[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works)1: On June 9 two hon. members of the house complained of traffic conditions on parliament hill. The hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) put the following question:
I wish to ask the Minister of Public Works if something cannot be done to stop cars from speeding around the parliament buildings and on the roads leading to the gates of the parliament buildings.
The leader of the C.C.F. group (Mr. Cold-well) added this:
May I ask the Minister of Public Works if he will at the same time take into consideration the strengthening of the hands of the mounted police who look after the automobiles around this building.
At that time I replied that some doubt had been raised as to the authority of the mounted police to enforce these regulations, and said I would submit this question to the justice department. The question was studied by the Department of Justice and yesterday I received their opinion, which reads as follows:
With reference to the act to provide for the regulation of vehicular traffic on dominion property. I have come to the conclusion and so advise that this extends and applies to the roadways situated on parliament hill. An examination of the authorities persuades me now that the courts would be obliged to hold that these roadways have not been dedicated as public highways. Consequently it is not necessary to amend the statute.
Following this advice I may state that it is the intention of the government to enforce these regulations. We hope all hon. members and officials of the government will cooperate with the police so they may carry out their duties. We have had quite a bit of trouble in the last two or three months, but I hope this announcement that we will enforce these regulations will reestablish satisfactory conditions on the hill.

[Stage Direction]
Eleventh report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Cleaver.
Third and fourth reports of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.- Mr. Maybank.	.
Third and fourth reports of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr Maybank.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 454, respecting income taxes.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in my budget speech some weeks ago I expressed the hope that I would be able to place before the house this session a revision of the income tax law.
It is, perhaps, unnecessary for me to repeat that it is not the intention of the government to press this bill for enactment at the present session. Nor, indeed, is it my wish to invite debate on the measure at this time. The purpose of introducing the bill now is to give members full opportunity to study it before next session, to explore thoroughly various aspects of the legislation, and to be in a position to give parliament the benefit of their views when the bill is presented for enactment next session.
It is hoped that this bill will receive wide circulation in the hands of the public. Various organizations throughout the country, such as the Canadian Bar Association, the Dominion Association of Chartered Accountants, and the Canadian Tax Foundation, are well equipped from the technical point of view to render a useful service to the country through an exhaustive analysis of this legislation. I can assure all interested groups that suggestions for improvement in the statute will be welcomed and given careful study by the government.
A bill of this kind is, of course, definitely non-political. I think all parties agree that we must have an income tax. We are unanimous in our desire to see the best possible law on our statute books. All agree that we should strive for simplicity and certainty. The law should lend itself to efficient administration. We are, I think, all on common ground in seeking these objectives. Once the best possible instrument has been forged, it then, of course, becomes a political matter as to how far the instrument will be used as a revenue measure and how the total burden imposed by it will be distributed among taxpayers.
It is not my intention to delay the business of the house at this time with a detailed account of how the new bill differs from the present Act. I think, however, it might be helpful if I briefly indicated the general plan of the revision, giving some of the highlights of the new measure, and pointing out certain methods used to secure greater simplicity and directness. To assist in getting a picture of the new arrangement of the law I have had

Income Tax Act
a comprehensive table of contents prepared and inserted at the beginning of the bill. Also, in addition to marginal notes opposite each section or subsection, members will find on each right-hand page references to the corresponding provisions in the present law. This will readily enable comparisons to be made between present and proposed legislation.
The bill divides the subject matter into eight parts as compared with eighteen parts in the present Act. Part 1 covers the general income tax on individuals and corporations which, of course, is the main body of the law. Part 2 imposes the taxes on non-residents, which taxes are deducted at the source on payments leaving Canada. These two parts cover the fundamental part of the taxing statute. The content of the remaining parts can easily be determined by running through the various headings.
As I have stated, part 1 deals with income tax proper, and it is set up under eight divisions. It will be seen the bill starts off directly with what is known as the charging section. It commences by stating who is liable for tax. This direct way of starting a piece of legislation of this kind may be regarded by the house as a perfectly obvious and logical way to open such a statute. However, under the present law the charging section is not reached until thirty-eight pages of other material have been presented.
Perhaps the house would bear with me if I read section 2 of the bill, because I think it offers a fair sample of the simplicity of language and the directness of the approach in the new law which have been among the main objectives in the revision.
2. (1) An income tax shall be paid as hereinafter required upon the taxable income for each taxation year of every person resident in Canada at any time an the year.
(2)	Where a person who is not taxable under subsection one for a taxation year
(a)	was employed in Canada in performing the duties of an office or employment at any time in fhe year, or
(b)	carried on business in Canada at any time in the year,
an income tax shall be paid as hereinafter required upon the part of his taxable income for the year that was earned in Canada
(3)	The taxable income of a taxpayer for a taxation year is bis income for the year minus the deductions permitted by division III.
Division II starts in by giving general rules for computing income. I should perhaps mention here that after exhaustive study of the legislation of other countries and of the nature of the problems involved, it was decided not to attempt a specific definition of income. So far as I know, no country has achieved a satisfactory definition. Accordingly, the general scheme of the law, as will be seen by section 3 is to tax jdl income and to indicate the general sources of income, that is, income from businesses, property and offices or employments. Section 4 follows up this general indication by stating that income from a business or property shall be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. We believe that by providing a general formula of this kind the best practical common sense results will be achieved. The income tax division in making assessments will interpret the legislation and the taxpayer, if he disagrees, may have his case heard by the new income tax appeal board and, if still not satisfied, take it to the exchequer court.
I should like to call particular attention to division VIII at the end of part I. The house will observe that it provides for what might be called a set of boxes for exceptional kinds of taxpayers or special provisions not of general application. In the previous law these items cluttered up the main body of the law. A separate division for these unusual cases or situations greatly simplifies the part of the statute which is of general interest to the ordinary taxpayer.
Special attention has been given in this revision to the question of ministerial discretion. The house may recall that the income tax legislation of last year provided for an ad>-visory board to review cases where ministerial discretion had been exercised under forty-three designated provisions in the law. The house may be interested to know that of these forty-three ministerial discretions only two remain in the new bill. Furthermore, these remaining two do not affect the amount of any tax payable. One requires the concurrence of the minister upon the change of a fiscal period of a taxpayer, and the other gives the minister power to determine who shall be the taxpayer where multiple trusts are set up in favour of the same beneficiary.
In cases where some degree of flexibility is felt necessary we provide that rules shall be determined by regulations fixed by order in council, which will be subject to review by the courts and will not involve the objectionable principle of ministerial discretion, as is the case in the existing law.
Possibly the house would be interested in the method adopted in eliminating discretions. This has been done by converting the discretion into a rule of law dependent on a question of fact. An example will make this clear. For instance, subsection 2 of section 6 in the present law states that
the minister may disallow any expense which he in his discretion may determine to be in excess of what is reasonable or normal for the business carried on by the taxpayer...
Income Tax Act
[Stage Direction]
The corresponding provision in the bill provides that ,
Where a disbursement or expense or a part thereof is otherwise deductible, only such part thereof as is reasonable in the circumstances may be deducted in computing income.
In practice the department in making an assessment may disallow a certain portion of an item of expense as being unreasonable in the circumstances. If the taxpayer is dissatisfied with hke assessment on the basis used by the department he can appeal the assessment and the mew income tax appeal board will pass judgment on the case, that is, the court will decide whether the department has acted reasonably. The government is prepared to give this system a thorough trial. It may be found, however, that certain discretions may have to be reinstated if experience shows that the subject matter is not appropriate to judicial determination.
In view of the extent to which ministerial discretions have been removed from the law, it will now be unnecessary to proceed with the appointment of the income tax advisory board provided for in last year's legislation. I shall recommend, therefore, a.t the next session of parliament that the authority for this board and for appeals from ministerial discretion be repealed ab initio.
I trust the house will pardon me if upon this occasion I express a certain pride in the work that has been accomplished in this revision of our income tax law. I should not, however, like to give the house the impression that I think this bill is by any means perfect. As a matter of fact I remain open-minded on some of-the changes in the new bill. It is probable that further study will require further changes. I should also like to make it clear that because of pressure on my time some important questions have not been finally settled. I quite realize, for example, that the various penalty provisions need careful examination. Some of these outstanding items will be dealt with later when the legislation is introduced for enactment in the 1948 session of parliament. In the- -meantime further consideration is being given to them. It would be my thought that when the bill is introduced in 1948 to make it retroactive to January 1st of that year.
An attempt has been made by the translators to have the translation into French follow closely with the original drafting in English. I find, however, that the numerous last-minute changes in the draft have not yet fully been dealt with by the translators, with the result that -a few days may elapse before the French text of the bill is available. I am sorry about this, but I am assured that the copies in French will be available for circulation shortly.

I should not like to close this statement without saying a few words about the officials who to a great extent are responsible for the work embodied- in this bill. Over the past year senior officials of the departments of justice, finance- and national revenue have, in addition to their regular work, devoted an incredible amount of time and effort to this revision. It has meant a great deal of night work and sacrifice of leisure. Unless a person has had some experience in attempting to revise an exceedingly complex statute of this kind he can have no idea of the difficulties involved in re-writing such a law. I have personally taken a great interest in the work, and speaking from my close association with the officials in this matter I wanted publicity to express appreciation to them for their excellent work.
Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, for obvious reasons I shall make only brief comments on two things. I think we are all g-lad to know that this long overdue measure is now-not before us, but in sight of being before us for action. I do not propose to say anything more except that in the first budget speech I heard in this house, which was nearly two years ago, the Minister of Finance referred to this measure and said it was overdue. It was certainly overdue and I regret the time that has elapsed since without any general revision of the act. However, that is past.
Just a comment on what the minister has said. If this bill is successful, as the minister indicated, in introducing simplicity of language and directness of approach, then certainly the minister is entitled to the pride which he says he has in it. I was glad that he referred to his openmindedness, although with legal caution he qualified that by saying that he could not be expected to be open-minded on all questions.
I am sure we all agree that- we owe a debt to those civil servants who have worked on this and who have produced, in its first stage at any rate, a measure which has been so long needed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



HUDSON BAY MINING AND SMELTING


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour) moved the third reading of Bill No. 452, respecting the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company Limited.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

___________Supply-Reconstruction and Supply
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Atomic energy control board-
355. Administration expenses, $115,000.
Mr. GREEN:: Just yesterday we received the first annual report of this board, which was authorized by a special act last session. There is a large increase over last year's figure for administration expenses which I should like the minister to explain. The minister will remember that during the debate last year there was some discussion as to whether it would be a full-time board or a part-time board, and apparently the decision has been reached that the board will act only on a part-time basis.
According to page 3 of the report the board has held only five meetings since it was set up. Meetings were held on October 16, 17 and 18, 1946; one was held on January 6, 1947, and a final meeting is shown here as having been held on March 15, 1946, but I presume that should be March 15, 1947. This board was given the most drastic powers that have ever been given to a board by any Canadian government. In addition to that, parliament was told: Hands off; the atomic energy control board must not be interfered with by a parliamentary committee; there is to be "no check at all of any kind; the board is supreme." The picture we have today is that this part-time board in effect has met only three times since it was set up, because the first three meetings were on consecutive dates. The members of that board are engaged on other duties; I believe that General McNaughton, the chairman, spends a great deal of his time at the united nations meetings, and quite properly so-


Mr. HOWE:: Or on atomic energy business.


Howard Charles Green: The time has come when there should be some watchdog committee of the Senate and House of Commons with respect to atomic energy. We have been told by the minister that Canada is concerned only with the production of atomic energy for peacetime purposes, and that is another very good reason why there should be no hesitation in giving parliament some check over the matter. I do urge, as I did1 last year, that there should be some parliamentary check. This House of Commons, representing the people of Canada, is entitled to have a hand in the control of atomic energy developments. It is a thoroughly bad principle to give these very drastic powers to a board which is not
under control of the house, particularly a part-time board which is doing this work only as a sideline. The minister said last night that the operations at Chalk River were being carried on not by this board but by the national research council. I think the time has come, Mr. Chairman, when some effective method of control should be given to parliament.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The board was intended to be a part-time board except for the chairman, who is on full-time duty. Unfortunately his paramount duty in connection with atomic energy has been to represent Canada on the atomic energy panel of the united nations. General McNaughton has been in almost continuous session on that panel. He has been chairman of it from time to time and has been a very active member.
One reason why the expenditure will be larger next year is that when General McNaughton was appointed, chairman he was on the payroll of external affairs, and that is stiill the situation. His salary was not charged to the atomic energy board during the past fiscal year.
The members of the board, while they have not met together formally, have been very active on atomic energy work. Dean Mackenzie spends a good portion of his time at Chalk River and is engaged in matters having to do with the work of the board. My own deputy minister, who is also a member of the board, has visited Chalk River frequently and has devoted a great deal of his time to the board. The same applies to the other members. Mr. Bateman has been very active on the raw materials procurement side. To form a judgment of the board on the number of meetings it has held in its initial stages would be fallacious. Another factor to be taken into account is that one of the principal duties of the board is to deal with products and bv-products of the plant at Chalk River. It takes some months to recover those by-products, and therefore the problem of disposing of them has not become an active problem as yet, although it will so become before the end of this calendar year.
The board has carried out the duties given to it by parliament and has carefully protected the raw materials which are produced in this country. There again that task has been simple because only one company is producing the raw materials and that company is government-owned. I have no doubt however that production by private interests will appear and the production of raw materials will require control by the board,. I suggest that everything is under control. My
550S	COMMONS
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply______
hon. friend has said that since they are producing the products for peace-time uses only, there should be no secrecy.


Howard Charles Green: } did not say that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He suggested control by a parliamentary committee or something of the sort. I would point out that the material is the same material whether it is used for purposes of peace or war purposes. The fact that we now use it for peace-time purposes would not prevent this government or anybody else from using it for war purposes. It is just as explosive as the material that other people make for war purposes. Therefore the same secrecy provisions must be maintained; in fact, they have been tightened over the past year. In taking that precaution we are following the procedure of all governments manufacturing or dealing with this commodity.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is not following the procedure in the United States so far as parliamentary control is concerned, because there they do have a watchdog committee of the Senate and House of Representatives. The minister said last year that he thought such a committee in Canada would be feasible eventually, but he was not prepared to recommend it last year. Has the time not come when such a committee could be set up?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think not. Atomic energy is such an explosive subject at the moment- it is under discussion at Lake Success and in the newspapers-that my thought is that the best contribution Canada can make for the next year is to avoid any discussion of atomic energy. I think that is the wise course to take. I read the proceedings of the Senate committee and so far as Canada is concerned there would be no objection to giving the same information to a committee about the Canadian project as was given about the United States project, but I think no good purpose would be served by doing so. Therefore I suggest that the matter be allowed to stand as it is for another year, and that, at the next session I shall be glad to review the position and discuss the establishment of a committee of the house or the Senate to meet in camera and examine the officials of the atomic energy board.


