has referred to five thousand of the fifteen thousand unemployed veterans who served in a theatre of actual war, but he has said nothing about the other ten thousand who are fit and whose plight was very fully dealt with in the report of the veterans' assistance commission. The recommendation was made that they should be paid a provisional economic allowance. On February 15, I asked the minister a question-which appears at page 493 of Hansard and is as follows:
Mr. Green:	If the minister is not prepared
to make a statement to-night with regard to the recommendations of the veterans' assistance commission, how soon will he be ready to make that statement?
Mr. Power: As I have already stated, within a week or ten days.
That was the answer the minister made then, and he has had twice that length of time in which to make the statement. Can he now tell us what is to be done about the other recommendations of the veterans' assistance commission?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know that I am under any obligation to make such a statement on this resolution leading to the introduction of a bill, because we are fully implementing and more than implementing one recommendation. I do not think there is any reason why we should be called upon to deal with fifteen or twenty recommendations, some of which have no relation to this bill.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the minister could deal with the recommendation with respect to the provisional economic allowance. That is the main recommendation in the report, and if he will deal with that alone I think that we shall be satisfied.


Charles Gavan Power: To some extent I am dealing with the provisional economic allowance. The commission recommended, in one part at least, that a great many of these men- five thousand of them who are going to be covered by the war veterans' allowance- should receive a provisional economic allowance amounting to $18.75 per month for single men and $30 for married men. This bill will give $20 to the single men and $40 to the married men, so that in that respect it is more generous than the recommendation made by the veterans' assistance commission. I have no objection to laying down principles in so far as this bill is concerned. This bill will not deal with the one hundred per cent fit man. Most hon. gentlemen will agree
tMr. Green.]
with me in considering that the one hundred per cent fit man is not the responsibility of the federal government. If he is out of work at the present time it is due to economic causes and not to war causes. If a man is absolutely fit to work it is extremely difficult to attribute his unemployability to his war service. But it is intended by this bill to cover everybody who can in any way attribute his present unemployability to the war, who is suffering from a disability which may be intangible, who, in other words, is possibly washed up, burnt out, who has not been able to obtain employment for the last few years. That man will come under the provisions of the bill. If, however, a man is absolutely fit and can take a job if one is offered him, he is not considered to be a responsibility of the government under the War Veterans' Allowance Act.


Mr. NEILL:: Is there to be an age limit?


Charles Gavan Power: None whatever.


Howard Charles Green: Are we to take it from what the minister has said that the government is against the finding of the commission as set out at page 63 of the report in the following words:
. . . the commission has come to the conclusion that it can do no less than recommend that the dominion government accept responsibility for all indigent unemployed veterans who were domiciled in Canada at the date of enlistment and who saw service in a theatre of actual war.


Charles Gavan Power: The government is accepting responsibility for the fit man by endeavouring to find employment for him. As a matter of fact through the instrumentality of the veterans' assistance commission during the past year it has accomplished the following:
Employment-
Permanent placements	 2,210
Temporary placements	 4,784
Casual placements	 4,329
Total	 11,323
Probational Training-
Commencements	 598
Discontinued	 79
Employed as trained	 263
Employed otherwise	 10
Tourists' guides	 45
Not retained by employer..	40
Still on training	 161
Total	 598
Corps of Commissionaires-
The appointment of a board of governors in Montreal led to the appointment of boards of governors and divisions of the corps in leading centres throughout the dominion.
Actually since the corps was organized last year 48 commissionaires have been permanently

War Veterans' Allowances
placed and 67 have secured temporary employment. This is exclusive of the excellent divisions which have been functioning in V an-couver and Toronto for some years.
Projects and Schemes-
Montreal.
The workshop gives employment to 80 men at present and since it was started in February, 1937, 329 have been reconditioned in that workshop for permanent placement in other industries.
Toronto.
Fourteen veterans and their families were established on experimental small holdings last year and the venture gives the committee every encouragement of success.
A grant was made to "Poppy Fund Incorporated" to assist towards the purchase of new premises.
This factory at present employs 83 veterans. Windsor.
Twenty veterans and their families are being settled on an experimental small holdings project and of these six are now settled on the property.
Winnipeg.
Twelve veterans and their families have been established on experimental individual small holdings.
Regina.
A workshop was started on the 1st September, 1937, and so far has operated very successfully.
Moose Jaw.
A small grant was made to the committee to assist towards the operation of a workshop which has been operated for a few years with a fair degree of success, but lacked the necessary funds.
Vancouver.
Grants have been made to assist towards schemes which have for their objective the principle of becoming self-supporting and to give employment to a number of veterans. These schemes are:
(1)	Veterans' auto parking and protective corps.
(2)	Residential night patrols.
(3)	Veterans' industrial first aid.
(4)	Parking spaces and auto service.
In connection with the amputations placement service, a small grant was made to a subcommittee for the purpose, and the honorary local committees, who have done a great deal of good work during the past year, are being continued in office. It is proposed that they be continued during the next year.


Howard Charles Green: I have no wish to reflect upon the work done by the honorary committees, but I take it from what the minister has said that the government has no intention of adopting the suggestion that there should be a provisional economic allowance.


Charles Gavan Power: Certainly not under this legislation.


Howard Charles Green: Is it proposed to act on the recommendation during this session, to bring in legislation to carry out the report of the commission?


Charles Gavan Power: That can be more fully discussed under the item in the estimates providing for unemployment assistance. At the present moment we are dealing with a certain class of veterans under the legislation which we now propose.


Howard Charles Green: The minister said clearly the other day that he would tell us the stand of the government with regard to this report of the veterans' assistance commission, and we ask to-day that he at least make a statement with respect to this one point, whether or not there will be a provisional economic allowance.


Charles Gavan Power: I said that I would introduce a bill and a bill is being intrbduced.


Howard Charles Green: Are there more bills
coming up?


Charles Gavan Power: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman likes the resolution or not? Does he object to it? If he does not, perhaps he will let me get on with it so as to disclose fully the provisions of the bill. We shall have ample time to discuss any extraneous matter during the session.


Howard Charles Green: The minister will not say whether or not the government will bring in a bill to provide for a provisional economic allowance?


Charles Gavan Power: Under this legislation no
man who is one hundred per cent fit will be looked after. I cannot make it any plainer than that. All those who are partially fit or unfit will be looked after under the provisions of this legislation, but if a man is one hundred per cent fit he will not be looked after.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: I think if there
is one resolution of all those introduced this session or in past sessions on which we could compliment the minister, it is the resolution now before us. To my mind this legislation proposes to deal with just that class of men who have been neglected and who could not be brought within the four corners of the Pension Act. This will give the war veterans' allowance board a chance to deal with hundreds of cases of men completely disabled, men who find it impossible to get assistance because they cannot prove to the satisfaction of the commission that their disabilities are due to war service. I know the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) will approve of this measure also. He has always been very fair in matters of this kind, and I do not
War Veterans' Allowances

believe the little thrust he made at this government, when he said that at last it had seen the light, was really worthy of him.


Howard Charles Green: It sees the light so seldom
that I had to remark on the fact.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I think in all
fairness it should be said that all governments regardless of which party has been in power, have endeavoured to do the very best they could for the returned men, having regard to the financial situation and their ability to deal with the question, and I believe this proposed legislation will measure up to all our expectations in this regard.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I desire to congratulate the minister on bringing in this resolution, and I agree with the legislation as far as it goes. I understand that this is not the time to debate these questions at length, but since the bill will be based upon this resolution I think the minister might very well give us a little more explanation in order that we may be able to discuss the bill intelligently when it is brought in.
For example, it is stated that the new bill proposes to include certain veterans of the South African war. For one thing I should like the minister to explain what he means by "certain veterans." I should like an explanation of the word "certain." In the second place. I see that pretty well all those suffering from war disabilities are going to be looked after, but I see absolutely no mention of ex-prisoners of war. I thought perhaps the minister might make it clear whether it is the intention that veterans of that class shall be dealt with under this legislation.