Howard Charles Green: I would point out to the minister that my thought is not that a committee should be told secrets that nobody else is allowed to get, but rather that there should be a body of parliamentarians who are studying the implications of this new power, atomic energy. I think it is agreed on all sides that atomic energy is going to make

vast changes in our whole economy, yet here we are in the Senate and House of Commons with no one but the minister understanding anything about the development of atomic energy. Canada is in the forefront, one of the three leaders in the development of atomic energy, and yet we are not taking any steps to build up an informed opinion among the people who are responsible for leading the nation. I think that is a very unsound position for this government to take. I would not ask that such a committee be told secrets that should be carefully kept-not at all. But I do suggest that there would be great value in having somebody here study the whole question, and I would ask the minister to give serious consideration to arranging that such a committee or some similar body be set up at the next session.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to keep that suggestion in mind and will do so at the first opportune moment, Canada is one of the two nations of the world which are producing this material. The paramount consideration at the moment is that the secrecy provision be preserved, and I am sure my hon. friend will agree with that position.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The hon. member for Vancouver South has made it very clear that he agrees with that. He was very specific indeed, but so far as I am concerned the minister has not satisfied me that this indefinite delay in setting up a discreet and limited committee, if you like, which the hon. member for Vancouver South suggested, is justified. Nothing that the minister has said is an answer to that request. I hope that he will take it in mind very seriously, because at the present time what is being said to us in this house in effect is that we are a lot of children who cannot be persuaded to behave like grown men. That is the position in which we are. We recognize, and my hon. friend has made it clear, the position that the minister is in. We respect that and we want to protect it. We do not want him to tell us things we should not know. My hon. friend has made that clear, but there is surely a middle ground between that and this house and the other house being in effect told that they might as well not ask any questions but be good little boys. I hope the minister will take that seriously under review. I can see no reason for the delay.
There is one other point I should like to mention. This item covers $115,000 for administration expenses. The minister will correct me if I am wrong, but there are no details. Is that right?

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think that is right, yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Why should we not have more details? No secrets are connected with this item. We know the salaries that are being paid to most important civil servants. Why do we have to take it sight unseen, as they say in the street? I am dealing with what the minister said a moment ago, that he would not give details. If I am wrong the minister will correct me.


Mr. McILRAITH:: Turn to page 214.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I still think my hon. friend has not answered the question. The explanation on page 214 says, "Temporary assistance, S75,000." That means that we are not to have any knowledge as to what is being paid to other people. I cannot see at all that that is a secret which goes to the root of security. It is not clear to me why we should be asked to pass these omnibus items and know nothing about payments which are being made to people merely because they are not on the permanent civil service list.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no objection to giving the salaries of the personnel. The salaries of the staff last year, outside of salaries to the members, because none were paid last year, are as follows. The salaries of government staff $8,936.21 for the period from October 12 to March 31, which is the period that the board functioned; temporary salaries $1,250. making a total of $10,186.21. There is an item of $25.73 for special temporary assistance; travelling expenses $1,325.54; printing and stationery $685.90.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not asking the minister to give all these details; I am just asking for the main items of salaries, if he would care to give them. I do not want to waste the time of the committee.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry; I cannot give
the salaries because I have not the details at hand. I can send for them if the hon. member is interested. There is no objection to giving this; but in reply to the remarks that have been made I might point out that General McNaughton, the chairman of the board, appeared before the external affairs committee of the House of Commons. He was examined there and gave all the information that in the opinion of the government could be given publicly. My hon. friend will appreciate that. There is no desire to withhold information that can properly be given; but in talking of the process it is very difficult to be able to
sort out information that can be given and information that cannot be given. One slip in information that cannot be given brings instant criticism from the others who share this process with us. I am simply asking for another year to consider the position as to what machinery can be set up as a means of communication between the board and parliament.


Howard Charles Green: The minister would not
suggest for a moment that the fact that General McNaughton appeared before the external affairs committee and made a statement which had to do primarily with the international implications is an answer to my criticism that there should be some committee of parliament studying this question. I am on the external affairs committee, and this is only one of the sidelines. Incidentally, they do not pretend to be specialists on atomic energy.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am simply suggesting the fact that General McNaughton did appear before the committee is an indication that there is no desire on the part of the government to withhold from parliament any information that can properly be given.


Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: The
whole problem of atomic energy is of great concern to every parliamentarian and to the Canadian people generally. I recognize that at this late hour in the session we do not desire a full-dress debate on the subject. I remember that in the first session of this parliament the whole post-war problem of what we were going to do with atomic energy was thrown in our laps. In all deference to the lack of knowledge which hon. members have in that regard, I might say that I agree with the hon. member who has just spoken when he says that something should be done so that as parliamentarians we can deal intelligently with this subject.
I express regret that the parliamentary and scientific committee which we endeavoured to set up this year when we had before us Professor Bernal, the famed British scientist, has been a great disappointment to me.
I do not agree with the minister to the extent that we should say little about this problem until next year. This is a matter which today is receiving world-wide attention. Surely as one of the nations which are in the know-how we should be doing something more definite about atomic control and. development, and not merely along the lines which we followed during the war, because of necessity at that time we were doing this work as part of our war effort. At this time we should

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply
develop atomic energy along peace lines, because I believe there is no single thing which can revolutionize the economies of the world and bring about peace and good will more than atomic energy. At the same time if these fears, which are growing up between the nations today, are allowed to develop, we shall run into difficulties. The minister should do all in his power to cooperate with his colleagues in the government and with those in the international spheres to try to bring about a world development of atomic energy so that this great nuclear power may become a beneficial thing to mankind. We in this country have perhaps one of the main world sources of uranium and plutonium, two of the main ingredients of atomic energy. When we read the reports of these scientists responsible for atomic energy development we are excited by the possibilities of its use for industrial purposes and also for curative purposes in the field of medicine. While keeping atomic energy under government control so that nothing shall be done to curtail its development, we should do everything possible to develop it on an international basis and in such a way as to dispel some of the fears which are abroad today and bring world peace.


Mr. BARRETT:: What policy is being carried out in regard to the control of the raw material? Are new fields being prospected, and what form of control is exercised?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Any discovery of raw material must be reported to the crown. It cannot be staked privately at the moment. I have stated to the house that I considered that would not be the permanent policy of Canada, but until international negotiations are advanced to a further point the provision against staking by private interests is continued. Eventually, however, I think the control of radioactive materials -will start from the time they are actually mined. They will pass into the hands of the atomic energy control board at that time, and all raw materials from that stage on to the finished product will be handled by the atomic energy control board.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: Apparently the minister is not in a position to give us much in the way of details in connection with the development of atomic energy, and the reasons he has given sound fairly reasonable at this time.
I believe, however, he could tell us something about the policy which is being proposed with respect to the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes. A moment ago he said something to the effect that it was not the contemplated policy of the government to 
maintain control over the staking of claims or the development of new sources of supply. It was a very hazy statement he made, but I took it to mean that eventually the government proposes to let private enterprise in on the development of atomic energy. It would appear to me that we should have a definite policy very soon, because this is going to be one of the big developments in this country. It can create a new industrial revolution. A new form of power such as that contained in atomic energy can play a major part in the progress of the country, and I fear that if private interests are permitted to come into control of the supply of this material, these same interests, who have other industries in their control using the orthodox forms of energy, will not be inclined to develop atomic energy to its fullest extent. That is only natural because they will want to protect their original investment in the ordinary type of industry. This question therefore poses a problem to parliament. Are we going to do everything possible to see to it that atomic energy is given the fullest opportunity to be developed to its limit for the general use of the country, under public enterprise, or are we going to allow the sources of supply and their development to slip into private hands, as other sources of supply have passed into the hands of private enterprise in the past, with the result that the country is hog-tied and hamstrung by private interests who will not allow their orthodox style of production to be interfered with? It is a matter of history. Although this is not the time to bring out the details, we knowr that private interests in the past have diverted certain processes from production merely because they wished to protect their own investments. That has not been in the interests of the public. Here is one opportunity, surely, for the government to take a step forward for the benefit of the public by developing this form of energjr for the general use of the nation through the initiative of public enterprise. I hope the minister will indicate what the policy of the government is in that connection. Will he tell us whether the government will be prepared to maintain public enterprise in this field and to extend it, or whether they are contemplating handing atomic energy over to private enterprise?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government is proceeding to develop uses for plutonium. Studies are being made of methods of controlling the release of energy in a manner that will permit it to be used in industry. These studies are in their initial stages, but by the next session of parliament we shall be able to give a report

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply
on the advance of the art in that direction. My hon. friend will appreciate that, after this material is produced, methods have to be found for releasing the energy gradually so that it can be used. Theoretically enough of the material could be put in a fountain pen to drive a battleship across the ocean for three years, but the actual mechanics for releasing that energy require a good deal of development. That is work that is being carried on today.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am not going to press for details. I know that the practical side has to be developed. I would like to know, however, whether the patents of any new invention as a result of atomic energy which is developed by the national research council under the control of the atomic energy control board will be held by the government or by the research council on behalf of the government-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: -or whether any of them are being disposed of to private interests at this time.
Mr. HOWrE: No.


Howard Charles Green: There is one statement in the report of the atomic energy control board which I do not quite understand. It appears under the heading "Encouragement to Prospecting". It states:
It was not found practicable to make regulations for the encouragement of prospecting, owing largely to uncertainty as to the international situation, but the position is being kept under continuous observation, in cooperation with the Department of Mines and Resources and Eldorado.
That of course is the crown company handling the mines in the northwest territories. Why should it be impossible to encourage prospecting for these necessary minerals? That seems to be of the utmost importance and I do not understand why the board should find it impossible. Furthermore, there is no mention here of cooperation with the provincial departments of mines. They are, at least as far as British Columbia is concerned, and I believe the same is true of Ontario, the bodies which are handling mining. The provincial departments do that. The dominion work in connection with mining is very limited.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is limited to the northwest territories, but that area contains all the radioactive materials ever discovered.


Howard Charles Green: The people who really know mining are the provincial departments. Will the minister explain that statement I have quoted from the report?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was explained when the emergency legislation was being discussed. The united nations have not decided whether the control of atomic energy should begin in the ground or not. In the days when Eldorado was formed, control was taken of material in the ground. In other words, the provinces were asked to join with the federal government in enacting legislation to provide that discoveries of radioactive materials should not be patented. That regulation is still in effect. Our inclination was to remove it, but General McNaughton, who represents Canada on the atomic energy commission, felt that any change in the regulations at this time would be unfortunate, that changes should not be made until the policy of the united nations had been determined. Therefore since 1943 no change has been made for that reason.


Howard Charles Green: Does that not mean we are losing precious time in the search for these vital metals? From this report it is quite evident that steps could be taken to encourage prospecting, but those steps are not being taken because we are waiting for the committee of the united nations to reach agreement. If that committee does not make more progress in reaching an agreement in future than it has made in the past we may have to wait quite a long time yet before our board encourages prospecting, and surely Canada should not be losing that time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government itself, that is Eldorado, has twenty parties in the field today prospecting for radioactive materials. The Department of Mines and Resources has a few parties also doing the same thing. There is nothing to prevent any prospector from searching for radioactive materials if he wishes. If he makes a discovery, Eldorado will be very glad to take it over and compensate him for it, I do not think there is any great handicap to prospecting. Personally I would prefer that there be no restriction on patenting claims for *radioactive materials, but as I say, the regulations provide otherwise and we have not changed them, following the advice of Genera] McNaughton.


Howard Charles Green: It is perfectly obvious from the report of the board that they believe something should be done to encourage prospecting.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It does not say that.


Howard Charles Green: The report itself is worded in that way: "It was not found practicable to make regulations for the encouragement of prospecting." Obviously the board does know that steps could be taken to encourage prospecting; and I suggest to the minister that this position be given further consideration.

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to do that.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has not said anything in regard to cooperation with the provincial departments of mines.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There has been complete cooperation. They have carried out every request this government has made.


Howard Charles Green: Are any of those parties prospecting in the provinces, or are they all in the northwest territories?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In the northwest territories.


Howard Charles Green: So there are no prospecting parties, either under Eldorado or under the dominion Department of Mines and Resources, working in any of the provinces?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would not say that. I think the Department of Mines and Resources has prospecting parties out in several provinces; but the prospecting parties directly searching for radioactive materials are all in the Northwest territories, if for no other reason than the fact that no discovery of radioactive materials has ever been made outside the Northwest territories.


Howard Charles Green: And is not likely to be unless they start looking.


Edward George McCullough: In
regard to certain discoveries as a result of Which nuclear power could be used for specific industrial purposes I would like to ask the minister how that would be assimilated into Canadian industry. Here we have public research, and let us suppose we find how to use some of this nuclear power in industry. To whom would that privilege be given, and just how would it be assimilated into our Canadian economy? As the hon. member for Dauphin has very well pointed out, there is a problem in that connection when it is realized that such revolutionary uses of nuclear power may upset our economy. I can very well see that the whole progress of atomic research may be retarded unless we have a definite plan to develop it, because you will have the problem of technological unemployment due to bringing such a revolutionary idea as nuclear energy into industry, and you will also have the present system under which that would be a very difficult thing to assimilate. I should like the minister to answer that question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a question that will
not arise for five or six years. There is nothing revolutionary in a government building a source of energy. Governments in this country own more sources of energy than private interests own. The government can either establish a power plant of its own or

sell the rights in the materials to someone else. That is a matter for future governments to determine, however, and I think it would be a waste of time to speculate on it at this moment, when the art is in its infancy.


Mr. IRVINE:: That is right; the C.C.F.
will determine it.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: In any project such
as this, where secrecy is necessary for security reasons, and perhaps particularly in this case, the people are asking questions, and they would like to know the position as far as Canada is concerned. This year we are spending another $5,500,000 on Chalk River. What protection is there to see that the plant, the processes, the research and the results of that research are retained for the good of the Canadian people? Are all the employees at Chalk River government employees, or do you have men there on loan from the United States or other governments, or from firms in other countries? Are there any representatives at that plant from Imperial Chemical Industries or du Pont, and are the details of the processes and research being made available to any persons other than government officials in Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Everyone at Chalk River
is an employee of the government. We do admit visitors from the United Kingdom and the United States, properly sponsored and coming there in the interests of pure science; but only government employees of those two countries sponsored by their governments and coming there for purposes which the government believe are desirable.


George Hugh Castleden: In other words all
persons given access to these details of research and so on are sponsored by the governments of other countries?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Theobald Butler Barrett: Under section 10 of the Atomic Energy Control Act the board is empowered to set up or incorporate companies. I would like to ask the minister if any companies have been set up or if it is contemplated that any will be set up.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There would be no purpose
in a crown company until the board has a product for sale, which it may have in time. Until that time comes, which will be some time in the future, there would be no purpose in having a crown company and it is not intended to establish any.