Mr. MULOCK:: We could discuss this bill more intelligently if we saw what it looked like. The minister has explained the purposes of the bill, and we can discuss its provisions when it is laid before us. We should give the minister an opportunity to introduce it, and in that way we might save time.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I should like to have
an answer to the question I asked. What does the minister mean by the -word "certain?"


Charles Gavan Power: The moment this resolution passes I intend to ask for permission to introduce the bill, and it will be distributed. If my hon. friend will possess his soul in patience for another ten minutes we can get the bill introduced.


Mr. TUSTIN:: This resolution refers to
the War Veterans' Allowance Act, and provides that veterans of the South African war may be looked after as well. But I do not see anything in the resolution with reference to nursing sisters. I should like to ask the minister whether nursing sisters are covered.


Charles Gavan Power: They will be included.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: There is a small class, not very numerous, that I think might be worthy of a little consideration. Men who did not serve in an actual theatre of wrar are not included under this measure, and I think that is quite correct. They did not suffer in the same way as the others did, but a number of nursing sisters who worked hard and perhaps had to bear a certain amount of risk are perhaps as deserving as those who actually served in a theatre of war. The only difference is that patients were brought to them; they did not go to the patients. Could the minister give a little consideration to this small class of very needy and very deserving veterans of the great war?


Mr. QUELCH:: I am very much in favour of_the general principle of this resolution, but I realize that from the point of view of the veterans the success of this measure is going to depend in large measure upon the sympathetic consideration that is given the applications by the war veterans' allowance board. I think we can safely say that in the past we have received fairly sympathetic consideration from that board, and if the same treatment is accorded in the future we can have every reason to believe that the bill will reach its objective. I wonder if the minister could tell me how many applications were made under the new class; that is, those over fifty-five years of age? How many applications were refused and how many were granted?


Charles Gavan Power: I have not that information at the moment, but I shall be glad to give it when the bill is in committee. Roughly speaking, however, I can say that about fifty per cent of the applications made for war veterans' allowances are granted, and I quite agree with my hon. friend that it throws a heavy burden on the discretion of the board.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Power thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 35, to amend the War Veterans' Allowance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Supply-Transport-Electrical Interjerences
SUPPLY	.
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
Suppression of local electrical interferences, $205,478.
Alan Webster Neill: I should like to ask the minister a question which I think I brought up last year, or when he had some bill before the house. There is a feeling that the inspectors do not have sufficient-in fact I do not think they have any-mandatory power in correcting local disturbances. A man has some kind of electrical machine which is a perfect curse to the whole community. The inspectors, who are very competent men, go around and find that out. They approach the man about whom the complaint has been made and suggest that a change be made, at perhaps small cost. If these changes are made-and in most cases they are, because people are fundamentally decent-it is all right; but there is the odd case of the man who will not do it. I suggested last year and again suggest that it would be advisable to clothe these inspectors with power to compel people in default to do as they are told, or to have them fined.


Clarence Decatur Howe: When the act of 1936 was passed we took almost unlimited power. If we found there was interference with broadcasting in Ottawa, we could even go so far as to close down the Ottawa Electric Railway Company. I cannot say whether the mandatory powers are used as much as they should be. Of course we try to effect results without compulsion, but if compulsion is necessary we have ample power to shut down any machine which causes radio broadcasting difficulties.


Alan Webster Neill: Has the minister any record of prosecutions, or action of that kind, during the last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have not taken action under that section of the act.


Alan Webster Neill: But I suppose you can use it as a threat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are doing that constantly.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I notice there is an increase of $11,972, in the vote. I imagine that that increase is necessary because of the development of radio in Canada, and because more inspectors and administrators are required. On the other hand I believe a useful purpose would be served if the minister would tell the committee exactly to what
individual one should go to request the suppression of local electrical interference. With whom must a person get in touch, and how is one to follow up his complaint in order to see that the suppression is carried out? I ask the question because a number of people in the smaller towns do not know what to do about the electrical interference affecting their towns. Many of them are not aware what steps should be taken, to whom they should address their correspondence, or how far they can go towards having improvements made.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are fifty-two officers engaged from coast to coast in Canada in that kind of work. A letter addressed to the radio branch of the Department of Transport in any of the principal cities, or one addressed to the radio branch of the Department of Transport at Ottawa, or to myself-many people write me about it-would have the desired results. When I receive a communication of the kind I forward it to the inspector, who traces down the complaint as rapidly as his work will permit. I have found out that our service is fairly prompt. Usually when a complaint is made the local interference branch can effect an immediate improvement.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Is any cost involved in a request for assistance from the department?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Mr. HEAPS:: Will matters pertaining to radio broadcasting come under the review of the committee which has been appointed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I presume the matter under discussion could be included in the work of the committee, because interference is closely connected with broadcasting.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Members of the special
committee would have a much better opportunity for discussion, if one is afforded, in the committee than they can have in committee of the whole. If the administration of the department is under examination, officials can appear and tell what is being done in practically every broadcasting activity.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We shall be pleased to have officials present to discuss radio interference. Perhaps I should make a statement with respect to interference. It may be known to hon. members that there is a cycle of sun spots, an eleven-year cycle, and this year the cycle is in its worst phase so far as radio interference is concerned. Last year it was very bad, but this year it is at its worst. The consoling thought is that next year we
1044	COMMONS
Supply-Transport-Electrical Interferences
shall advance towards an improvement, and as a result the interference will be less than it is at the present time. We are trying to keep man-made noise down to a certain level. Below that level there is always noise which is received on the radio receiver provided that the receiver is turned on sufficiently. With poor reception, due to the present condition of sun spots, it is often necessary to increase the volume considerably in order to get a distant station; when that is done a level of noise is broken into which we cannot and do not attempt to control, and the result is very poor reception. I mention these points because a great many people are saying, and with reason, that reception this year is worse than it has been. That is the position so far as the suppression of noise and interference is concerned. I believe we are carrying out our work to a proper degree, but the fact that reception is poor arises out of a condition which is somewhat worse than we have had in the past few years.


Mr. MacNEIL:: What facilities exist in Vancouver to deal with interference resulting from electrical appliances? How many officials are appointed to do the work, and how far do their districts extend?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Our Vancouver office covers the whole of British Columbia. At that point there are two interference cars, and a staff of four. The cars are equipped with the latest equipment for tracing interference, and are kept very busy in the area.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Which of the fifty-two offices mentioned by the minister is located near Medicine Hat, Alberta?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are officers at Moose Jaw and two at Calgary.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: People in Medicine Hat are experiencing considerable difficulty through interference. At that point the radio corporation retains a man who, if my memory serves me correctly, receives something like SIS a month. He gives all his ordinary time to his own work, and trouble-finding is only an out-of-hours occupation for him. I believe he also sells licences. The results are very unsatisfactory. We rarely see a trouble car in the vicinity. There is no place to which we can phone to get assistance, and the people in the locality feel that adequate attention is not being given to the matter and that they are not getting proper value for the licence fees they pay. What can we expect in the future?


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I correct my former statement by stating that, as indicated by the hon. member, we do have a part-time man stationed at Medicine Hat. He does what he can to trace interference, and when the difficulty is beyond his capability he calls in a trouble car. This service has no connection with radio licence fees. It is paid for by a vote of parliament, whereas the licence fees go to pay for the broadcasts. I shall be glad to look into the situation at Medicine Hat and see if some improvement cannot be made.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: If the man was paid enough by the government to make it worth his while to spend all his time on that work, there is plenty there to keep him busy.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I should like to urge upon the minister an extension of the service to the suburban areas around the city of Vancouver. I refer particularly to West Vancouver, North Vancouver and North Burnaby. I have received numerous complaints from people who say that there is serious radio interference from defective electrical appliances, so much so that at times it is impossible to get the local stations. They say that this matter has been reported to the local departmental officials. A car was sent into the district but it was not possible to have it remain a sufficient length of time to trace down the source of trouble. The officials informed those who are in correspondence with me that they are so under-staffed and their facilities so meagre that they are unable to deal effectively with the trouble. Many of these people live adjacent to industrial plants and other institutions, and they feel that a check-up should be made of possible defective electrical appliances. Will it be possible with the increase in this vote to extend the service into the suburban areas around the city of Vancouver?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We appreciate that another radio car is needed in British Columbia and we shall endeavour to provide it before next summer.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: What are the duties of the temporary assistants?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A portion of those employed in the government service are temporaries. So far as radio cars are concerned, the civil service commission has ruled that the drivers shall be considered as temporary employees. They are all engaged in this work and there is really no difference between the temporary and the permanent employees.