Theobald Butler Barrett: I suppose it is quite
improper to ask the minister what is going on at Chalk River, but could he give us any idea of what progress is being made in

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply
developing atomic energy materials purely for scientific uses, and what is being done to see that they are not used for war purposes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: All the materials made there are under the control of the government. It is difficult to say more than that. We are making materials, and all the materials are being retained at Chalk River for experimental purposes. That is all I can say.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Atomic energy control board
[Stage Direction]
357. Chalk River project-capital and operating expenses, $5,573,000.
Mr. JAQUESr In reference to this atomic energy control board, does that relate to the international control of atomic energy or merely to the control of the development of atomic energy in Canada?
Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, in Canada.


Mr. JAQUES:: It has nothing to do with international control?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I do not recall item 356 having been called. Apparently we are calling the odd numbers today; we must have had the even numbers yesterday. Has No. 356 been called?


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: It has been carried; we are on 357.


Howard Charles Green: We did not hear item 356 being called.


William Henry Golding: If my hon. friend continues to hold conversations with those behind him and an item is called and carried without his hearing it, I cannot be responsible for that. If my hon. friend wants to go back to 356 we shall be glad to do so.


Howard Charles Green: If it were not so near the end of the session, Mr. Chairman, I might have a good deal to say in reply to that remark. Any discussions I have been carrying on with my associates have been in regard to these items; and if the chairman did not mumble so much we might hear what is going on.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: This is a new item dealing with research and investigation with respect to atomic energy. We realize that $150,000 is a mere drop in the bucket when compared with the amount of research taking place. Is this for some special project?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The three universities
indicated have facilities for research ancillary to the work at Chalk River. A cyclotron has been established at McGill university to be used for splitting atoms. At the university of Saskatchewan is a betatron., and at the university of British Columbia a generator and linear accelerator. These have been installed for work in connection with atomic energy, and for that reason these three universities are receiving assistance from the atomic energy control board to let them carry out research which is of value to the work at Chalk River.


Howard Charles Green: In. the last fiscal year the expenditures for Chalk River are shown in the report as amounting to $7,171,067.26, and this year the vote is for $5,573,000. Can the minister give us any idea a.s to how much this project is going to cost each year. Will the expenditure be smaller or will it be increased, and is there any revenue coming in? Is there anything to offset these expenditures?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not at the present time. The operating cost at Chalk River for the current fiscal year is estimated at $3,400,000. That will be a continuing cost which, in time, we hope will be offset largely by revenue. At the present time however we are not in a position to dispose of any materials which would bring in revenue. So far as capital cost is concerned, the total investment is slightly over $20 million. Provision is made in .the estimate for $5,573,000 which will largely complete the capital expenditure anticipated).


Howard Charles Green: Does this $5,573,000 include operating costs?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The $5,573,000 includes operating costs and capital. The balance of money required is $2,173,000.


Howard Charles Green: And that completes the capital expenditure, on the Chalk River project?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Are any of the materials now being produced at Chalk River being exported from Canada, or are they all being held at that point?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are all being held at Chalk River.


Edward George McCullough: What is that material; is it just a stock pile?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Plutonium, and certain isotropes which are by-products of the process.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-Reconstruction and supply-
568. Departmental administration, $4,989,208.
Mr. MERRITT:: I take it that the minister or Wartime Housing has not yet arrived at a contract with the city of Vancouver for

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply
the building of further houses, and that the minister has not changed bis mind with respect to the Bremerton houses, that he does not propose to bring them in.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is the vote for departmental administration. Vote No. 574 deals with Wartime Housing Limited.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: My remarks will be
general, and will be directed to Wartime Housing Limited, emergency shelter, the moving of buildings, and national housing. I thought this would be the convenient point to discuss all these matters.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As you wish.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I believe I am correct in stating that no agreement has yet been entered into with the city of Vancouver for the building of further houses by Wartime Housing Limited.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No agreement has been
entered into because for months I have found it absolutely impossible to make any agreement with the city of Vancouver. Plans are under way for a very considerable project in that city in the field of low-cost housing. It is not completed, but it has advanced very close to consummation. Certain representatives of the citizens rehabilitation committee are now in the city. They are engaged in developing the project. It is somewhat difficult to discuss the reasons for its not being completed, but I can say we hope to have a thousand low-cost houses under construction there before many weeks go by-but not under agreement with the city of Vancouver.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Having discussed this matter with the minister both privately and in the house on other occasions I should like him to understand that I know his views. I am not accusing him of bad faith in the matter, but I am suggesting that the conclusion to which he has come in respect of wartime housing is wrong.
I believe I am correct when I say that the Bremerton houses are not going to be brought in by the government as emergency shelter, and I should like to deal with that matter for a few moments. I shall be brief, because the minister understands the situation, and it is not necessary to give him details. There are 1,600 houses in Bremerton which could be moved to Vancouver after being obtained from the United States housing authority, the present owner. The estimated landed cost per house on the site and ready for occupation is estimated at 82,100 of which $300 or $400 is reserved for contingencies and allowances for customs duties and items of that kind.
These are four-roomed houses of temporary construction, certainly-not suitable for permanent occupancy-but which come complete, including a certain amount of interior fixtures including such items as stoves and refrigerators. They can be had for somewhere around $2,000-and my best information is that it would be $300 less than that, or $1,700. This project was originated by some, young men in Vancouver. It was pressed by them on the city council and on the minister. They came down here to get in touch with certain insurance companies in the hope of financing the project. The minister was kind to those young men, offering them an emergency shelter grant on each house, and I believe gave them his blessing. In the end however they were unable to get the balance of the funds they needed from the insurance companies.
As I understand it, the reason the minister would not accept these houses as emergency shelter was that they were a little too good to be placed in that class. They had a possible life of about ten years, and did not fall within his specifications as to what emergency shelter should be. The reason why the insurance companies turned down the project-I am not complaining about this because it is their business-was that the houses were not a good commercial risk because their life was limited to ten years. They felt that they could not lend their money on that sort of thing. Therefore, we have these 1,600 houses falling between two stools. On the one hand, it is said they are a little bit too good for us-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I wish my hon. friend would not put words in my mouth. I never said the houses were too good; I always said they were not good enough. I said if anyone wanted to use them for emergency housing we would make a contribution, but I never said they were too good for emergency housing. Nothing could be too good. They might cost too much, but they would not be too good.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I did not intend to suggest that the minister used those words, but the effect of what he said was that $2,000 was too much for one unit of emergency shelter. I am only going by what I understood he said, and he can correct me if I am wrong. The project has failed somewhere between the two methods of getting these houses into Vancouver, between the emergency shelter method and the method of private financing. The one agency would not come up far enough and the other agency would not go down, and the result is that we are not getting these houses.
The housing of veterans who are unable to obtain homes and who have had to double

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply
up with their relatives in unsuitable quarters is a social responsibility of this government. The minister recognized that when he said, as reported on page 3595 of Hansard:
The federal government has recognized a responsibility for providing housing to take care of the dislocation in population arising through the war.
Veterans who have had no houses since they came back from overseas are people whose living has been dislocated through the war. The insurance companies very properly say that this social responsibility is up to the government, that it is not up to them. In this unusual situation, which no one would consider except for the housing emergency, they say that they do not intend to take what is called the end position. They say that they have no responsibility for the social end of things. They are quite right in that.
Under all the circumstances of housing in Vancouver I say to the minister that there is a responsibility upon him and upon the government to bring in these houses as emergency shelter, or to provide an adequate number of houses by some other means so that we will not miss the 1,600 houses which could be brought in from Bremerton. Here we have a cut-and-dried project. As he knows he can get most enthusiastic management. The proper person to be in the end position is the government, if there is going to be any end position in this matter. These houses are the cheapest four-roomed houses that can be obtained and they can be obtained most quickly. It may be that the amount of money that w'ould have to be paid for emergency shelter is more than the department has been accustomed to paying, but there is at least a good chance that the money will be got back in the same way that the sponsors of this scheme expected to get it back if they could have raised the money from private sources. I simply want to leave that matter with the minister.
I turn now to wartime housing. In this connection I know the minister feels that the city council has been most uncooperative. I do not hold any brief for the city council. As I understand it, the building of a large number of houses by Wartime Housing in Vancouver this year was prevented by the fact that the city demanded that they be paid an adequate sum for the lots instead of the one dollar which is the usual Wartime Housing payment. The city said that they could not hand them over for one dollar each because their sinking fund would not permit it and they did not want to put the extra cost upon the taxpayers of the city. They held to that position throughout.
On the other hand the government contended that they could not negotiate a different type of contract with Vancouver than had been negotiated with other cities because that would not be fair to the other cities, and they stood on that position. Both sides have stood their ground with the result that the houses have not been built and it looks now as though they will not be built. Vancouver members who have discussed this matter with the minister and the city council have suggested that as the two parties cannot come together, and as the houses are needed, the city and the dominion should agree on terms satisfactory to both and under which the dominion would not pay more than SI for the lot and the city would get what it feels it should get for the lots. As far as I know no progress has been made since that suggestion was offered.
The minister says that he does not want to have one type of contract with one city and another type with, another city. That is all very well, but I find in the Montreal Gazette of Friday, July 4, a report of a scheme similar to the one that Vancouver members proposed which has apparently been entered into between Wartime Housing and Rosemount councillors. One paragraph of this report reads:
The objections of Rosemount councillors have been met by calling for the new houses to be of brick veneer finish, with full basements and pipeless furnaces, although the modifications of the standard Wartime Housing structure will increase rents four to six dollars a month.
That is the suggestion that was made to the minister by the Vancouver members, that he should meet the objections of the Vancouver city council by building the houses and if necessary charging the additional amount to the veterans. By the way, this additional amount as I understand! it would not be more than S2 per month instead of from S4 to S6 per month in the case of the Montreal project. The minister has said that his idea is to keep the rentals of wartime housing, down low, and I agree thoroughly with him in that. I do not think the addition of S2 per month, to the rent of one of these wartime houses in order that the city may get what it feels it should have will raise the rent of any one of these houses over $30 a month, and that is the cheapest rent you can get anywhere. I am sure that a large number of veterans in Vancouver would be prepared to go into that scheme. The minister has broken precedent in Montreal with respect to this matter and I cannot but feel that he could break it for Vancouver just as well. The houses are needed and their building must not be delayed just because two public authorities cannot get together. I am not over-critical of the minister or the city council. I believe

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply
that both of them think they are right, but the idea that the inability of two public authorities to agree can stop much needed housing for veterans is one to which I cannot subscribe.
The minister has stated in this house that the dominion has the responsibility for the housing of those dislocated by the war, and no one has been dislocated by the war so much as the veteran.
Why do I feel so strongly on this subject as it relates to the city of Vancouver? The fact is that we have there a very large number of homeless veterans. The February figures, supplied to me by a source in which I have confidence, show that 4,700 veterans were on the waiting list for wartime housing in that month, and of these 2,500 were married men with families with overseas service in the face of the enemy, all of whom had enlisted in Vancouver, so it is in that city where they can most rightfully expect to be housed.
The minister knows that the old Vancouver hotel and the Dunsmuir are sheltering some 400 families and he knows the overcrowding and doubling up that is going on in Vancouver as in other cities.
Just to 'bring it down to an individual basis I have a copy here of the Vancouver Province of Thursday, June 26. which incidentally shows two pictures of a housing survey team looking into housing conditions in Vancouver, and which I shall be glad to show to the minister if he is interested. I want to read some of the things which this survey team found only in June of this year:
One tenement examined by the women was in "imminent danger of collapse," she said. Six families including nine children are living in it.
On the same lot they found three brothers and their mother living in a basement suite "where no daylight could get at them." The brothers are all working and could afford better accommodation, but could find none.
The survey found a veteran and his family living in an alley in a house with all upstairs windows broken and the siding falling off.
Those illustrations give some idea of the conditions with which the minister is very familiar and about which he is much concerned, so I shall not labour that.
The Vancouver Housing Association, which is taking a most active interest in housing in Vancouver, recently informed me that there is a shortage in Vancouver of 25,000 houses. They said if I wanted to be conservative I should say 20,000, so I will say 10,000, and that figure warrants the building of wartime houses at once.
The minister knows that the greatest need of veterans housing is in the lower rental group. So much is that so at the present time in Vancouver that I say again if he does

not bring in Wartime Housing or the Bremerton houses he must do something else, because we cannot go on longer without the housing.
Turning now to a more general approach to the subject, I wish to read two short extracts from newspapers which have caused me considerable alarm. The first is from the Ottawa Citizen of June 24, under the heading: "Home building lagging", and Mr. D. V. Mansur, the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, is quoted as follows:
He indicated that in the opinion of the government, these figures were lagging sadly from the hoped-for number which Reconstruction Minister Howe included in his 80,000 target for the whole dominion this year.
Referring to the question of materials he said:
"Even if home building were to stop completely," he said, "labour would be fully employed on commercial and industrials construction. so great is the volume of that type of building. The private dwelling situation doesn't look good at all."
The report goes on:
No adequate solution of the complex problem is in sight, he admitted. The only solution lies in getting new homes, and this solution won't be reached for a long time to come.
That simply means that with the stopping of Wartime Housing and the stopping of Housing Enterprises and the stopping of the Veterans Land Act housing scheme, the government is left with only integrated housing as its means of stimulating house building. Integrated housing is a very good scheme., and I think the minister should have ail credit for introducing it, but only a very limited number can take advantage of it. The number of houses that can be built under the integrated housing scheme at the present time apparently is not sufficient to take care of the need.
I have another clipping from the Financial Post of a very recent issue, some time in June. I shall readi only the title of this article:	"Ottawa hopes housing prices to
solve itself. May stand1 by expecting lower cost trend within few months." I do not think this parliament can prorogue without the minister being told that the government should not sit tight and use that way out of this difficulty. In view of the physical need; of housing of so many veterans, that course simply cannot be contemplated. The government must do more than sit tight. It must act, and if it will not act in the way I have suggested in regard to Vancouver, it should ac.t in some other way.
I know it is not my duty to tell the minister how to run his department. It is perhaps sufficient for my simply to point out

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply
the shortcomings of the department and leave the minister to find his own way. Nevertheless I shall make one concrete suggestion to him as to how he might help these homeless veterans. The suggestion I am going to make will naturally be a rough one. It might be refined by his officials or by the minister himself; but I would certainly urge it upon him and ask him to take it into consideration. I am going to suggest to him that he do not try any longer to solve the whole housing problem all at once. I am going to suggest to him that he work out a veterans housing scheme, and if he houses the veterans, particularly those who have been homeless since they returned from overseas, he will be doing something for those who are in the greatest need and are the most deserving. At the same time by creating more housing for that class he will loosen up the accommodation for all classes.	.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I interrupt and say that my hon. friend has evidently not been following the situation closely. Every house that the government has built under wartime housing, under integrated housing, under the Veterans Land Act or under any other government sponsored scheme, has been for veterans and for no one else. The government takes no responsibility for solving the entire housing problem for this country. It is perfectly ridiculous to suggest that it is a government responsibility. Every city has its own housing responsibility, as has every province. The government is responsible for the returned men, and its responsibility stops at that point.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I am perfectly aware that the government has given priority-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why not say so?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: -to veterans under wartime housing, under integrated housing and under all these schemes. I think that is widely enough known, so that the suggestion I am about to make could not have been taken by the minister as a suggestion that he did not give veterans preference in his various schemes. If he would just' listen to me- because I am trying to be helpful-he might find some usefulness in what I say. I am impelled to say it only because of such reports as I see here which suggest that the government is throwing up its hands now and is not going ahead with any of these things.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am willing to answer my hon. friend, but I am not willing to answer headlines in the Financial Post of Toronto.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I have accomplished
something if I have got a denial of these
headlines from Toronto. Since we see no practical steps being taken and no houses going up under Wartime Housing or under Housing Enterprises Limited or under any government scheme except integrated housing, I think anyone would be pardoned, after looking at the report in the Toronto paper, for being alarmed.
Perhaps the minister will let me go on, because I am really trying to be of assistance to him. If he would rather I simply criticized and sat down I suppose that is all right with me. I should think he would be interested in any scheme which might get him out of his difficulty. If I may go on, I suggest that the minister should work out a scheme to use the veterans, particularly those who have had no accommodation since the end of the war, and there are lots of these. I want to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that even though we have had these schemes under which veterans have had preference, and rightly so, and all credit to the minister for that, there are still many veterans who have not got houses, preference or no preference. There are still many veterans who have had no assistance from the government whatever, no assistance from rent control, because rent control is no good if you have never been in a house. There is a class which has not been reached by any of the minister's schemes for which I am suggesting a veterans housing scheme.
I suggest that in the integrated scheme the minister has the basis for this kind of idea. There is nothing wrong with the integrated scheme except that it is too narrow. There are not enough builders going into it, and they are not building the number of houses which are needed to get roofs over the heads of these veterans. The reason perhaps is that the integrated scheme is what I would call a test tube scheme, a laboratory scheme. It is being tried out in only small units in various places, and it is hedged around by very tight terms and considerations which apparently do not attract builders generally. I suggest to the minister that his veterans housing scheme should be one which utilizes all builders in Canada-the private enterprisers, upon whom he says he relies to get houses built, and the veterans themselves, in order to do the work. I suggest that he expand the integrated scheme; that he prescribe an over-all cost limit and a fairly generous profit limit which will attract more builders into the scheme, and that he use the veterans themselves to make private deals with their own contractor; then if they come to an organization which might be set up with a Legion representative on it, and show that they have a contract for the building of

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply
a house within the wider cost and profit limit which I have suggested, that they be given the priority necessary to build the house. In that way the integrated scheme could be expanded widely in every city.
Again we should consider present-day high costs. I suggest to the minister that in all cities we should have had ever since the end of the war a veterans housing scheme following the principle of the Veterans Land Act small holdings scheme. He might now consider all those veterans who have never had houses but who now still have reestablishment credits. I understand that only one-third of the reestablishment credits have been used. I suggest that he enable them to finance themselves in these times of high cost, if they will give up their reestablishment credit, by giving them benefits of the same kind as under the small holdings scheme under the Veterans Land Act. In that way he may be able to provide financing for many veterans who would like to build but have not the money.
The minister knows of the Canadian Legion suggestion that he should lend up to ninety per cent of cost instead of ninety per cent of lending value with the same over-all cost and profit restriction. The minister might well investigate that in this type of scheme.
I now want to turn to the question of providing rental housing. When the minister made his-


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I may reply, the hon. member has been labouring a scheme that has been in operation for years. Any veteran who has $600 can build a house under provisions passed by this parliament which provide that a veteran may borrow ninety-five per cent of the first $3,000 and eighty-five per cent of the second $3,000, which means ninety per cent of the loan on a house with a lending value of $6,000, and somewhat more for a house costing less. He can arrange with the contractor to build it under the integrated scheme or he can arrange with the contractor to build it privately. On a total investment of $600 he can build a $6,000 house anywhere he likes.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister knows better than I that the number of contractors who are taking part in the integrated plan is very small compared to the number of contractors in Canada. There is something about that scheme which is not widely attracting the builders of the country. I suggest to the minister that it may be due to the fact that the scheme is a little too rigid andi so is not having the practical result which one might expect from the theory underlying it. After all, I would not be here talking at all if the housing conditions in Canada, and particularly in Vancouver, were not as I have described

them, and the result of all these good 'theories of the minister has not been to put these men in homes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has built a lot of houses, though, hasn't it?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I am afraid I did not hear what the minister said.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I't has built a good many houses.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I want to give the minister all credit, because I know thait this is a difficult- problem, but he cannot ask me to admit that it has resulted in the building of ' a good many houses. The minister has given us the figures himself.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There were 175,000 since the war ended.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: There were 6,800 wartime houses and 6,141 units of emergency shelter completed last year; and of course there were 3,000 integrated or less than 3,000, which is about 15,000 out of 60,000 completed by all means.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: No.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us not talk nonsense. This government sponsored a programme for post-war building of houses which produced about 53,000 in 1945, 62,000 in 1946 and, it is hoped, will produce 80,000 in 1947. Let us not have any juggling of the figures. That is close to 200,000 houses.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister's own
senior officer has publicly pointed out the danger that we shall not reach 80.000. I do not want to get into an argument with the minister over the comparative number of houses built. I am thinking of the fact that two years after the war a very large number of veterans, who should have the highest priority in the country, have no houses, despite all schemes. I do not think it profits us to talk about 60,000 or 80.000 or 200,000.
I am talking about 4,700 in Vancouver who want houses now, after all these things have been done.
It may be that what I have suggested is very like the minister's integrated scheme; indeed, I said it was. I said it was only an expansion of that scheme. I am suggesting to the minister that he should expand it.
Now I wish to speak for a moment about the rental side of the problem. In February of this year the minister, as reported at page 211 of Hansard, speaking of that problem, stated in part:
Because rental construction was disappointingly low in 1946, we believe that steps should be taken to remedy this deficiency.

Canadian Broadcasting Act
Then he set out certain steps which he proposed to take, such as double depreciation, a longer term of amortization and priorities for those who built rental housing. I do not think the minister's scheme has produced much more rental construction. He can correct me if I am wrong in that,, but I do not think it has had the effect which he desired, and which I believe the house hoped for as much as he did, At page 212 of Hansard of the same day he said:	*
We believe that these steps will substantially increase the supply of new rental housing units. Should' we be wrong, other steps must be taken, because we cannot allow a continuation of the proportionately low level of new construction in this field.
He was speaking of the rental field. I know that the minister considers it not to be his duty to subsidize rental housing. He said so quite clearly. I suggest to him, however, that so far as veterans are concerned we have a special problem. It might very well be singled out from the general situation in regard to low rent housing. In these particularly difficult times, right after the war, I submit that he should give special consideration to that particular class no matter what his general views may be.
The minister knows that in this low monthly rental field the houses are not going up. I suggest to him that he make use of the same technique as he adopted in the war when he needed ships. He built the ships, retained ownership in the crown, and operated them through private ship operators. When the war was over and the need for these ships for war purposes had disappeared, he was able to sell the ships to private operators at a price which, in his opinion and in the opinion of these operators, would enable them to keep the ships at sea in peace-time trade and so make possible the maintenance of the merchant marine. I do not see why that same idea could not be followed in the matter of veterans rental housing. If as a resuLt of that plan the government suffered loss, that loss could be capitalized and considered as a war expenditure, precisely in the same way as with wartime ship building.
I see it is one o'clock and therefore I will say nothing further now. I assure the minister, however, that while I am most critical of him I am critical not for what he has done but for the results which he has failed to achieve- everything that I have said has been said in a sincere desire to help him in what is Canada's major problem.
Progress reported.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at two o'clock.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of National War Services) moved the second reading of Bill No. 453, to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936.
He said: Mr. Speaker, since the passing of the Canadian Broadcasting Act in 1936 and the setting up of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the affairs of the corporation, including its policies, its operation and its financial statement have been under review by a special committee in successive years. That custom was followed this year, so I submit that anyone who is interested in the affairs of the corporation or in radio broadcasting has had a splendid opportunity to follow the debates that have taken place. Having followed them, such person must be informed with reference to the matters which have been under discussion. Therefore I do not feel that I should take much time today in any attempt to review the situation in reference to the broadcasting corporation. This bill is an amendment to the Canadian Broadcasting Act. It is not a very long measure, and has to do principally with the amendment of one section.
Under the Canadian Broadcasting Act the proceeds of radio licence fees go to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. At present costs of administration and collection are deducted. The special committee on radio broadcasting last year recommended that the full amount of the fees paid go to the C.B.C. The broadcasting committee this session has reiterated this recommendation. In a report presented to the house last Friday, the committee said:
Your committee has reviewed the financial position of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation very carefully this year and is impressed with the need of the corporation for a larger income, and the committee believes that the whole of the licence fee received from holders of receiving sets should be paid over to the corporation by the Department of Transport. A like report was made last year and your committee regrets that same was not implemented. Your committee recommends that appropriate legislation be passed at this session to give effect to this recommendation.
I submit that the committee had a good opportunity to consider the financial aspects of a national radio system after hearing full explanations from officials of the C.B.C.
Canadian Broadcasting Act
[Stage Direction]
It is seldom realized how great are the basic costs of operating a national radio system in Canada. The operation of a nationwide system in this country is basically more expensive per head than it is in any other country that has a nationwide system. This is due to the fact first of all that Canada has a very big area with a relatively small population. No matter how it is done it costs money to cover a given, area with a radio programme; thus costs per head in Canada of getting programmes to listeners are very high. For example, one single station in New York can cover a population as great as that of all Canada. To reach the same number of people in this country we need thirty or more stations and thousands of miles of expensive wire lines in regular daily operation. Thus the basic cost per head of reaching listeners is many times greater in Canada than in the United States.
The area of Great Britain is only a fraction of the area of the inhabited part of Canada. But to provide services, the British Broadcasting Corporation has the revenue from the £1 licence fee of over ten million people. On its home services this year the B.B.C. has over S40,000,000 to spend. The C.B.C., with its vast and expensive area to cover, had some §5,800,000 from all sources. In Australia the licence fee is also £1. In New Zealand the rate is 25 shillings, and in South Africa an average of 28 shillings. Neither Great Britain nor Australia faces the need of providing broadcasting service in two languages. In Canada this increases our basic cost by a very considerable proportion. It means duplicate facilities in part of the country, extra administration costs, and large extra programme costs.
In the face of the high cost factors set by the nature of Canada and the composition of our nation, the C.B.C. has been operating a national radio system with a licence fee of §2.50 compared with higher fees in other countries. Actually it has been receiving only about an average of §2.15 per licence. The national system also receives some assistance in programming and some additional revenue from commercial sources. But the financial basis of a national radio system in Canada is, and probably will continue to be, direct contributions from the public. Comparisons with other radio systems show that the revenues of the C.B.C. are small in relation to the size of the job it has to do in Canada. During recent years its expenditures have necessarily increased to meet needs of the listening public. Broadcasting facilities and network service have extended to cover wider areas. This involves extra operating costs which continue year by year.

At the same time the corporation has been faced by sharply rising costs in nearly every phase of its activities. In the last few years prices and costs in almost every field have gone up in Canada. In the radio business this rise has been particularly acute. For example, a comparison between the performers' fee costs of a group of typical programmes in 1940 and for the same programmes at today's rates shows an increase of sixty per cent. Expenditure items of the C.B.C. have risen ; at the same time the main income item of the licence fee has remained at the same level. No organization can remain in the situation where costs rise steeply while its income remains about the same, and still continue to give good service.
For the year 1945-46 the corporation had an operating deficit of §78,000. Last year costs again increased considerably, but by careful management and economies, which had to include a reduction in employment given to Canadian artists, the corporation succeeded in keeping its operating deficit at S70,000. In this it was assisted by a rise in commercial revenues and in the total number of licence fees paid. No great help, however, can be expected from these sources in the future. The number of families owning radio sets cannot grow much larger than it is today unless we have within a short time a considerable increase in population. Efforts by the corporation to increase its commercial revenues too greatly would seriously reduce the quality of the service given by the national system.
Deficits of the corporation are met out of its own limited reserves saved from surpluses in earlier years. I might point out here that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been financed entirely by the people of Canada through moneys they have paid in licence fees, and fees by commercial revenue. It is true that loans have been made to the corporation. In every instance those loans have been repaid. The corporation had power to borrow, and at the present time has a loan for increased capital expenditure. In due course we hope that that loan too will be paid. When I say that every loan has been paid, I mean that that is the condition up to last year.
On the basis of its present operations, the corporation would face a deficit of at least §265.000 this year. Therefore if the proposed extra revenue were not provided, the corporation would have drastically to reduce more of its services and its use of Canadian artists and writers.
Giving the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the full amount of licence fees paid will provide extra revenue to meet at least some of

Canadian Broadcasting Act
the increases in its costs. If this were not done it would mean inevitably serious deterioration in the extent and quality of the service provided by the national system. It would mean that the corporation could not maintain present broadcasting produced by Canadians for Canadians. It would certainly mean that necessary improvements could not be made.
I think that this house agrees that our national broadcasting system is providing an important and valuable service for the Canadian people from coast to coast. It is one means of bringing together Canadians in whatever part of the country they live, and it makes an important contribution to our national life.
This bill, carrying out the recommendations of two parliamentary committees, will enable the national radio system, to continue its present service to the Canadian public.
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 453 appears small in compass, but actually the issue presented to the house for decision has wrapped up in it far-reaching questions of policy in connection with radio broadcasting in Canada. I am sorry the present debate comes so late in the session, when there is so much pressure upon all members, but it must serve the purpose of reviewing those questions of policy. I for one welcome the opportunity for debate presented by the bill, first because of the importance of the subject, and second, because otherwise no opportunity will be afforded for discussion of the final report of the special committee on radio broadcasting.
I should like to make one observation about the practice followed in the house by the present administration since 1935. with reference to the reports of the special committee on radio broadcasting which has sat in most years since that time. In 1932 and in 1934 debates ensued on motions for concurrence in the reports of that committee. But from 1935-
Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. Hon members will understand that it is the duty of the Speaker to confine debate to the principle of the bill before the house. Unless hon. members have (he unanimous consent of the house to discuss matters other than those contained in the bill, it will be my duty to keep the debate within proper bounds. It is a rule of the house, and it is my duty to confine the debate to the principle of the bill.


Mr. FLEMING:: I do not think Your Honour was in the chair last night when the resolution preceding the introduction of the bill was before the house. By agreement among all parties it was understood that there should be no debate on the resolution preceding the bill, but that on second reading full oppor-33169-352
tunity would be given to discuss not only the bill but the two reports of the committee on radio broadcasting.


James Horace King: Has the hon. member unanimous consent?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Mr. MacINNIS:: In view of the agreement reached last night I do not think the hon. member would be proceeding on the bai^is of unanimous consent. The same privilege will have to be given to all hon. members. It is my impression that what the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has said with respect to the arrangement made last night is correct. We should agree to that now.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right, yes.
Mr. MeCANN: Perhaps I took greater liberty than I am entitled to take, but I did give the assurance to hon. members opposite, so far as it was within my power to do so, that when second reading was called we would raise no objection to a general discussion involving not only the amendment to the act but also the reports of the committee and other matters connected with radio. If that meets with Your Honour's approval, we have no objection.