Supply-Transport-Electrical Interferences


Mr. MARSH:: I should like to hark back
to what the minister said a moment ago about the effect of sun spots upon radio reception. If research along these lines has been started, I would suggest that it be continued; if it has not been started, it should be instituted as soon as possible. If we are going to wait for the sun to stop having spots we may have to wait quite a little while. The cycle of maximum sun spots is eleven and one-third years, but the maximum is not reached in any one year. The years 1935, 1936 and 1937 saw increasing sun spot disturbances, and it is claimed that the peak will be reached during this year. The years that follow, 1939, 1940 and 1941, will show these spots on the down grade, but there will still be an appreciable number of sun spots visible, and therefore plenty of radio and magnetic disturbance. This will be so if the research work carried on for the last fifty years by astronomers is correct, and I think it is. Research work is being carried on in the United States and in Europe, but I think something should be done here in its relationship to radio reception. While Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, I do not know whether the Minister of Transport with all his fine ability can prevail upon it successfully to stop having sun spots. In any' case, this is a problem that will have to be met.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have tackled the problem in another way. Sun spots interfere only with long distance reception and we are bringing in such excellent local programs over the CBC that all necessary entertainment can be obtained from the local station.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Last summer two petitions were presented to me in connection with radio interference, and I went into Calgary to see the radio man, I believe his name is Mr. Ainsley. He received me courteously and sent a trouble man to my district on three different occasions. This man, whose name was Mr. Stunden, was a very fine fellow. We went around and we found twenty-two electrical appliances that were faulty; they did not have the necessary filter condensers to overcome radio interference. The owners of these appliances were informed that they were causing radio interference and were asked to have them fixed. This man told me how in another town he had asked a man to fix up some electrical apparatus and he replied that he would not do it. That was all there was to it. He told me he would return to my town in a couple of weeks to see what had been done. When he returned we went around and we found that only one out of the twenty-two had decided
to put in a condenser; the others had made no attempt whatever to get rid of the radio interference. He then told me that they had no power whatever to make anyone correct an apparatus or appliance which might be causing interference, and asked me to put before the department the conditions under which they were working. I do not think these men should have to make more than one trip. I was informed that at times they have to make as many as three trips in an effort to have interference eliminated. People who are causing interference should be informed and then if it is not eliminated, something should be done. These officials should be able to apply some sort of force.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are a very patient department, but sometimes our patience may be exhausted. We may drop in and fine these people. If we do I hope the hon. member will not come around to get the fines remitted.


George James Tustin: Would these fifteen inspectors include district inspectors?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The men listed here are
engaged in this particular service. There is a district service under the Radiotelegraph Act.


George James Tustin: Are the district inspectors
qualified to clear up electrical interference?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


George James Tustin: I have always found the
inspectors very courteous and more than anxious to do their work, but it seems to me that they have too much work to do. My constituents have advised me that it has taken from six weeks to three months to have an inspector come around to make an inspection. Once the inspector arrived on the job he was able to clear up a large amount of interference. It would seem that these inspectors have too much territory to cover or too much work to do when six weeks to three months elapse before a complaint can be attended to.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All services in the department are practically the same. If we could double the vote we could get better results, but we have to balance a reasonable expenditure with the results obtainable. We know that our staff works quite hard, but we think we are achieving a measure of success.


George James Tustin: Then the minister will
admit that the department is understaffed so far as inspectors are concerned.
1046	COMMONS
Supply-Transport-Electrical Interferences


Mr. HANSON:: Do the inspectors stationed in Vancouver to look after British Columbia have to make special trips? I think the inspector comes to my constituency once a year, sometimes perhaps twice a year. Several complaints have been received, and resolutions have been adopted by boards of trade, and so on, asking that an inspector should visit the district four times a year. As in the case of the hon. member who preceded me, probably the territory is too big; it needs another inspector. In an outlying district inspection once a year is not sufficient. There is no checking up; probably no one but the inspector could check it, and as he comes only once a year radio reception is bound to be poor. If an inspector came four times a year throughout northern British Columbia, I think the people would be satisfied. I would ask the minister to look into the matter and advise me whether there is any set time that the inspector should be there.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Whenever we can extract
$6,000 more from the exchequer, we intend to put another inspector in British Columbia. We admit at once that our four men there cannot cover the territory as frequently as they should. When we get additional funds, that is where we intend to spend it first.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Does this particular vote cover the work done by the inspectors in regard to blanketing by the new Canadian Broadcasting Corporation station at Hornby, Ontario, which has had considerable effect on reception sets in the county of Peel?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The situation in the county
of Peel is being taken care of by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It is a special situation that they have created. They have installed some five hundred wave traps which, I think, are making some improvement.


Mr. LAWSON:: Rather than deal with this question from the point of view of some particular municipality, I should like to deal with it more in its national aspect. I observe on page 214 of the estimates the details of this item. Apparently for all Canada we have four radio electricians, twenty-three junior radio electricians; then I see we have eleven radio inspectors and three junior radio inspectors. Assuming that one who owns a radio receiving set makes complaint to the department's branch in his municipality as to interference or static or noise on his set, which one of these gentlemen whose classifications I have named responds to such a call and deals with the matter of obliterating that interference?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It might be any one of them. They are highly trained men in that narrow groove. The junior radio electrician is a civil service classification that has to do with the man's salary rather than his ability to trace these noises. It is a fairly narrow specialty, and I think any one of those men would be fully competent to deal with such a matter.


James Earl Lawson: Then I observe that there are twenty-three junior radio electricians, four radio electricians, eleven radio inspectors and three junior radio inspectors, making altogether forty-one. May I assume that there are forty-one men in the whole Dominion of Canada engaged in the business of trying to obliterate interference on private radio receiving sets?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct, yes.


James Earl Lawson: Then I would suggest that that is by no means an adequate staff to deal with the trouble. Let me give one instance which is illustrative of many. We have in the city of Toronto a fairly good residential district known as Moore Park. A gentleman who resides in that district had a collector of radio licence fees come around to his house about three months ago wanting to collect a radio licence fee. The resident refused to pay on the ground that he had not used his set in six months and could not use it because of interference. The collector, being a rational man, said that seemed a reasonable ground why this gentleman should not pay, and he said, " I will report this at once to the department in Toronto; some one will come here and correct that for you in a few days, and afterwards I shall be back to collect the licence fee." Nothing having happened for two months and seven days, to be exact, the resident in question called up the department in Toronto to know what was being done about his complaint, or whether the complaint had been received. After they had kept him waiting on the telephone for five minutes while they looked it up, a gentleman came back on the telephone and said that the collector of licence fees had been very faithful; that he had put in the complaint; but, he said, " My dear man, we still have 3,546 complaints ahead of yours to look into."
Seriously I do not think such a situation should be allowed to prevail, particularly in view of the fact that although we may be going to increase the price of the radio licence, not one cent of that increase is going to be used to improve reception on people's receiving sets, but is going to a corporation

Supply-Transport- Radio Licences
which is not subject to the control of this parliament and about which we can obtain no information through this parliament. I suggest to the minister that he should seriously consider increasing the number of inspectors, even though the cost must come out of the public treasury of this country; or that if he is going to increase radio licence fees, at least he. divert that increase towards seeing that people get better reception, instead of handing the money over to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Issue of radio receiving licences (Transport department only), $113,420.
James Earl Lawson: Although the stoical attitude of the minister with respect to the difficulties of the public may be conducive to avoiding further discussion, I should like to ask the minister some questions respecting this item. In reply to a question which I asked in the house a few days ago I received the information that during the calendar year 1937 the total amount of money received by the department from the collection of radio licence fees, after the deduction of commissions to collectors or whatever they may be, amounted to 81,925,014.16 net. Then I find that including a part of that period, namely, from April 1, 1937, to March 2, 1938, the department paid over to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation $1,870,000, or $55,014.61 less than they had collected. I would ask whether any percentage of the net amount received from the collections is deducted from the payments to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, if so, what percentage, or is the corporation merely granted amounts from time to time without relation to the sum collected?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend framed his question on the order paper in a way that did not give an exact indication of what he was trying to get at.