James Horace King: Do I understand the same latitude is to be given to all hon. members?
Mr. MeCANN: Exactly.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was the understanding last night.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was referring to the fact that in the many years since 1935 that the committee on radio broadcasting has sat, there has never been a motion for concurrence in a report. It is only therefore on an occasion of this kind, when a bill is presented, that one is afforded an opportunity to discuss this important question of radio broadcasting in Canada.
We are frequently reminded in the radio committee and in the house by spokesmen for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that their responsibility is to parliament. If the responsibility is to parliament, and that is the statutory position, then certainly it is desirable that the reports from the committee from year to year should be debated in the house on motions for concurrence, if for no other purpose than to let the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation know whether the recommendations in the reports presented from year to year really represent the view of parliament.
If a motion for concurrence were made in the house it would serve as a guide to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. If there



IlKYISRO EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Canadian Broadcasting Act
[Stage Direction]
is to be true parliamentary control of that corporation, then obviously there should be some vehicle provided for an effective expression of views, not only in this one house of parliament, but in both houses. This is particularly true because, in the light of the experience I have had on that committee in the past two sessions of parliament, I can say it has been dominated by a working majority of Liberal and C.C.F. members who are, at least in this instance, apparently on completely common ground.
Another important reason in my estimation why the reports of this committee should be fully debated in the house is that it would afford an opportunity to see whether the expressions of the Liberal-C.C.F. majority in the committee actually represented the views of this House of Commons. In the closing stages of the session last year, during the debate on a bill which was similar to the one now before the house but included other matters a? well, an opportunity was afforded, as now, to discuss the report of the committee. I would remind lion, members that the discussion which followed then had a different flavour and tone from that which prevailed in the committee.
As the minister pointed out when introducing the bill, in effect the house is being asked to approve a proposal that the consolidated revenue fund of Canada should bear the entire cost of collecting fees imposed on private stations and owners of receiving sets. On the basis of last year's figures the amount involved is $544,673.17 per annum. To a government dominated by the mental approach indicated by one senior member of the cabinet who said in the house in 1945 when speaking on his estimates, "what's a million dollars?" this amount probably does not look like a large sum. However, on further examination I think the house will see that there is more involved in this matter than simply the question of giving the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation a sum annually in excess of half a million dollars.
Just in passing I should like to mention several factors bearing on this present proposal. First, the amount is annual and it may increase. The minister thinks that there will not. be any substantial increase in the number of licensees of receiving sets. He may be right,, but I am inclined to think that there is going to be an increase; therefore the cost of administration and collection is likely to rise. This bill proposes that the cost of administration and collection shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund, which
[Mr. Fleming.)
would give the C.B.C. the gross rather than merely the net revenue from these fees.
These costs of administration and collection are too high. In the past eight years they have never been less than 11-92 per cent of the total fees collected. They have risen to as high as 12-5 per cent and last year they were 12-36 per cent of the total. That is much too high. In addition, the enforcement apparently is not the same in all parts of the country. As was admitted by one minister last Tuesday, apparently the enforcement is much more strict in Ontario than it is in other provinces.
There is a much more serious aspect, to this matter. The public wants to know what it costs to maintain the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It has known that hitherto because every licencee of a private receiving set has had- an annual reminder of that cost- every time he paid his licence fee. He knew what he had to pay for the benefits of the enterprises of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. He will continue to pay $2.50 per year, but that $2.50 will no longer represent the total cost of maintaining the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. There will be provided by parliament from the consolidated revenue fundi-I take it that it will be done by a statutory item-a sum in excess of half a million dollars per annum. I do not till ink that, is sound in principle. I do not think additional revenue should be provided and then the impression left with the people-I do not think it is intentional, but it is inevitable-that the $2.50 is providing everything necessary to maintain the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I know why the government does not propose to increase the licence fees by an amount sufficient to provide what is 'being provided by this bill. The minister has indicated that the additional payment to C.B.C. will equal 35 cents for each receiving set licence. Why does not the government increase the receiving licence fee to $2.85 or $3.00? I will tell you why. It would be a most unpopular move; there would be an outcry across the country. Yet this bill is indirectly increasing it. It may not be intentional, but this method has the effect of hiding part of the cost of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation from the public. It is an unsound method. The cost should not be hidden in this way.
What is this additional money going to be used for? After all, that is the crux of the whole matter. The minister has indicated that the costs of operation are rising. That is quite true. He has referred also to deficits. These are manifest from the evidenoe heard

Canadian Broadcasting Act
by the committee. In the fiscal year ended March 31, 1946, the C.B.C. statement showed an operating deficit, before providing allowances for depreciation and obsolescence, of $78,425.73. An officially audited statement for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1947, is lot yet available but the estimate of the officials of the C.B.C. is that the operating deficit, without including allowances for depreciation and obsolescence, will aggregate about $70,000, approximately the same as last year. The minister stated this afternoon that there is an actual operating deficit for the year 1945-46 of $265,000, and we had a repetition of that last year.
Mr. McCANN:: No. I said the anticipated deficit for this year, 1947-48, was $265,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The figures are practically the same on the basis of actual operating deficit without allowances for depreciation and obsolescence, and I do not think there is any reason to expect that there would be any great difference between the two years in the actual deficit including proper allowances for depreciation and obsolescence.
For what purpose is this additional money being provided? Is it simply a matter of improving the service to the Canadian people? That depends upon what you mean by service. In my submission this additional amount is not chiefly for the improvement of programmes and for the employment of more Canadian talent, a worthy and laudable object. It is tied in with a policy of expansion by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It is the same policy which was discussed during the debate in the closing stages of the session last year.
This policy of expansion does not confine itself to the occupation by the C.B.C. of channels not hitherto occupied. It is a policy of expansion which takes on a most aggravated form in the assumption by this corporation of three of the major wavelengths now in the hands of private stations, stations which represent in terms of actual operation the closest thing we have in Canada today to competition in radio as between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and others. Parliament must ask itself at this juncture whether it approves this policy of expansion.
It is not enough to say that parliament last year in the closing stages of the session provided in a supplementary appropriation another loan of $2,000,000 for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that there was presented to this house a bill which among other things provided that there should be opened up to C.B.C. loans aggregating $10,000,000 over a 83166-3521
period, and in the first fiscal year $2,000,000 of that sum was to be available by way of loan to C.B.C. The whole basis of it was to enable the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to embark on an extensive policy of expansion, expansion in the form of providing an additional network. It was not simply a matter of improving the programmes of one national network. This programme of expansion contemplated the creation of a second national network, namely, the dominion network and the taking over of CFCN as part of the trans-Canada network; the dominion network was to take over the wave length of CFRB and transfer it to CJBC and make that the foundation for the second dominion network. Parliament did not pass that bill. It never was given second reading, and I submit that in passing the supplementary appropriation this house did not give approval to a programme of expansion in the form of a second national network as proposed in the bill. I submit that parliament has a duty at this stage to review this whole question of expansion, expansion at the expense of the wave lengths now enjoyed by some privately-owned stations which are among the leaders in giving service to the public.
Since that time the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has proceeded with very fcreat haste in its steps to take over these wave lengths and crowd these three stations out into inferior wave lengths because the equal of the three they have enjoyed are now no longer available. They were available some years ago if C.B.C. had made know its intentions then, but it did not. The time limit provided by international agreement on this' continent for the increase of power on class 1-A channels to 50,000 watts, has been' extended by a modus vivendi arrangement. Nevertheless C.B.C. is proceeding with all' possible speed to take over and occupy these wave lengths. That was done with government concurrence. It had to be. The government did approve. It had to approve before these three stations could be displaced from wave lengths which they had occupied for some years and on which they had given the Canadian listening public very good service.
Therefore I submit to this house that this whole question resolves itself now into this. Is the house prepared to give blanket approval to a policy of expansion which has as its foundation the taking over of these wave lengths held by the privately-owned stations? The report of the radio committee says:
The area of competition between C.B.C. and the privately-owned stations is small.
Canadian Broadcasting Act

That is the expression in the report, in the Votes and Proceedings, at page 737. The area of competition is small. The report says elsewhere:
The functions of the two types of radio service are different.
-that is, C.B.C. on the one hand and the privately-owned stations on the other, and there are about 100 of these stations in Canada. The report also says that these two types of radio service should be complementary to one another. In that respect I submit that the finding of the radio committee is not a correct and factual finding. Actually there is a very considerable area of competition as between C.B.C. on the one hand and the privately-owned stations on the other. That is the whole basis of the complaint which the privately-owned stations have made, through their association, against the continuation of a system under which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is not only competitor, not only litigant, but also judge and policeman over them. If the situation were as simple as the radio commission has so naively described it, and there were no element of competition between the C.B.C. on the one hand and the privately-owned station on the other, the case for an independent regulatory tribunal would be somewhat different. But there is no escape from the fact that there is a substantial element of competition between the C.B.C. on ithe one hand and the privately-owned stations on the other.
The chairman of the board of C.B.C. said at a recent meeting that the evidence he would be prepared to give this year would be confirmatory of the evidence he gave to last year's committee on the matter of competition. To last year's committee he said that 'the C.B.C. *was in competition with the privately-owned stations for listener interest-that	was
admitted-and in competition with them for jommercial revenue. Those are important indicia of competition. I well remember putting a question to the chairman of the board of C.B.C. I want to make clear that the chairman of the board of C.B.C. is a gentleman for whom I have the highest respect. He is very efficient, and I think is gifted with ,a high sense of public service. He agreed that the place where competition wras the keenest was where C.B.C. comes into competition with the large privately-owned stations of the kind I have referred to, the kind which enjoy the three wave lengths which are being taken over by C.B.C. with the government's full approval in what is nothing else tout what I would call legalized robbery.
Here is the position. There is an area of *competition. The C.B.C. was given by the
[Mr. Fleming.!
Broadcasting Act the widest kind of powers to regulate all broadcasting in Canada. It is very difficult to conceive of powers couched in wider language than those contained in sections 8 and 22 of the Canadian Broadcasting Act. It gives C.B.C. control of all the private stations. It is a most sweeping power. Not only that, but the full licensing authority for all radio stations in Canada is vested by the Radio Act in the Minister of Transport, whose functions-which we were considering the other night-are exercised by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply'. He acts in pursuance of section 24 of the Canadian Broadcasting Act on the recommendation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It was stated in evidence that he has never gone counter to the recommendations of C.B.C. in this matter. To all intents and purposes with the approval of the government the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation not only has full and complete regulatory powers in respect of all radio broadcasting in Canada but it shares with the Minister of Transport complete authority in respect of the issuing of licences.
In that situation I submit that the only fair and proper way in which parliament ought to make provision for legislative control over broadcasting in Canada, including licensing, is by vesting authority in the public interest in an independent regulatory tribunal. Independent-why do I say that? It must be independent of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I have said already that that body, even in the area in which it is in close competition with private stations, is their judge. They have no right to appeal from its judgment. It is the one and final judge. Is that not a fine situation? Here is one competitor coming before its chief competitor as a litigant, and the latter competitor has not only his interests involved as a litigant but he is judge, jury and sheriff, and in the case of these three wave lengths, executioner as well. I submit that that is an absolutely unhealthy situation. It is very unhealthy for the C.B.C.
I must confess my difficulty in understanding the attitude taken by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, voiced in the committee recently by the chairman of the board. I think with the full approval of the board of governors, that when the Canadian Association of Broadcasters comes before the parliamentary committee and asks that an independent regulatory tribunal be set up in the public interest it flies to arms and says: We are being attacked. I do not approve of that attitude. I do not think that because the C.B.C. is given these functions it. should regard itself as

Canadian Broadcasting Act
inviolate, or that it should be regarded as an act of impertinence on the part of those with whom it is in competition, in a substantial area of competition, to come to the only place that they can come and say they think the system is wrong and it ought to be changed. Surely we have not yet come to the place in this country where persons who have a grievance cannot come to a parliamentary committee and pleadi for a change in. the system under which they are being judged by their competitors.
When we are told that these people did not set forth individual complaints. I ask, Mr. Speaker, if we need any more individual complaints than the record of the legalized robbery by the C.B.C. of these three wave lengths. For my part I do not need any more proof of the necessity of some tribunal standing apart from the C.B.C. to judge as between the C.B.C. and the private stations in these matters where their interests are in headlong conflict. The kind of tribunal that is needed, Mr. Speaker, is a tribunal which, in the field of regulation of broadcasting in Canada and with respect to licensing of stations for the purpose of broadcasting in Canada, would exercise powers and functions similar to those exercised in the field of transportation in Canada by the board of transport commissioners. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, parliament countenancing a proposal that the functions of the board of transport commissioners in respect of the regulation of rail transport in Canada should be handed over to the Canadian National Railways? Would you think of submitting the Canadian Pacific Railway to regulation by its competitor the Canadian National Railways? It is not enough to say that in the railway field the competition is complete, and that in the broadcasting field the competition is not so complete. That is an answer in degree only, and apparently we differ very greatly on the extent of the degree. For my part I say that the principle involved is precisely the same.
I will give another example. The air transport board, in a manner somewhat similar to the board of transport commissioners in its field, regulates civil aviation in Canada. It has had to judge as between Trans-Canada Air Lines and Canadian Pacific Air Lines, and will no doubt have to do it on occasions in the future. Would this house countenance a proposal that these regulatory functions in respect of civil aviation in Canada should be handed over to Trans-Canada Air Lines to be judge over its competitor? Of course no sensible hon. member would propose any such thing. Then why in the field of radio broadcasting do we-in the face of the case that has been made out for an independent regulatory tribunal appointed with full parliamentary approval, holding tenure, possessing powers, exercising functions, and generally operating in the same fashion in its field as the board of transport commissioners in the railway field-why do we hesitate now to take action to correct the situation that is now permitted to exist here? I say, Mr. Speaker, the time has come when this house must boldly say that we believe in public control of all radio broadcasting, and that we are going to say that, as between the various agencies through which broadcasting is done in Canada, there will be fair play. The Only way in which that can be assured is through an- independent tribunal appointed under parliamentary authority and operating in the public interest.
I want to deal as quickly as I can with several individual matters. Reference will be found in the report of the radio committee to the matter of a ceiling. The ceiling on the strength of private stations in Canada is set by C.B.C., and as things now stand no private station has any chance of being allowed to increase its power to the point where C.B.C. is likely to experience too much competition from that station. There are only a couple of stations, being those holding these wave lengths to which I have referred, which enjoy any power in advance of the ceiling set by the C.B.C. for all privately owned stations in Canada, which is 5.000 watts. The result is that, depending on which of two alternative interpretations of the Havana treaty, section 6, is correct, we may have been losing some of the prior rights we had in respect of channels which were assigned to us from the class 2 channels under that treaty.
The radio committee has brought forward a proposal now which is sensible though belated, indicating that it does think the ceiling may well be raised. I submit that should have been done long ago. It would have been in the public interest. Greater power for these stations would mean better broadcasting. better reception at the receiving end, and generally better service to the Canadian people. The final decision on this question of ceiling should not be left in the hands of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Then there is the matter of television and facsimile. Facsimile is not mentioned in the report, although we heard much evidence on it. There should have been something in the report on facsimile. Nobody may have a licence unless the C.E C. board recommends it. The C.B.C. has refused heretofore to
Canadian Broadcasting Act

recommend the issuance of any licence for television and facsimile. Why? The reason is the paternalistic attitude taken by the C.B.C. They say that this country is not ready for facsimile and television; that it would be premature for somebody to spend money on it. They think it is premature for the C3.C. *to spend money on it, but they will not let private interests spend their own money to develop facsimile and television. Can you imagine a situation like that, Mr. Speaker? I call that the final proof of the dangers of the monopolistic control over radio broadcasting by C.B.C. What we are going to wake up one day in this country and find is that television in the United States is an established fact and in commercial use. In Canada C.B.C. will then begin to consider whether it should permit anybody to have such a licence.
This report-again it is a belated recommendation; again in strict fact it is a censure of the policy followed by the government and the broadcasting corporation-recommends that consideration be given to the granting of licences for television, provided*-and this is a proper proviso-the licencee will really develop, these licences and spend money and work on the development of television. That is sensible. Nobody should have a licence simply to be allowed to sit on his rights; but there are people who have been applying for these licences and have indicated they are prepared to spend money on them. But the almighty C.B.C.. with the almighty minister who is the fountain of licences says: No; we are going to exercise paternalistic control over you and we are not going to allow you to have a licence. We are not going to let you spend your money to develop television in Canada.
The same thing applies to facsimile. The possibilities of the development of facsimile in Canada as elsewhere are simply revolutionary, Mr. Speaker, and if we are just going to sit by we are leaving the newspapers of this country exposed to the danger,-I do not say the certainty-of being found at a great disadvantage when facsimile becomes a proven fact. If the C.B.C. then exercises the ruling powers that it enjoys under section 8 of the Canadian Broadcasting Act to publish news, the newspapers may he completely at the mercy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I wish to deal with one further matter in the report. There is a criticism in this report which represents the views of the Liberal-C.C.F. alliance on the committee. I think an attempt is made in several paragraphs to smear the private stations. When we are
[Mr. Fleming. 1
told that they are making a lot of money, I would remind the house that these stations were not given any opportunity to indicate, nor were they asked any questions about, their profits. We simply find quoted verbatim in the report a statement given by C.B.C. We are not told what that represents in terms of the past operating records of these stations. We are not told anything about their experience in the pioneer days. These stations were not given an opportunity to be heard on this point, but an attempt is made here to smear them.
The private stations are also criticized inferentially in this report for even daring to publicize, over their own stations and in the press, the brief which they were submitting to the committee. Think of that! Apparently we have come to the pass in this parliament where a committee, dominated by the government-C.C.F. alliance, can criticize people because they try to make their views known across Canada even though they are expressing those views at the same time before a parliamentary committee. That is one faint example of the dangers that exist today in our radio set-up of throttling and muzzling free expression of public opinion in Canada.
When this report undertakes to criticize the privately-owned stations for not using more live Canadian talent, I would make this observation. I for one want to make it perfectly clear that in my opinion the private stations and the C.B.C. alike are not using enough live Canadian talent, and if the private stations are not doing so, it is an indictment of the C.B.C. for its failure to exercise wisely its regulatory powers over those stations. I do not think enough has been done to encourage the greater use of Canadian live talent over these stations, and I will tell you one reason for that. It is the insecurity of tenure enjoyed by the private stations. They have a licence which is clearly stated to be for twelve months only; it expires on March 31 of each year. They have therefore no legal assurance of continuance beyond that date. This committee has wisely reported in favour of some extension of that tenure, because if these stations are given some assurance of tenure, encouragement will be given them to expend more of their revenues in the development and use of Canadian talenf.
I believe this report is right in its recommendation that the present refusal of the C.B.C. to grant licences to newspapers ought to be withdrawn. There is no reason why newspapers as such should not be permitted to hold radio licences pending good behaviour

Canadian Broadcasting Act
like any other licensee. The fact is that a number of newspapers have licences, and if you deny the same right to other newspapers you are putting those that now possess licences in a favoured position, and that is indefensible discrimination.
The same thing applies to multiple ownership. I say that, other things being equal, we should try to spread licences around. Where other things are absolutely equal, where you have competing applications, the licence should be granted to the applicant who has not already a licence, but there should be no rule against the ownership of more than one station. That is arbitrary and it favours those who already enjoy the ownership of more than one station. Again, that is indefensible discrimination.
There are omissions from this report'. It is clear, from what I have said, what kind of omissions they are.
I wish to conclude these remarks by pointing out the dangers of the present situation. Anyone who will sit down and calmly examine the possibility that exists, through the monopoly of licensing, not necessarily under the present management but under any other management, of throttling the free expression of public opinion, will realize that these dangers are so great that the time has come when this house must see that the structure of radio broadcasting in Canada is recast, that the regulating and licensing are confided to a body publicly appointed, operating in the public interest, which will function with due regard for the interests of all, instead of being dominated by the C.B.C. We must avoid monopoly and make a more realistic approach to the whole problem, and I say that if the house passes this bill, having regard to what we know now about the plans of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for expansion, we are extending powers which it is too dangerous in this or any other country, to confide, to one agency.


Mr. ALISTAIR STEWART (Winnipeg N-orth):: We have listened once again to the annual hymn of hate of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), and it was not quite so good as it was last year, perhaps because there was so much duplication of material in it. I would suggest to the Tory party that they get another needle or another record, or at least that they get some live talent on their programmes. I think they could do with it. The member for Eglinton has talked repeatedly of the C.C.F.-Liberal majority. I can assure him that Canada under these circumstances is much better off with a C.C.F.-Liberal majority than under the rather insanitary Tory-Social Credit minority.
One of the things I have noticed about the member for Eglinton is his habit of saying nothing with an air of great profundity. For instance, he tells us that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is the judge, jury, sheriff and executioner as well, and he tells us that is not a healthy situation. I have never known execution to be at all healthy, but that is a matter which, the hon. member for Eglinton can decide for himself. However, if he is guilty of these profundities he is equally guilty of enunciating error with a zeal worthy of a better cause. For instance, he asks us this question:	Is the house prepared to give
approval to this policy of taking over channels owned by private radio? There are no channels owned by private radio. They belong to the people of Canada and the people have complete control at any time over these channels.
In another burst of oratorical fervour he asks us to watch that freedom of expression is not throttled and muzzled by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Canada. It is possible I have had more radio experience than my hon. friend. During the last twelve years I have made as many as 800 or 900 broadcasts on the C.B.C. and private stations, and my practical experience is that liberty is in no danger whatsoever from the C.B.C. But liberty would be in danger if the C.A.B.-the Canadian Association of Broadcasters-were running things in this country.
What is asked for in this bill is in effect that another half million dollars of revenue be given the C.B.C. The corporation needs it. It has had a deficit, and if it cannot get more revenue there is only one thing to be done and that is to cut certain sustaining programmes. If the C.B.C. gets its revenue, not only will it be able to maintain its service to the people of Canada but it will be able to improve that service. The alternative is to cut certain programmes and they will be sustaining programmes, the type of programmes that appeal to a minority in the country, but a minority which must not be lost sight of.
There is "Stage 47." On occasion I have heard some bad performances, but on the whole I think the presentations "Stage 47" and "Stage 46" and those of previous years have been a credit to radio in Canada, and I should toe sorry to. see them dispensed with. We have the weekly book reviews, the forums, chamber concerts and so on, and all these things must be paid for. A substantial minority of people in Canada want to hear these things, as I have said, and if the C.B.C. cannot get the revenue we just will not hear them. We have symphony concerts from Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, and I hope that next year we may have such con-
Canadian Broadcasting Act

certs from Winnipeg. Unless the C.B.C. steps in, however, there will be no orchestra at all in Winnipeg. As a matter of fact there are very few symphony orchestras which do not require to be subsidized in some way. I remember that in 1938 three of us in that western city were talking about. . the possibility of building a symphony orchestra in Winnipeg. One of the three was the western director for the C.B.C., Mr. Claringbull; another was Mr. Geoffrey Waddington, the well known musician and conductor, and I was the third!. Through the cooperation and help given by the C.B.C. eventually we were able to build up in Winnipeg an orchestra of some fifty-five men and women, who became sufficiently good as performers to be heard not only over the Canadian network but also over the Mutual network in the United States. That would have been impossible without the aid of the C.B.C. I think the orchestra got about $400 a programme, and even at that it meant the players averaged over a period of ten weeks only about $10 per performance, which is inadequate pay for the performances they gave.
So if the C.B.C. is going to avoid running into deficits, some of the most- cultural and useful programmes in Canada will have to be dispensed with. The minister has told us that much of the service given by the C.B.C. is provided by the licence fee of $2.50 paid by the citizens of Canada. He has also told us that we are reaching the saturation point-in the number of licences that can be issued. The rise in fee revenue apparently has been checked in the last three years; but while that has become stationary every other phase of cost has climbed steeply. There is administrative, operational and programme cost; and, as the minister said, the fees of artists have increased by almost sixty per cent in some cases since 1940. Unfortunately the salaries of those who work for the C.B.C. have not risen in proportion to the cost of living. It is not right that these public servants s-hould be discriminated against because sufficient revenue is not available for them, -because the inevitable result will be the loss, not only to the corporation but to Canada, of many of our most able young men and women.
I do not think there can be any question that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is the greatest instrument we have in Canada for the advancement of culture. I do not suggest that there is yet any such thing as a Canadian culture. We are still falling between the two influences, the British and the American, and it is time we started to build our own. In this the Canadian Broadcasting {Mr. Stewart.]
Corporation can be of great assistance. The type of culture we are importing from south of the line just now unfortunately is mainly that of the comic strip. Without wishing to give offence I think I can suggest that Li'l Abner is much better known than most cabinet ministers, and in certain cases perhaps held in higher esteem. It is obvious that if we are going to produce a Canadian culture we must be prepared to pay for it, and one of the tasks of the C.B.C. is to develop and expand this particular form of service to all the people of Canada. That, is a policy of expansion; and the C.B.C. should be continually expanding if the type of service we envisage is to be given. We have to give coverage to the most sparsely populated areas in our country, and that is expensive. It means that in Canada the cost per head for coverage is probably higher than in any other country. We have a great area with a small population; therefore it is obviously expensive to provide the service we expect our people to get. I stress that word "service" because it is the duty of the C.B.C. to give service to the people of Canada.
On the other hand the primary duty of the members of the Canadian association of broadcasters, as private stations, is to make profits. After they make profits then the service may come. According to figures I have last year private radio made a little over $2,000,000, and this on a capital of some $8,250,000, or a return of about 25 per cent. The licence fees charged private radio were slightly under $40,000. obviously a quite inadequate sum. But. if the Canadian association of broadcasters are going to insist that the private stations are there to serve the people, then I think those private stations should be satisfied with a return on capital of ten per cent at the most, and let the balance revert to the treasury of the nationally owned broadcasting company so that still greater service may be given the people. If the government does not agree with that idea then I suggest that the licence fees ought to be stepped up appreciably.
I wan-t to make clear once again what was said last year and in previous years. We in the C.C.F. are not in favour of a state monopoly of radio. We wan-t to see private community stations run for the benefit of the community, and as long as they do that they are playing their part. Some community stations are run very capably and efficiently; with others the position is just the reverse. One of the efficient stations I -think of is CKRC in my own city of Winnipeg. Although the station is owned by the Sifton interests the management is enlightened. In

Canadian Broadcasting Act
few cases where the public interest is at stake and one approaches the management and asks for free time to explain the situation is that time not given. At election time, whether municipal, provincial or federal, the management will get the parties together and say, "There is a certain amount of time available. No matter how much money you have you cannot buy more time. Divide it up among yourselves," and each is given fair play. The management of that station. I repeat, is broadminded and fairminded. Unfortunately these conditions do not exist throughout the entire private industry.
There can be little doubt in the minds of impartial observers. I think, that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters would very much like to slit the throat of the C.B.C. from ear to ear. They may not have avowed that intention, but it is implicit in many of the things they have said. Heaven help Canada if private radio takes over control, if ever it does; naturally I hope it does not. The first thing the C.A.B. would do would be to concentrate on the audiences in urban areas, because there you have your most compact audiences; and the people in the rural areas would not get the services they get now. There would be the very minimum of service where small profits were to be made. Today the C.B.C. carries programmes which I have no d-oubt are worthless commercially, worthless from the point of view of earning money, but of tremendous value from the standpoint of cultural and political unity. I can hardly think that private radio would give us programmes of the same type.
In their campaign against the C.B.C. this year the Canadian Association of Broadcasters bought full-page advertisements in about seventy Canadian newspapers, in an attempt to discredit the government owned radio organization. I do not know how manj' thousands or tens of thousands of dollars the C.A.B. paid for those advertisements, but advertising on such a national scale is rather an expensive hobby. Furthermore the committee was given the results of a survey which purported to show that national radio was in disfavour in quite a number of provinces throughout Canada. When inquiries were made it was disclosed that those responsible for perhaps the financial arrangements behind this survey were Imperial Oil, Aluminum Limited. Canadian Industries Limited, Canadian General Electric and Northern Electric. I think it is reasonable to believe that the results of that survey might be somewhat suspect, in view of the sponsors.


Mr. FULTON:: Does the hon. member know the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation used the same survey themselves?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I do not know it; I am talking about one particular survey which still is somewhat suspect.
The suggestion has been made that there is nothing very far wrong in newspapers owning radio stations. I disagree with that. In the first place, on more than one occasion newspapers have distorted facts. For instance, when the Montreal Gazette came to print the story about the survey it omitted two provinces which showed that they were in favour of national radio. I do know the newspapers in my own home town somewhat better. There is the Winnipeg Tribune, a newspaper which is without either bowels or brains, but on occasions has some heart. Then there is the Winnipeg Free Press, owned by the Sifton interests, a paper which if it can posssibly go out of its way to distort, will do so. I cannot feel at all happy at the prospect of such papers owning and controlling radio stations. I think it is imperative for the sake of freedom in Canada that the air be kept in the hands of the people of Canada. So long as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation protects the interests of the people of Canada, just so long are we prepared to vote for measures such as this one.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, rising this afternoon to take part in the debate may I say first that this year for the first time it was my pleasure to be a member of the radio committee. I must say I found the deliberations of that committee most interesting, but I had many complaints to make before it, and I did not support the final report when it came before the committee.
I believe hon. members may accept the frank view that every member who speaks in this debate is speaking because of the experience he has had in respect of radio in his own district or province. That is no indictment against any principle or any trust he may have; but by the natural course of events every hon. member coming from any section of Canada is interested either in his local radio station or conditions in radio in the province from whence he came. So this afternoon I wish to make it clear that my remarks emanate from the experience I have had, coming from British Columbia. Today most members have the experience of speaking over the radio. That does not pertain to any one member, because all of us take whatever advantage we can from the use of the radio, and I believe all appreciate that opportunity.