James Earl Lawson: If the minister will permit, I deliberately framed my question so that I might be given either the calendar year or the fiscal year, because I did not know which way the department kept the statistics.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Only in the third question.


James Earl Lawson: But they answered by giving the fiscal year as against the calendar year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I remember, the third
question was framed to cover either the fiscal year or the calendar year.


James Earl Lawson: Right. I left the choice to you.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have nothing to conceal in that particular. I should like to make the matter as clear as I can. The funds are collected on behalf of the broadcasting corporation by the Department of Transport. The corporation is a self-contained body, over which the Department of Transport has absolutely no control. As minister my only relation to the corporation is that if the government wishes to communicate with it, I am the channel through which that communication is made, and if the broadcasting corporation wishes to communicate with the government, it does so through myself. Parliament set up a body, in the form of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, independent of the government. I have, however, one check on the corporation; that is I can take my own time in paying over the money we collect, and I exercise that power to make sure that the corporation lives within its means. Each month the corporation submits to me a budget for its requirements, and on the basis of that budget, which we check, we pay over the funds as we collect them from the broadcasting receiving licences. We do not always pay over the whole amount immediately; in fact, last year we did not pay over all the fees we collected, for the reason, I believe, that the broadcasting corporation had certain outstanding accounts which were in dispute and which they were not prepared to release within the year. However, all the funds we collect are earmarked for the broadcasting corporation, and some time at or about the end of the fiscal year they have been paid all the expenses of that year.


James Earl Lawson: In full?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Less the cost of collection. That cost divides itself into two parts. In the first place we pay commissions to collectors, a maximum of twenty-five cents and a minimum of five cents per licence. Perhaps I can give my hon. friend some information-


James Earl Lawson: No; I am interested only in what the department receives net, and as against that, in the calendar year, how much the department pays to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Commissions to collectors average about sixteen cents per licence. In addition to that there is the head office expense of the branch which does this collecting. Last year it was about $103,000; this year it will be $113,420. That also is deducted

Supply-Transport- Radio Licences
from the amount we pay over. In other words, we reimburse ourselves in full for the amount shown here as the cost of collection at head office. The result is that our total cost amounts to about sixteen cents plus ten cents per licence for administration; we pay over the full amount received for the licence less this twenty-six cents, which is a lower licence collection cost than that of any country of which we have a record, excepting Great Britain, where I believe the amount used to be twenty-eight cents, but has now been reduced to about twenty-five cents.


An hon. MEMBER:: They use the postal
carriers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Of course they have a much more compact population to collect from, and it is not surprising that they are able to collect licence fees for slightly less than we can.


James Earl Lawson: I am not concerned about the amount of commission which is paid; all I wish to get clear is that, as I now understand the situation, the department arbitrarily apportions its total overhead so as to allocate a portion of it to the collection of radio licences and then it pays over to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the net amount received less that arbitrary allocation of cost of collection.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I doubt very much if it is an "arbitrary" allocation of the cost of collection. There is a separate branch which does nothing but attend to this work. It will be understood that the head office machinery for handling over a million licences is considerable. Two notices are sent out each year to each licencee. This branch does nothing but collect these licence fees, and the cost of the branch is charged against these fees.


James Earl Lawson: I am not objecting to what happens; I am only trying to get it clear.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the hon. member substitutes the word "actually" for the word "arbitrarily," we shall be in agreement.


James Earl Lawson: I cannot substitute the word "actually," and I shall explain why I cannot do so. Suppose I ask the minister to tell me, of the list of employees under this item on page 215 of the estimates, who are exclusively engaged on the work of collection, and I only occupy the time of this committee and the minister's time in order to secure all that information; I suggest very strongly that this would not result in an aggregate of $113,000, because there must be a certain overhead, where, for example, a man devotes part of his time to this job
fMr. Howe.]
and part to something else. I am not complaining about the department arbitrarily apportioning its overhead; I am merely trying to get the fact.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Every man in this list spends his entire time in collecting licence fees. It is a twelve months' job.


James Earl Lawson: Then would the minister give me a list of employees with their respective salaries who make up the $113,420 under this item?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. Would the hon. member like me to read that list? I have it here.


James Earl Lawson: Frankly, if it will save
any time, I am quite content that the minister shall put it on Hansard. I want the record, but I do not want to take up the time of the committee.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, page 215 of the estimates gives the distribution of the employees. I can read the names in addition if they are required.


James Earl Lawson: Oh, I am not interested in names. Excuse me a moment while I glance at page 215. May I take it that this list of employees set out on page 215 of the estimates represents the employees who are exclusively devoting their time to the collection of radio licences?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Exclusively, yes.


James Earl Lawson: Then I assume that I may take it that the actual cost of the collection of radio licences in this country for the fiscal year to commence April 1, 1938, is estimated to be $113,420, and that such amount will be deducted from the fees received for radio licences and the balance paid over to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Less, of course, the commissions paid to collectors, to postmasters. This, one might say, is the office overhead.


James Earl Lawson: Will the commissions paid in addition to these amounts be deducted from the amount collected before it is paid over to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Those commissions are deducted from the amount before we receive it.


James Earl Lawson: All right.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The book is sold less the commission.


Mr. MARTIN:: Is it not a fact that since the present set-up the cost of collection has been reduced as compared with the previous set-up?

Supply-Transport- Radio Licences


Clarence Decatur Howe: The cost of collection is
decreasing slightly each year, as we sell more licences. It is now, I think, a shade under twenty-six cents; it was twenty-eight cents a year or two ago.


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: I notice that
under printing and stationery there is an increase from $11,500 to $16,500. Could the minister explain that increase of $5,000?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is entirely due to the fact that there are more licences; there are more licences to print, that is more books of licences; there are more notices to be sent out. We send out notices twice a year to those who have not paid. Of course we are dealing in millions; a million pieces of paper are required each time we do any of these things.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: Yes, but the
amount is increased one hundred per cent. It was $11,500 the year before and now it is $16,500.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: A hundred per
cent?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Five thousand dollars is not
a hundred per cent of $11,500; it is more like thirty-three and a third per cent.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: Well, almost
fifty per cent.


James Earl Lawson: I should like to have
a specific statement from the minister in respect of the following matter. The amount of the licence fee is fixed, as I understand the matter, by order in council, under the Radiotelegraph Act, so that the increase in fee which has been prescribed for the forthcoming year has been fixed by the government by order in council under that act. Will any portion of that increase be expended for the purpose of obliterating interference with private radio receiving sets, or will the whole amount, less cost of collection, be paid to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Under the broadcasting act
we must pay to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation all licence fees collected less cost of collection. I do not know that they use any part of their funds for the removal of interference, but in any event we cannot do so under the present act.


James Earl Lawson: Then I may take it that
no portion of this increase will be spent for the purpose of obliterating interference. Does the minister agree with me that there will be paid, however, out of the consolidated revenue fund, which is raised by general taxation upon 51952-67
the Canadian people, the sum of $205,478, as shown by item No. 396, for the obliteration of interference?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a correct statement. Under the act passed in 1936 that arrangement is compulsory.