RKVlflOJ EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Canadian Broadcasting Act
[Stage Direction]
I believe it can be said, too, that we can be thankful we are not in a country where listening in over the air is either prohibited or forced upon us. The public have a well-established right-and properly so-whereby if they do not like a programme, by a slight twist of the wrist they can tune it out.
When Mr. Dunton, the chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, rvas before the committee, I asked him if he placed any confidence or any reliance in the Elliott-Haynes survey, and he admitted that it was about as fair a report as one could get. I do not care what any member says or what views he holds with respect to radio; the fact is that we have now before us and we had before the committee evidence that, according to the Elliott-Haynes report, in most provinces the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have a smaller number of listeners on the air than the private stations.
An hon. MEMBER:: Where?


Thomas Reid: British Columbia. I would not refer to these figures this afternoon were it not for the fact that. I asked Mr. Dunton when he was before the committee if the Elliott-Haynes report was a reliable one, and he said it was. As a matter of fact it is t.he only report we have with respect to radio listeners over the various stations in Canada.
The last report given before the committee showed that in September 1944, fonty-four per cent of the people were in favour of private radio and thirty-six per cent in favour of government radio. The latest report, that of February 1947, reveals that the number of listeners preferring private radio had increased .from forty-four per cent to 57-8 per cent, while those listening in on C.B.C. stations had decreased from thirty-six per cent in 1944 to 24-1 per cent in February 1947.
Any hon. member may get up and argue all day about the C.B.C. being a better system of radio. But in the final analysis the people of Canada are the best judges as to which system is t.he best. And until we get a better report, then the Elliott-Haynes or one which will contradict the one I have before me, then 1 say we must take it that- so far as most provinces are concerned, most of the radio minded people are listening to private radio stations rather than to the C.B.C.
I say that is a total answer-and you can argue all day about the merits or demerits of the present situation. I am speaking for and about the Canadian people. I am speaking on- the official poll taken, taken throughout Canada, not among members of the C.C.F., the Social Credit or Progressive Conservative parties, but from the Canadian people themselves. Until it is refuted, in my opinion that 
record is the record of radio listeners in Canada. I have an open mind as to whether we should have a board similar to the board of transport commissioners to control radio. I must confess that at first blush there appears to be a good deal of merit in having another board to which both the C.B.C. and private radio stations would have to go, and under whose control they would come. I am not going to offer a definite opinion at the present time because, as I say, my mind is open in the matter.
However I have in mind other boards we have set up in the past. I think particularly of t.he Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, and I am wondering if the people of Canada are receiving the protection which was intended when that board was first established. When it was set up a long time ago, the view of the then government, and of the people generally I believe, was that some such board was required to protect the interests of the Canadian people. Over the course of the years however the viewpoint, and outlook of that board has changed considerably until today I can say without fear of successful contradiction that the board of transport commissioners are looking after the interests of the railways and not those of the people of Canada generally.
Can one imagine a member of parliament rising up in debate and asking for reduced freight rates? Let him do so, and he will receive the answer I have received for the past eighteen years: "That is not a matter for parliament to decide; it is one for the board to decide." I am afraid if a board were set up for radio, in the course of a few years the public might aw'aken to the fact that it had an autocratic board sitting in some building in Ottawa, a board over which parliament had no control.
As I say, my mind is open in the matter. But I believe the time has come when there should be a thorough review of the entire radio situation. I believe I would go so far as to say another commission similar to the Aird commission should be established, and I will state why. When the Aird commission was set up, compared with what it is today, radio was in its infancy. Some twenty years have gone by since that commission made its report. By the way, I am wondering how many members have read the Aird report. I know many did at the time it was published, and perhaps some have since; but I make the plea that every member of the House of Commons get a copy of the Aird report and read it again. What will they find? They will find, as I have, that many of the recom-

Canadian Broadcasting Act
mendations made in that report have been thrown in the discard and have never been acted upon. When the Aird commission set out to examine into radio they went to many countries, among them Great Britain. If they went to Great Britain today I venture to say that they would not find as many people in favour of the B.B.C. as were in favour of it in 1928. Those are the reports I receive from Great Britain at the present time. When (hey visited the United States they went to only one point and they had not much to say about United States radio.
This afternoon I want to draw attention to some of the recommendations that were made and I am going to complain because some of those recommendations have not been carried out. One recommendation was that there should be seven 50,000 watt stations throughout Canada, and British Columbia was mentioned as one place where such a station should be located. What do I find on looking over the list? I find that all we have in British Columbia is a 5,000 watt station. It :s well known that you must have a powerful station to get into the interior over the mountains. There is one of these 50.000 watt stations in Watrous, Saskatchewan, one in Montreal. and one in Sackville. As I say, there is a 5,000 watt station in Vancouver and another one in Toronto. I claim that we have been ignored so far as the recommendations of that commission are concerned.
Let us look at other recommendations. When the Aird commission investigated radio in this country they envisioned every provincial government taking a vital part and being tied in with radio. Here is one recommendation the commission made:
That a provincial radio broadcasting director should be appointed for each province to have full control of the programmes broadcast by the station or stations located within the boundaries of the province for which he is responsible.
That commission had considerable respect for the private stations of that day. In order to keep the record clear I will read the next recommendation:
That high-power stations should be erected across Canada to give good reception over the entire settled area of the country during daylight; that the nucleus of the system should possibly be seven 50,000 watt stations; that supplementary stations of lower power should be erected in local areas, not effectively covered by the main stations, if found necessary and as experience indicates.
Then they envisioned national unity and education, not the education spoken of here but scholastic education. Before dealing with that particular recommendation I should like 83166-3531
to read1 the main three recommendations, because they are the foundation of my address this afternoon. They are:
(a)	the establishment of one or more groups of stations operated by private enterprise in receipt of a subsidy from the government;
(b) the establishment and operation of stations by a government-owned and financed company;
(c) the establishment and operation of stations by provincial governments.
It was recommended, first, that there should be a national company; second, that provincial radio directors should be appointed in the provinces, and, third, that a provincial advisory council should be set up. In addition it was recommended that seven 50,000 watt stations should be established across tihe country. But there is another recommendation that has never been carried out. It was recommended that the great northland of this country should be provided with radio. If anyone will look at the map presented to the committee by the C.B.C. lie will find that there are not many radio stations in the far north. Yet the Aird commission envisaged radio being provided1 for the remote districts of Canada and for all our people. The C.B.C. was established in 1936. but little has been done about the recommendation up to the present time.
At one of the sittings of the committee I asked for details of the expenditures in the various provinces, but no one could find out what, they were. British Columbia has not been provided with a 50.000 watt station and yet that province pays more by way of radio licence fees than the three maritime provinces and the Yukon together. Last year British Columbia paid $385,514 for radio licence fees, while the maritimes and the Yukon paid $345,538. In other words, British Columbia listeners paid $36,676 more than the listeners in the maritimes and the Yukon. Yret our people are receiving, I was going to say nothing, but they are receiving very little from the C.B.C. Most people in British Columbia are Listening either to United States stations or 'to the local private stations. I quoted to the committee figures obtained by EIliott-Haynes Limited, one of these companies which takes radio tests throughout the country'. These showed that so far as British Columbia was concerned more people were listening to private stations and to United States stations than to the C.B.C.
Why is this? There is no high pressure group making these people listen to those stations. A simple turn of the knob will get you the station you want. Some one this afternoon spoke about encouraging fine music. I would like to know who is responsible for
Canadian Broadcasting Act

some of these soap box plays we hear, these weepy plays that go on by the hour where you can hear women tearfully weeping all the time. There is always tearfully weeping all the time. Some of them go on by the hour. Is that considered to be educating the people?


Mr. GRAYDON:: Are those on the air?


Thomas Reid: Yes. Where do you think they would be?


Gordon Graydon: I was wondering how the hon. member got to know about them. Did he listen to them?


Thomas Reid: I am out for education. I do not take things secondhand. I listened to them and I know that on one Sunday one went on for a whole hour, the weepiest play I have ever heard on a Sunday evening. When you protest to C.B.C. about these plays they tell you that they are receiving many favourable letters. They may receive letters, but just look at what they did when this committee inquiry was on. I accused them at the time, and I say so again. They were able to get a lot of their highly paid patrons to write articles all over the country on behalf of the C.B.C.
The private stations were accused this afternoon of carrying on a high pressure campaign, and I do not think that should have been in the report. However, nothing was said about the high pressure campaign put on by the C.B.C. through their well known commentators. They are not paid directly to put on a campaign like that, but they did it just the same. They wrote articles from one end of the country to the other. These men are receiving remuneration, and if you do not call that a high pressure campaign I would like to know what it is. Let us be fair. This thing is not all one sided. These men do not want to be cut off the C.B.C. list. They are all getting some money on the side from the C.B.C. and they are out to support C.B.C I would like to know who chooses these soap operas. I asked about a man by the name of Sinatra, but I am not going to go into that now.
I am rising to oppose this bill. Because of what I heard in the committee I cannot help but oppose it until this whole radio system is thoroughly investigated-not by a committee of the House of Commons; oh, no; not after what we witnessed in the committee this year. I know I will probably be looked upon possibly as a black sheep because of the independent stand. I am taking. I am not apologizing for that, but I say that until we have a thorough independent inquiry I hardly think it is fair to tax the people of Canada who do not have a radio $544,673.
Someone mentioned the difference between the government and parliament, and I am

glad he did that, because all members on this side at least, and cabinet ministers in particular know full well that the public blame the government for collecting the licence fees. There is hardly a member of parliament, on this side at least, who if he is honest will not tell you that he has received criticism of the collecting of the licence fee and that it is aimed directly at the government. It is all very well to say that C.B.C. is under the control of parliament, but the government is linked up with the collecting of the licence fees. The collecting of the licence fees, in the mind of the public, is done by the government, because the Department of Transport is a department of the government, and therefore any grievance is laid at the door of the government, as well as enforcement and prosecutions. The government is held to blame for all that. None of us will say that we would like prosecutions to take place on the eve of an election. We might as well be frank, and I am bringing this point up to show that the government has some responsibility in this matter.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: It is a good job that
there is one honest Liberal I know of.


Thomas Reid: Well, thanks.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member for Bow River would not know what an honest Liberal is. He has not the intelligence to discriminate.


Mr. HACKETT:: One is enough to save
the city.


Thomas Reid: I am sorry this short debate
is not going over the air. To come back to what I was saying before I was interrupted, there are in Canada something like 4.000.000 families, out of a population of approximately
12,000,000, who could have a radio licence. The radio licence fees collected this year, however, amounted only to $1,807,824. Roughly speaking, about fifty per cent of the householders have a radio licence. It has been a surprise to me that in proportion to our population we have far fewer homes in Canada with a radio licence than most other countries. Be that as it may, I think it is most unfair to tax the people who have no radios this 8544,673.	1 am going to oppose that.
I propose that the whole matter of radio be investigated by an independent commission of some kind and in the light of present modern inventions. Take .the question of facsimile newspapers, for instance, which came before the radio committee. The Aird commission on radio had no idea that facsimile newspapers would ever come into being.

Canadian Broadcasting Act
Again in regard to some other modern developments I do not think that C.B.C. is taking the proper attitude. Take television. I know that we have a marvellous heritage here. I know that some control will have to be exercised to prevent multiple ownership from becoming too great and becoming, shall I say, the entire boss of what goes over the air in this country. But parliament can impose proper safeguards. C.B.C. claims that it has not the funds to develop television. But private interests are ready to go ahead with it. I would not be so afraid of giving them the right to develop facsimile provided that we have proper regulations. We should not let C.B.C. sit there with a charter for television without supplying a television service, and simply holding the charter as a monopoly. 1 know that we must be careful not to allow private radio companies to control an entire chain from one end of this country to the other. I am against that kind of control or monopoly.
I am opposed therefore to increasing the amount of money to be given to C.B.C. by this scheme of turning over to them the whole of the licence fee. One other matter before I finish. If there were in Ottawa some private radio stations which were really alive to what the people want, I am sure that the people of Canada would be enjoying from time to time a programme from this city which only a few around here ever hear, and that is the programme from the carillon in the tower. Sometimes you can hear the bells from Big Ben in London over B.B.C.. but here in Ottawa unless you are within hearing distance of the tower in the House of Commons, you cannot enjoy the carillon programmes. If the C.B.C. had been alert to giving real service they would have allowed the entire country to hear that programme from the tower at least once a week, and in that way the rest of Canada who rontribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to C.B.C. could enjoy the carillon programme.


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: They might hear your bagpipes instead.