Abraham Albert Heaps: We are spending more than $200,000 a year out of government revenue in connection with radio interference. What is the United States government spending for the same purpose?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have not the figures..


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would it be possible to get them and put them on the record? Conditions in the two countries may be similar so far as radio interference is concerned, but the conditions under which radio operates are entirely different. I believe the United States government is spending large sums for the purpose of obliterating radio interference. I wonder if the minister could get information in regard to the United States. It would be worth having.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall try to get it.


René-Antoine Pelletier: At the same time the minister might try to find out what percentage goes towards collecting radio licence fees in the United States.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are no licences there.


Alan Webster Neill: I wish to suggest an
improvement in the collection of licence fees. Under the present system licences are on sale at post offices-I am thinking more in terms of country post offices-and in the stores of those who deal in radios. The percentage which the postmaster gets is very small and, with his own duties to attend to, he does not bother to push the sale. The department became aware of that fact and they decided that, instead of putting on a large police force to prosecute those who did not procure their licences, they would put the collection on a percentage basis, getting people to go and hunt up radio owners who had not obtained licences. The idea was a good one. They paid a larger commission, and the system would have worked all right but for the fact that these collectors who are appointed by the government from time to time-political appointments, I suppose-do not find it worth while, so that you can hardly get anyone to take the job. The man who is doing it on commission is naturally keen to push sales and he goes around to radio owners. He goes to one man and tries to sell him a licence and is informed that it has already been got at the post office. The fact is that those who are willing to get their

1050	COMMONS
Supply-Transport- Radio Licences
licences go to the post office of their own accord, and only those who have to be reminded, those who have to be dunned a few times by the collector, are left to these commission men.
I do not think the post offices would mind if the sale of licences were taken from them because there is very little in it for the postmaster. The man on commission goes to a radio owner who says he will see about the matter. The collector goes away, and in the meantime the radio owner, having been reminded, goes around to the post office and gets the licence, the result being that the post office gets the sale after the groundwork has been done by the man on commission. Obviously, under these circumstances, it is hardly possible to get anyone to take on this commission work. It is necessary that there should be such collections; otherwise people will simply not get their licences, and you could not put on a force large enough to prosecute them, the amounts being so small. I suggest that one man be put on the job on the first of April, or whatever time is thought best, and that he be allowed to push the thing right through for the year. But it should be given to him alone. I suggest that it be taken from the post offices and stores and given to one man who will understand that he will get all there is in it; that he will get the cream of the business as well as the business among those who are reluctant to buy licences. I know of one man who has called on a radio owner five times, the net result to him being twenty cents. That does not pay. If you want the work well done, you must give it to one man only.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have considered very carefully the method of collection. The fundamental fact that we must keep in mind is that not too large a proportion of the $2 shall go towards the cost of collection. The licence fee is a compulsory payment; we compel people to pay it, and if they do not, they are breaking the law. There is no particular day on which anyone must pay, and if payment is compulsory there must be some convenient place where people can go and get their licences. We did think seriously of eliminating the post offices and putting the business into the hands of collectors, but the same difficulty would apply there. The collector, in rural constituencies particularly, would have a large area to cover and would be required to call at least once upon every radio owner, and the housewife might not find it convenient to pay on the particular day on which he called.

Whether she would mail the fee to the collector, we are not sure. I think it is fundamental that we should give people an opportunity to pay their licence fees reasonably at their convenience. As a matter of fact, we allow six months before exerting pressure.
I have great respect for my hon. friend's judgment, and if he believes that the scheme he suggests would work well in his own constituency, we are willing to try it there. I have made that offer to one or two members of constituencies where we know we are not collecting the proper portion of fees. If my hon. friend will call on the radio department, we shall be glad to work out a scheme for his riding.


Angus MacInnis: Has it been definitely decided to increase the licence from $2 to $2.50?


Clarence Decatur Howe: An order in council has been issued to that effect.


Angus MacInnis: I have received, as no
doubt most other hon. members have, a great many complaints against the increase. Can the minister tell us what the licence holder will get either in better programs or in reception for the additional fifty cents? I do not wish to waste my time or the time of others in replying to letters in this regard if there is some possible answer to justify the increase. If the minister can tell us-


Mr. HAMILTON:: More will get reception, who do not get it now.


Angus MacInnis: -what value they are going to get for the increase of fifty cents, I have no doubt they will be satisfied to pay it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On each vote we are told that if we had more money to spend we could do a better job. It is the same here. If we had another hundred thousand dollars to pay for suppressing radio interference, we would be able to suppress more of it. The additional revenue is to be used in two directions. One is to increase broadcast coverage where at the moment coverage is very poor, and the other is to improve programs. As I said some days ago, in speaking during the debate on the address, tastes in programs differ. Whether my hon. friend will think we have improved the programs, I cannot say. Whether anyone else will think so, I cannot say, but we are going to spend more money on programs with the hope that we shall better satisfy listeners with Canadian built programs. As I say, this is an intangible matter, and my hon. friend and I could debate for a long time whether one program was better or worse than another, probably without settling

Supply-Transport- Radio Licences
the argument. But that is what the addition'al revenue will be spent for; part will go to increase coverage, particularly in the maritime provinces and on the prairies, and part of the money will be spent in building better programs.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How much extra revenue does the minister expect to receive from the increased fee?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We estimate the additional revenue at $650,000.


Mr. TOMLINSON:: I have had several
complaints in the county of Bruce as to the method of collecting this tax or licence. Last fall I believe inspectors dropped in and laid about forty-two summonses. I am quite in favour of the act being enforced, but I believe the method is wrong in itself, especially in a rural community. I should like to make a very humble suggestion, which I think, if adopted, would work for the benefit of the department and of the people themselves. Although you instruct your collectors to make personal calls and notify the people that they must pay, that has not been done. I made particular inquiry to find that out. So, although they receive their notices, they allow the matter to slide from day to day.
I would suggest that the minister give consideration to appointing the assessor as the collector of radio licence fees. The assessor, who goes around in the spring of the year, must visit every home. That is his duty, though he has other duties as well. While he is obtaining his information as to the number in the family, and so on, he might also ascertain if they had one radio or two, and then make his personal demand for the licence fee, explaining at the same time that if they do not pay within a certain time he would notify the proper authorities and they would be liable to be summonsed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I appreciate the suggestion, and we are looking into the possibilities of doing something of that kind. It is quite possible that something may be done along those lines, but there again we find that an arrangement which would work out well in certain ridings would not work so well in others, depending upon the duties of the county assessors.
The suggestion of my hon. friend that the inspector drop around in the fall and then summons people out of a clear sky, will hardly bear analysis. I have had a good many people say that to me, and in each case I have been able to give them the record of the person 51952-671
concerned. In almost every case whoever complained to me about an individual instance has gone away well satisfied that the person deserved to be prosecuted.


William Rae Tomlinson: I should like to explain further that probably the greatest complaint is that when these inspectors do come around, they have a list of four, five or six houses. They walk in and ask if a person has a radio licence, and if they have none a summons is issued, because the department claim they have been notified previously. But those people realize that their next door neighbour, who has probably never bought a licence and who never pays a fee, is not summonsed. If this inspector drops in on them, they think he should drop into every home where the licence fee has not been paid.


George James Tustin: How many licences were
issued last year, and how many does the minister estimate will be issued during the coming fiscal year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In 1936-1937 there were 1,038,000 licences sold. This year, to the end of January, there were 1,075,000.


George James Tustin: How much commission was paid to post offices and agents for issuing these licences?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Where a salary is paid, the postmaster gets five cents per licence. Postmasters who work on commission receive fifteen cents per licence. The collector who is sent around gets twenty-five cents per licence.


George James Tustin: Has the minister the total amount that was paid?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Of the licences issued, forty-one per cent were through post offices; thirty-seven per cent through house to house canvass, and eighteen per cent through radio dealers. Then 3,148 licences were issued free of charge to the blind. Whoever sells licences has a special book out of which he issues licences to blind persons.


George James Tustin: All I wanted was the total amount of commissions paid to agents and post offices.


Clarence Decatur Howe: For 1,075,000 licences, $179,542.55 was paid. That is for the year 1937-38 to January 31.


George James Tustin: Then I take it that $103,709 was paid by the department foi; the collection of licences, and $179,542.55 was paid in commissions?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.

Supply-Transport- Radio Licences


Mr. EDWARDS:: Would the minister outline the procedure when the owner of a radio is taken to court for not paying hi3 fees? He is notified twice, I understand. Does the department take part in the prosecution? I understand a summons, or some sort of certificate, is endorsed by the head of the department, or his deputy.


Clarence Decatur Howe: After it has been decided to prosecute, the case is reviewed at head office. If it seems to be a case which should be prosecuted, I sign the authority, and the Department of Transport attends to the prosecution.


Alexander McKay Edwards: That was the point I wanted to have cleared up. I made inquiry at the police court of my home city, and that was the information I received. I had not known the situation prior to that time. I now understand that each case is reviewed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Mr. BETTS:: I cannot applaud the suggestion that the assessor be given the job of collecting radio licence fees. They are already employed; in these hard times they have fairly good jobs. I believe this is a function which could be carried out admirably by returned soldiers. They are a particularly dependable class, and many of them are in great need. The Department of Pensions and National Health has set up a veterans' assistance commission, of which honorary committees have been set up in the larger centres to keep in touch with the returned men. They have lists of unemployed veterans, their qualifications and capabilities, and I would say that if the government really is desirous of ameliorating the situation of the returned man, as it contended it was during the last campaign, and since, this is a splendid opportunity for the Minister of Transport to cooperate with the Minister of Pensions and National Health, so that this work might be given to returned soldiers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe practically all collectors are returned soldiers. May I point out, however, that the work does not present a very encouraging outlook for a returned soldier, because there is not much pay connected with it. The fee is small, and no man could possibly make a living at the work. Collecting licence fees at twenty-five cents per licence is not a career. However, I believe that the veteran with a small pension is the man who is doing the work in Canada.


Alan Webster Neill: I understood the minister
to say that the order in council had gone through increasing the fee to $2.50. I am not going to kick at that, although it would

no doubt be popular to do so. But we did get the new station at Vancouver, which has been of great benefit to us in British Columbia.
I should like to put in a strong plea on behalf of the people in the country districts- not the larger cities. It costs a great deal to run a radio with batteries. A thousand hour battery, which runs for only about eight hundred hours, costs about $25. It is quite different from the man in the town who connects his radio to an electrical plant, and scarcely notices the cost.
If a man can afford to pay for two radios, he should have two licences, just as he would if he had two automobiles. People who are remote from moving picture theatres and who do not live near a village or town, find that the radio is of great importance to them. One way to help them would be to give them consideration in the matter of the fee. If the minister increases the fee, and adds to it the already heavy tax imposed on the man who has to use batteries in his radio, he is making the cost prohibitive. If the minister cannot reduce the fee, I would ask that at least he would not raise it in respect of those who use batteries. This would be a sort of means test, because if a man has a battery set, it would mean either that he is a poor man in a town, and uses coal oil, or that he is in the country, where there is no electricity.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government is givng
serious consideration to differentiating with respect to battery sets in areas where continuous current is not available. I believe there will be an announcement on that shortly.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I should like to refer to the increased revenue the department expects to receive from the additional fifty cents in licence fees. I believe the minister said he expected an increase of over $600,000 as a result of the added amount. May I suggest that he take a portion of that money, at least ten per cent of it, and use it in an attempt to do away with radio interference. As has been pointed out by the minister, the amount now spent in that connection is taken out of the consolidated revenue fund. I should think it would be only right and proper if the increased amount were used to improve radio reception.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No one who has followed the development of radio in Canada during the past year and a half can resist the conclusion that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has indeed done an excellent job. While the minister is not actually in charge of its operation, he is likewise deserving of sincere commendation.

Supply-Transport- Radio Licences
But while this is so, I hope the minister will not think I am detracting from my views as to the usefulness of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or as to his own excellent administration, if I express strong disapproval of the increase in the radio licence fees. I believe I would not be adequately representing my constituency if I failed to do so.
I am hoping the minister's statement in answer to the hon. member for Comox-Albemi, to the effect that the government is giving consideration to some aspects of the matter may bring about an extension in some particulars. My objection is raised not only because of the increased cost-although that will be burdensome to many, not merely to those with batteryless sets but to farmers in constituencies like my own, and other people in the cities-but because by passing the act of two years ago parliament has committed itself to belief in a publicly owned chain of radio facilities. I endorse that principle, and believe it is in the best interests of Canada.
If that is to be the accepted principle, then I think we should pay for it in a proper way so as not to depopularize the institution itself. I suggest, with the greatest respect, that not only the increase in licence fees, but the method of collecting these fees, will in the long run tend, not only to impose an additional burden on the people but, more particularly, to discredit an institution which has thus far so well justified itself. It is an institution which may be used as one of the most effective instruments in keeping together the various sectional interests of the country which, at the present time, present such a picture of disunity.


Henry Sidney Hamilton: In certain areas of
Canada, including my own constituency, radio owners do not get any reception from C.B.C. stations. In the Sault Ste. Marie area we pay a substantial sum in radio licence fees, and I am quite sure we would pay it willingly if we were getting the reception I believe we should get. The fact is, however, that we are getting nothing whatever from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The local station is not connected with the network, and the powerful Toronto station, CBL, does not reach Sault Ste. Marie with any degree of dependability. As a result we are paying a substantial sum and getting nothing whatever in return from the broadcasting corporation.
If the radio fee is to be increased, then I think it is fair to ask that at least arrangements be made whereby all parts of Canada may get, as nearly as possible, equal coverage. In those areas where they are able to get the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the United States stations they will be getting something extra for the fifty cent increase; but as far as my constituency is concerned, the people will receive nothing extra for the extra fifty cents. The people there feel that they are being asked to pay $2.50 to give other sections of Canada good coverage, while they get nothing themselves. I agree with the suggestion that battery sets should receive special consideration.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Both the department and the corporation are aware of the situation at Sault Ste. Marie, and the purpose of the application for additional revenue is to remedy the situation there as well as in other parts of the country.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think the consensus of opinion throughout the country is that there should not be an increase in these licence fees. I understand that there was a surplus of $128,000 last year, although this figure may be subject to correction. We have a very good system set up under the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and I want to commend the minister for the improvement in the service. However, if I were to ask for the return of all correspondence against this increase, I am sure it would take a staff of stenographers two or three weeks to prepare it. If the administration wants to get more money, I see no objection to its obtaining increased revenue through charges against the United States stations, which desire to broadcast in Canada for advertising purposes, and I think that would be a more advantageous way to obtain additional revenue than to add an additional burden to people already hard pressed for money.
I am not speaking on behalf of those able to pay this fifty cent increase; I speak for those in the rural areas, particularly in the dried out areas, to whom fifty cents is a tremendous amount of money. The radio is the only means of entertainment that these people have, and I do not think the licence fee should be increased. It would seem that this increase is being passed on to Canadian people while publishers are going to have just that much more money to put in their pockets. I am against the principle of obtaining increased revenue from increased fees These revenues should come from the same source from which we are obtaining it now. If the radio corporation does as well next year as it did last year and still has $128,000 to work on, then there should be no kick.
I am of the opinion that considerable pressure has been brought to bear by the

Supply-Transport- Radio Licences
newspaper and magazine concerns. They feel they are losing a substantial amount of revenue because the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is permitting United States broadcasts over the Canadian system. I do not think this should be taken into consideration. The corporation was set up for the betterment of radio reception and to provide entertainment for the Canadian people, and I do not see where the publishers enter the picture at all. I am in favour of the licence fee being left at $2.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: What proportion of the collectors are returned men?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have no record at the moment, but I shall be glad to get it. I may say that we try to get returned men in every riding.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: When the minister states
that these positions are held by returned men all over Canada, I believe he is stating something with which he is not familiar. I can tell him that in many places in western Ontario returned men are not doing the collecting, and they would be very glad to have this work. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Tustin) informs me that in his riding the appointment was given not to a returned man but to a prominent Liberal ward heeler. I submit that in many cases these appointments are made for political reasons and no consideration at all is given to the returned men. The returned man is eminently suited for this work and he should have it. If the minister is willing to cooperate with the Minister of Pensions and National Health, I see no reason why all collecting should not be done by returned men.


Mr. LOCKHART:: I quite agree with what has been said by the last speaker. A returned man in my constituency was discharged, but I do not desire to refer to that at the moment. I saw it stated in some magazine that there were from two and a half to two and three-quarter million radios in operation in Canada. I do not know whether the minister has knowledge of the approximate number that might be in operation, but I suggest to him that in some rural municipalities nearly seventy-five per cent of the people owning radios are not taking out licences. The number of radios in operation given by the minister is considerably lower than the estimate of the dealers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the hon. member is interested in a particular constituency, I shall be glad to give him the figures. We have found the dealers' figures to be not altogether reliable. For instance, the publication'Radio Trade
[Mr. C. E. Johnston. 1
Builder estimates that in 1937 there were 1,670,000 sets in Canada. I assume that estimate is based upon the number of sets manufactured and sold; but what formula was used to allow for discarded sets, I do not know. The only authentic figures available were those obtained in the census of 1931 which showed 770,436 sets in operation. In that year the Radio Trade Builder made an estimate of 967,800 sets, approximately 200,000 more than the estimate of the census enumerators. For the next fiscal year, 1932-33, the departmental figures showed 761,288 licences issued.
Hon. members and others make the statement that in certain localities fifty per cent of the radio owners are not buying licences, but the figures do not always check up. We believe we are getting about ninety per cent for all of Canada, the percentage being greater in the cities and smaller in the country districts. When hon. members come in and make such statements, I ask them what localities they are interested in. We look up the population of the particular locality and divide it by five to get the approximate number of houses. Then I ask my interviewer what he believes to be the number -of licences issued based upon the number of houses in the locality and invariably I find that his guess is much below the actual number of licences issued. We know that in the country districts we do not get as high a proportion as in the cities, but the reason is obvious. With a maximum cost of twenty-five cents per licence, it is impossible to call on every house in the country and collect a fee at that house. If we spent a larger proportion of the fee for collecting, we could collect more, but we believe that the commission under no circumstances should go above twenty-five cents per licence.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: Did the minister say that it was positively settled that the fee is to be increased by fifty cents? What about people who have several sets? The minister said that he had several sets in his own house. Does it mean that people have to pay S2.50 for each set they have, or pay fifty cents more for additional sets?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The licence fee is S2.50 for each set.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: So if one has
three sets, he would have to pay S7.50?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does that apply also to a radio in a motor car?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.

Supply-Transport- Radio Licences


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Is it optional under present
arrangements that postmasters have radio licences for sale, or is the postmaster obliged to have them?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is optional with the postmasters. They are paid for running the post office; we invite them to take on this other work, but they can refuse if they wish.


William Pate Mulock: I fully realize the difficulty of the minister in administering this act, and I congratulate him upon the improvement that has been made in radio generally throughout the country. But I should not be expressing the feelings of the people of my riding if I did not say that the increase in the licence fee is, to say the least, not popular in the riding of North York. We realize also that there are many districts which have not received the same advantages from radio that Toronto and York and central Ontario have received. The people in our part of the country find it difficult to see what additional benefit they are going to receive by reason of the increase in this tax. Realizing as I do the difficulty that people in various parts of the country are having, as mentioned by the hon. member for Algoma West (Mr. Hamilton), and that they are not receiving any benefit at the present time from the broadcasting corporation, some consideration must certainly be given to those districts. Would it not be possible to do that without increasing the tax at the present time? Could this matter not be referred to the radio committee set up in the house, the personnel of which was announced to-day? People are having difficulty in paying their taxes, and if it is humanly possible I would ask the minister not to raise any tax at the present time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The matter can and no doubt will be discussed in the radio committee, and it does not take long to pass an order in council.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I was going to suggest, as a member of that radio committee, that a number of the matters being discussed to-day might be discussed there, and perhaps to better advantage, when we have the officials present who can answer questions directly. I hope the minister's statement that the fee is to be increased is not final. I think he has indicated that his decision might be changed. All along I have been very much in favour of nationalized radio, but I think this is a retrograde step. I would hope that the amount necessary to be raised could be raised in some other way
than by increasing the licence fee, which means a heavy burden on a great many people in this country.


Mr. THORSON:: May I ask the hon. member what other method he would suggest?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Several other
methods might be suggested. One would be a tax on radio tubes. The price of tubes in this country is very high indeed, much higher than in the United States. I think it would be easily possible for the manufacturers of tubes to absorb the amount themselves. I should like to have that more fully discussed. If it is really necessary that the public generally should be taxed for this radio service, I would rather that it came out of general taxation as a subsidy than as an increased fee. The fee is a tax, and such a direct tax that the people know they are paying it.


Charles Avery Dunning: A service charge.


James Shaver Woodsworth: A service charge if you like, but all taxes are assumed to be for services rendered.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh no.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Is it not better that the tax be direct than concealed?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, because the question of incidence of taxation arises. Generally speaking, I would agree that it was well to have taxes direct rather than indirect. In my judgment we are already taxing the poorer people of this country altogether too much. It is true the tax is usually concealed, usually indirect; the people do not realize it. The tariff is a tax, but concealed. We are taxing very heavily the common people of this country, and the wealthier people are escaping very lightly. If this public service is necessary to the welfare of Canada, as I think it is, and if we cannot carry it on with the charge that we have been making in the past, I suggest that it would be well for the dominion government to give a direct subsidy out of the general revenue.


Charles Avery Dunning: In other words, that we abandon the principle for which my hon. friend has just been contending.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not see any abandonment of principle.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend has just been contending for the principle of direct taxation. He says we should not conceal taxes, because the poor are made to pay more. If we give a state subsidy for this purpose instead of making a service charge, obviously that is the very concealment which my hon. friend condemns.
1056	COMMONS
Supply-Transport- Radio Licences


James Shaver Woodsworth: No; I do not see any concealment about it. If you like, you can raise the income tax in order to do it, and that brings you back to direct taxation, but such a tax would be a direct tax on people with big incomes instead of an additional direct tax on people with small incomes. I would welcome any method of reducing indirect taxation that we have to pay through customs charges. Meanwhile I deplore that this very much appreciated service should have to be paid for by-


Charles Avery Dunning: By the people who use it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Who in many cases are not able to pay it. Take the railways; people use railways, but we are subsidizing those railways to no small extent. Take the canals; people use canals, but they are not paid for exclusively by the people who use them. So on all along the line; all the government services are used by the people or some of the people, but are paid for out of taxation. I cannot see why this particular service should be singled out for the application of the principle that it must be paid for just as it may be used. I do not think the suggestion I have made departs from a practice which has been common in this country for a great many years.


Mr. HOIV E:: I suggest that my hon. friend is doing a real disservice to the cause of which he has been an advocate in all our committees, in that he would make radio broadcasting a public service administered outside and independent of the parliament of Canada. Radio broadcasting in this country is a corporation in which the listeners are the shareholders. It is compulsory upon those managing the corporation to satisfy their shareholders. Unless the corporation can justify its cost to the people who listen, it should go out of business. But the minute you depend upon grants from the public treasury for that sort of thing, you destroy that responsibility; you have officials administering broadcasting who need not justify their policies to any one. In advocating such a system I do not think the hon. member is doing any service to a cause in which he really believes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Much that the
minister has said would be true also of the Canadian National railway. But what about my first alternative suggestion, the one that I really put forward, which has been overlooked-the tax on tubes? The minister has not answered the proposal. I gave the other as merely a secondary alternative.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A tax on tubes means a tax on the manufacture of tubes. By the time

it reaches the persons who are paying the cost to-day, that tax will be multiplied at least by three, due to the pyramiding of costs from the manufacturer to the retailers' shelves. Therefore, instead of putting a fifty cent tax on the listener-because it is he after all who is the consumer of tubes-you impose a very much higher tax upon him. The question has been explored, but there seems such a tremendous waste in the collection of a tax of that kind that we have had to discard it as entirely impracticable. I might add, however, that the cost of tubes as well as of batteries is now being reviewed by the tariff commission. We have reason to believe that the selling price of both tubes and batteries is higher than it should be, and I have considerable confidence that through the work of the tariff board we may expect a reduction in the cost of this material that will more than offset the fifty cents per set increase in licence fees.


Mr. FINN:: I wish to compliment the
leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Woodsworth). He is becoming more adroit every day he is in the house. He prefaced his remarks by saying that he thought these matters could be better settled in committee, but he saw to it that he put himself on record in Hansard as to where he stood in reference to them all.
An hon. gentleman, who is a member of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition and whose name I cannot at the moment recall, stated that he believed the returned soldier should be the man and the only man to collect the radio licence fee. As far as my constituency is concerned, there are many men who to-day are much poorer and are suffering much more hardship than many returned soldiers who are doing this class of work. I appreciate the services of our returned soldiers. I am prepared to say that I believe those returned soldiers are best off whose bodies were left on the fields of France and Flanders, because they have nothing more in this world to worry about. It may be that the statement in regard to returned soldiers will not be popular with that body; but I am not concerned whether my views are popular with them or any other class of persons so long as I have a conscientious belief in the statements that I make. Where the returned soldier is in want, he should, of course, be given the opportunity; but where there are others who are in more or equal need and are perhaps suffering from circumstances which make their lives and the lives of their families even more unhappy, and who by this means could make a few dollars and bring a little comfort

Supply-Transport- Radio Licences
to their homes, they should be considered along with the returned men and no injustice should be done to either.
The third point I desire to make is that the broadcasting corporation, which is independent of parliament, is in a similar position to the Canadian National Railways, and I compliment the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) upon his acceptance of the view that the people are the shareholders in all our great public holdings, including the railways, broadcasting and other services.
I may be mistaken, and if so I am subject to correction, but it seems to me there is a dual system in reference to broadcasting. On the one hand it is controlled by the broadcasting corporation and is practically government operated. On the other hand there are broadcasting stations which are privately owned. The question is whether the broadcasting corporation will make up their minds to control all private stations, take them over at their real value and operate them, or whether we are to continue to have privately owned stations. If the government is likely to arrive at a decision, which no doubt would be made known to the broadcasting corporation, that all these stations should be publicly controlled, it would seem advisable that, until the question is settled, no more broadcasting licences should be granted to private corporations, with resulting embarrassment to the government itself and to members of this house. I mention this because the matter may possibly bring some embarrassment to my colleague from Halifax and myself; he can speak for himself; I am expressing merely my own view, and I have not any positively fixed ideas on the subject. However, it seems to me that this dual authority and this dual right are not likely to give the best services to all the people. As has been mentioned this afternoon, there are those in various parts of Canada who are not able to receive the same programs in their homes as are available to and provide happy evenings for those in other parts of the dominion.
With reference to the proposed increase in radio licence fees from $2 to $2.50, I am pleased to hear that the minister and the government are taking into consideration whether the additional fee is to be imposed. So far as I am advised by those whom I have the honour to represent, including a large number of poor people, they object to this extra fifty cents, and so do I. They feel that $2 is sufficient. They are the shareholders, and we know that at the annual meeting the shareholders control. I suggest that at least we should give serious consideration to the
majority view of the people in regard to this matter. I am sure the minister will take into serious consideration the points brought forward by various hon. members of all political parties. In the government the wise counsel of the Minister of Transport will no doubt be listened to, and the result transmitted in due course, perhaps over the radio, to the broadcasting corporation.
There is one other point I wish to touch upon for a moment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Do not talk me out; it is five minutes to six.


Robert Emmett Finn: I do not propose to talk the hon. minister out; I could not if I tried. I shall give way to the minister now, and on a future occasion I hope he will give way to me and that the chairman will not rule me out of order.


James Houston Spence: I regret very much that the government saw fit to increase the fee. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has many enemies in the country, and it is always irritating at any time for people to have to pay extra money for anything. My motto is, "Let sleeping dogs lie." In this instance it would be better to secure the extra revenue from some other source, because there is turmoil throughout the dominion. I do not blame the broadcasting corporation for what they are doing, and I do not think anyone should censure them very much, although many people are of the opinion that the corporation is not giving the best service it could.
There is one point I wish to clear up. One hon. member spoke of the great hardship on the people in the dried out area-I assume he comes from the prairies-who are compelled to pay this extra half dollar. I should like to know whether the unemployed who are on relief and people living in the dried out area are forced to pay the licence fee at all. In Toronto those who are on relief are not compelled to buy licences. Considerable discretion is left to the department. I suggest to the minister that if people in the dried out area are compelled to buy licences, not to mention anything about the extra half-dollar, they should not be.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No pressure is brought to
bear on anyone who is indigent or on relief.


Charles Edward Johnston: They do not know that and they are paying' the licence fee.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I am strongly opposed to the increase, for two reasons. One is the extent and the incidence of it, and the
other is the apparent manner in which it

Supply-Transport- Radio Licences
was brought about. If the information that has come to my hand is correct, as to how it was brought about, then I think the matter is extremely serious. I do not wish to talk out the minister's item; on the contrary I wish to cooperate with him. But it has been brought to my attention, whether rightly or wrongly, that pressure was brought to bear upon the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by the newspaper fraternity of this country. It is reported to me that in the January 15 number of a paper called "Marketing", published in Toronto, there appears the following reference to a certain meeting which was held:
A constructive suggestion was made that if the CBC would seek to secure its needed additional revenue by increasing the licence fee on radio sets, the press would stand back of it and help the public realize that such increase was just and necessary; otherwise the press would have to consider the advisability of revealing what the CBC is doing in flooding Canada with U.S. programs.
A statement like that is exceedingly serious. Sitting here, I have been wondering what authority parliament has over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. If pressure can be brought to bear upon it by such means in one connection, it looks to me as if it can be brought to bear in another. I am greatly alarmed about the matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There was absolutely no pressure brought to bear. We knew, when we undertook the program of high-powered stations across Canada, that such a program could not be undertaken with the revenues then available, but the change was not made as a result of pressure.


Charles Edward Johnston: I wish to bring to the attention of the minister a matter of importance in connection with the Radio Patent Act. There have been complaints from a number of people who have brought in radios from the United States-


James Houston Spence: Let them buy them here.


Charles Edward Johnston: Bui the point is that the government gave them the privilege of bringing radios provided they were valued under $100, and an employee of one concern in Calgary told me that there were three hundred convictions against people who had brought in radios. Would the minister inform us how this matter will be dealt with? What are we going to do about the matter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The whole question is in the hands of the tariff board. They are making a thorough investigation and we expect to have a report in due course.


Charles Edward Johnston: In regard to this act?


George James Tustin: It has been represented to me that there has been a great deal of discrimination in the matter of advertising charges. Is there any difference between the rates which are charged United States advertisers and those which are charged Canadians?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not so far as I am aware.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) the house adjourned at 6 p.m.
Monday, March 7, 1938