Thomas Reid: That would still be better than Sinatra. I am willing to bet that they would get more letters of commendation about the bagpipes than they would about Sinatra. Having given my views, Mr. Speaker, I simply say in conclusion that I am opposed to this bill.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy that the opportunity is presented to us to discuss the radio situation in Canada. I take a conscientious interest in my work and I would have been sadly disappointed had the radio committee's report been presented to parliament with no opportunity whatsoever for our discussing it.
Might I remind the house that while the radio committee's report was made to parliament, it was not unanimous; and furthermore, the report will not be concurred in by this house. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation take great delight in referring to the recommendations of previous parliamentary committees. The psychological effect of that lends the impression that parliament has approved of such-and-such and the corporation is acting in accordance with the wishes of parliament. But that is not so. What the corporation is acting upon when it says that it is doing so and so because of the recommendations of a radio committee of parliament is this: it is acting upon the recommendation of a few government members, some of whom will admit that they are not exceptionally well qualified in radio matters.
The setting up of a separate regulatory body seems to be the main theme of the pres-sentation by the independent stations throughout Canada. The report itself lays stress, through the use of a little phrase, on something which I think is receiving too much prominence. The report says:
They-
Referring to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, representing some ninety odd stations in Canada:
They were insistent that any such organization-
Referring to a separate regulatory body.
-must be set up by the parliament of Canada as a whole-
I am not finding fault with that,, because a body would not be set up except by an act of parliament; but they continue, and this, is what I take exception to:
-and appointments to it should be by parliament of Canada as a whole and any review of its actions must be by parliament as a whole.
I think that is put in there for the purpose of discrediting the recommendations of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. I do not believe that the independent stations are necessarily pressing for individual appointment to such a board as having the necessity of receiving approval by this parliament. Their main theme is-and it is just as reasonable as anything could ever be-that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by its very nature should not be in a position where it can regulate and control its competitors. That is the main theme, and therefore an independent body responsible to parliament should be set up.
Canadian Broadcasting Act

I was happy to hear the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) say that his mind was still open on the subject of an . independent body. He did emphasize that he would not be in favour of an independent body that could rule the roost and not be responsible to parliament. Let me say to him that nobody has ever suggested such a body as that, not even the independent stations. We believe that any regulatory body should be responsible to parliament. That is only common sense. If the hon. member's mind continues to be open I for one am quite satisfied that he will eventually recommend the same thing that most of us are recommending, namely, that a separate regulatory body responsible to parliament should act as referee in matters of regulation between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-which, after all, is. we can say what we like, a government owned institution-and the private stations in Canada.
Mention is made of the fact that the Canadian daily newspapers' association supported that view. No comment is made. It is simply said that they supported that view. The Canadian daily newspapers' association is composed of 110 separate daily newspapers in Canada. That is worthy of consideration. They are supporting an independent body. The Canadian daily newspapers association is not vitally interested in radio as part of the .general set-up of newspapers. What they are mainly interested in is that radio itself is a *medium of disseminating information, education and news, and any institution with that great power should not be able to control its competitors. That is the main theme of all ihose who are supporting an independent body.
In the report I find a paragraph which "begins like this:
Your committee has given very careful consideration to the proposals for a separate regulating board.
I want the house to notice these words:
Your committee has given very careful consideration . . .
Mr. Speaker, that is just a laugh; that is a huge laugh. The committee did not give any consideration, let alone any careful consideration. to the setting up of an independent board. Someone might well ask, "Were you not on the committee?" Certainly I was on the committee, and I want to say this. I was also on the steering committee and I was a very busy man. I say that when we met there was no weighing of the evidence of those who presented their case for an independent body and that of those who presented any opposition to it. There is very good reason why {Mr. Hansel;.]
there was no weighing of the evidence. No evidence was presented in support of opposition to an independent body. When the committee gathered together in executive council to formulate a report I happened to be a very busy man. I had another committee meeting approximately at the same time. I came down to the house in the morning in a big hurry and I had not even shaved. That does not make any difference as far as coming down to the house is concerned. But as time went on I did not even have time to have anything to eat at noon. That does not make any difference either. But when at about 4.30 o'clock I went into the committee which was supposed to weigh all the evidence there was hardly a quorum there. Therefore I said to the chairman, "Well, this is one time when I shall be very valuable to you. I will stay at least until you get a quorum." He looked at me and I could see what he was looking at, because I was looking like an African Santa Claus. I had not had time yet either to shave or eat. I stayed until the quorum came. Then I said. "What is the agenda?" The agenda was read through and the separate regulatory body was at the end of the agenda. I said, "Well, Mr. Chairman, I think I can snatch five minutes to go down and get a sandwich and a cup of coffee." The chairman said, "Yes, I think you can." I rushed down and had a sandwich and a cup of coffee, and when I came back to the committee half of the members had gone and the other half were picking up their papers ready to leave. I said. "Mr. Chairman, is it all over?" He said, "Yes, we have the whole thing fixed up." I said, "What did you do about this independent board?" He said, "Oh, they sat on it; they quashed it completely; they would not have anything to do with it." I said, "Well, I am surprised. I thought the intelligence of this committee was higher than that." What I am putting over to the house now is that that is how carefully they weighed and considered the evidence which was presented for an independent board.


James Joseph McCann: May I ask a question?


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, because I shall be asking the minister some questions.


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member was there when the final draft of the report was drawn up and he did not raise a single objection. Is that not right?


Ernest George Hansell: No. The thing had all happened while I was down trying to revive my vitality.

Canadian Broadcasting Act


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member wag there the next day and he did not raise one objection. He had not a word to say.


Ernest George Hansell: Did not raise any objection?


James Joseph McCann: When the final draft was presented to the committee.


Ernest George Hansell: I did not raise any
objection?
Mr Mc.CANN: Not a word.


Ernest George Hansell: There was nothing-


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member is now trying to tell a different story of what happened before.


Ernest George Hansell: What I am trying to tell is the truth.


James Joseph McCann: Well, you have missed a part.


Ernest George Hansell: I have not missed a part of it at all. Will any man rise here and say that he is in any doubt as to my position? Will the minister himself above anyone else, question my attitude toward the setting-up of an independent board. I was in the committee. Of course I was, and when the time came, when the entire committee was there, I was ready to emphasize the need of an independent board. That is why I made certain it was at the last of the agenda.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Does not silence mean consent?


Ernest George Hansell: Not when you are not there. The point I make is that this is the careful way in which they went into the weighing of the evidence. Evidence is not weighed between the views of one and the views of another. People make up their minds, and I will go farther than that. My belief is that sometimes people's minds are made up for them before there is an opportunity of weighing evidence.
Now here is something in this report that I w'ould bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker. I am going to say, before I quote it, that this part is false and I objected to it at the time. It appears in the same paragraph:
Your committee has given very careful consideration to the proposals for a separate regulating board and has also received numerous arguments from other bodies such as trade unions, agricultural organizations, cooperative societies, and the like, in opposition to those proposals, to which also the committee has given careful consideration.
What is the truth of that paragraph? In the first place, the way the paragraph reads is that numerous arguments were received. Anyone reading it would think these organizations came before tihe committee. They
did not come before the committee. They submitted letters to the committee. The letters were read and appear as an appendix to the evidence. They can be read in report No. 11. But what I want to say is this, that this opposition which seemed to come from these trade unions, agricultural organizations and cooperative societies, is not in fact the truth, and I will challenge the minister or anyone in the committee to read these letters and find more than one place where these organizations stated that they oppose a separate regulatory body. What they do say is that they are satisfied with the present radio policy and some of them are pulling for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. That is all right; that is their privilege. But to say that their arguments against a regulatory body were carefully considered is more than foolish nonsense. It is false.
While that is put in there, no mention is made of the other letters that were received supporting the Canadian Association of Broadcasters in their desire for a separate regulatory body. No mention is made of those, and there were letters from other organizations to that effect.
There is another matter along this line. It is a strange thing that no arguments are used as to why a separate regulatory body should not be set up. There are those who say it is not needed. There are those who say they are satisfied with things as they are. But no arguments are ever advanced as to why a separate board should not be set up. When we ask in what way the effectiveness of broadcasting by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would be lessened, no arguments are presented. When we sav, "Well, if there is an independent body, tell us how that, would affect in any way the efficiency of the broadcasting of the C.B.C.?" No arguments are presented. A separate body does not mean that radio will be any Iks effective. It only means that there will be a referee and that one competitor cannot control the other.
I listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart), who gushed forth in vitriolic vein, with some considerable push, a multiplicity of puny arguments. He vigorously defends state monopoly of radio, and the reason is that it serves the socialist purpose. It is significant that in his speech he did not present one argument why a separate regulatory body should not be set up. I am not surprised, because there are no arguments. I am very happy that he has had an opportunity to do so much radio broadcasting. I believe he said he had broadcast about 900 times. One thing is certain, that radio has been especially good to him, and if he can say that some of
Canadian Broadcasting Act

his broadcasts were given over C.B.C., all I can say is that C.B.C. has been a little kinder to him than it has been to most of us.
I am convinced of this, Mr. Speaker. After sitting on the radio committee for a good many years, I am convinced that we shall never get a separate regulatory body until there is a change in government. That is the conclusion I have reached. We can say all we want about non-interference by the government. I am not going to charge them with any interference. It is certain, however, that radio policy in Canada today is government radio policy, and we shall not have any independent board or referee until there is a change in government.
I am not going to elaborate this point, but in the report a whole paragraph is devoted to a campaign which was carried on by the independent stations during the time the committee was meeting. Well, in the steering committee I objected to that paragraph being included. I agree that perhaps it was a special spurt on the part of the independent stations to inform the public; and why not? Anybody has that right in Canada; it is still a free country. No one will say that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has not done similar things in days gone by. I do not know how many newspaper advertisements it has published, but I will say that tons of literature have gone out in support of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Nothing is said of that. I am not objecting to it; it is something that is to be expected. Furthermore-and I am saying this complementary to what the hon. member for New Westminster said- ho-w about last year, when circular letters were sent out by the farm forum to all their farm forum groups? I know the argument will be that the C.B.C. did not do that. Well,
I am going to tell you there is quite an affinity between the farm forum organization and the C.B.C. They sent out circular letters with resolutions the same word for word, sending them through the mails or placing them on; the desks of the secretaries of all these farm forums with a request that they send them in to the radio committee, whether or not they knew very much about radio. That was quite a high pressure campaign, and perhaps more effective than any newspaper campaign.
With respect to revenues, the committee reports that the independent stations are making some considerable profits. 1 am not going to say they are not profit-making institutions. In our system of private enterprise what business institution is not a profit-making institution? They would not stay in business 
very long if they were not. But when we talk about private enterprise and profit, let us remember it is not only a profit system we are living under; it is a profit and loss system. Radio stations can lose money, too. I am not saying many of them are losing money now, and I am glad they are not. I do not begrudge anyone a profit if it is not exorbitant and stolen from somebody else. I will challenge anyone to prove how the consumers of products or the Canadian people are suffering any loss from their own pocket-books through the profit that independent stations may be making from their commercial and advertising business.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Who pays for it?


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend raises the same question as he raised last year: "Who pays for it?" The people who buy the goods.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: We have to eat soap with our breakfast.


Ernest George Hansell: I will say this, that by reason of the advertising done by radio a product can be sold in such quantities that in all probability the public pays less for it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Ho. ho.


Ernest George Hansell: Anyone who says "Ho, ho" to that statement reveals his ignorance. I would advise these men, including the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart), to be a little careful how they speak of the great and mighty profits that independent stations are making, because if they are not careful they are going to overdo it. Somebody is going to ask them how it is, then, if radio is such a profitable business, that the C.B.C. goes into the red. They have to be careful not to ride that horse too hard. I want to be fair. I know the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is required to meet huge expense; I am not denying that. I know they spend a great deal of money on programmes. I know they spend a lot of money in the search for talent. I know all about that, and I do not begrudge them a cent that is used properly. Let that be understood. Nevertheless I say that the argument goes both ways. If radio is such a profitable business, what is the position of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, having a tremendous advantage to start with, having four or five million dollars handed to them from the Canadian taxpayers, not having to pay any taxes as the independent stations must pay? So I say that those who argue against the profits being made by independent stations should be very careful.
There is another little matter I should like to bring before the committee, because it

Canadian Broadcasting Act
affects a radio station within radio distance of my own constituency, and I think one has a right to speak in the interests of his own people. It has to do with the matter of free expression. Some evidence was brought out by the chairman of the board of governors of the C.B.C. to the effect that sometimes independent stations were not paying enough attention to free speech on the air. The station involved in the argument was the- voice of the prairies station, CFCN, in Calgary. An extract was read from a letter in proof-and I want you to mark this, Mr. Speaker-of the suggestion that some independent stations were not paying enough attention to free speech on the air. This is what was quoted from the letter, and I think I will read the comment as well:
The following, for instance, is from a letter received from station CFCN, Calgary. This station is a prominent member of the C.A.B., the most powerful private station west of Winnipeg, and its representatives before the committee last year spoke hotly about freedom of the air for the people of Alberta. The letter said:
"As C.B.C. regulations require a station to sell time to all groups, if they sell to any (distribute time fairly), we have discontinued selling time between elections for political broadcasts, because about the only people who would spend money fifty-two weeks in the year belonged to some 'ism' or other."
I say that was unfair. It did not give the entire picture. The witness went on to say:
This is hard to reconcile with statements in the C.A.B. brief about freedom of the air . . .
What was the case; what was the letter? I do not have the full file; no doubt the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has it all. I got in touch with the station and I said, "What is this all about?" They sent me the letter from which this was quoted. What had happened? I shall show first of all, that only that part of the letter which suited the argument of the C.B.C. was quoted. I shall begin by reading the first paragraph, to show that it is a friendly letter addressed to Mr. Dan
E.	Cameron of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at Winnipeg. It starts out, "Dear Dan."-so it is friendly, you see-
We acknowledge yours of May 14th with regard to the origination of "Terry Levis" talk on Tuesday May 20th from CFCN.
Then, later on, the paragraph from which the quotation is made reads this way:
Had we accepted the revenue tender to us by various representatives of communism, socialism and other various "isms," at $40 per quarter-hour (money subscribed by their sucker following, if the broadcast is sufficiently bombastic), we could have taken a good many hundred dollars, but as C.B.C. regulations require a station to sell time to all groups, if they sell to any (distribute time fairly), we have discontinued selling time between elections for political broadcasts because about the only people who would spend money 52 weeks in the year belonged to some "ism" or other.
What was the reason for it? As a matter of fact, on one occasion I consulted this station, because I had been asked by my group if I would see the manager of CFCN for the purpose of purchasing time on the air for our Social Credit group. What did the manager say? He said, "We can- sell you time but, as a matter of fact, we have just finished- an election, and we think that perhaps the people are a little bit tired of political broadcasts." He persuaded me that that was not the right time to make political broadcasts.
What happened in this instance to which Mr. Dunton referred? No Progressive Conservative organization was asking to buy time; no Social Credit organization was asking to buy time; no Liberal organization was asking to buy time; but the communists and those of socialist views were pressing for time on the air. The station could have sold it at $40 a clip for fifty-two weeks in the year. In order to maintain a perfect balance, the radio stations said, "Well, for a time at least we will cut out all political broads casts."
That is reasonable, but it is not the way it appears in the evidence. In the evidence it would appear as though this radio station were refusing to present all sides of the case. The very thing they were trying to do was, if possible, to present all sides of the case; and if they could not get all sides of the case they would, not -broadcast any.
That is the policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. At page 404 of the proceedings of the committee I find that the horn, member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Knight), a well respected member of that committee, asked about freedom of speech on the air, and he was asking particularly if labour unions had had an opportunity of going on the air. The chairman of the board of governors answered in this fashion:
In our general policy regarding opinion broadcasting on our own networks we try, as our white paper says, to give a chance for different viewpoints to be expressed.
That is all the station in Calgary wasr doing. The paragraph is snitched from its context and used in an attempt to prove that private radio does not believe in free speech. That is unfortunate.
In respect of talent we have heard the suggestion that private radio should give more time to live talent and in the seeking out and nurturing of passible Canadian artists. I have no objection to that; no one has. But let me say this:	I would suggest that the

Canadian Broadcasting Act
independent- stations are doing just as much as is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in finding talent. Let us remember that radio does not make talent; it discovers it. Radio cannot afford to lose audiences by putting amateurs who are not acceptable on the air to the public.
There is the question in my mind as to whether the more important function of radio is to give the people what they want, within the scope of reasonable and respectable culture, or whether its function is that of the schoolroom. I am not convinced that it is the function of radio to train radio artists. I believe it is radio's function to discover artists; the schoolrooms, the dramatic societies and organizations of that kind are the ones which make them. I do not believe there is one amateur programme put over the air by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. but many independent stations hold amateur contests. I believe, if the whole story were told, it would be found that the private stations are doing a fair job in encouraging local talent. If an artist is worth anything he is soon discovered by radio; make no mistake about that. The schoolroom, the private music teacher, the band leaders, the dramatic critics, the schools of fine arts and institutions of that sort are the ones which make the talent; radio finds it.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. I must remind the hon. member that his time has expired.


Ernest George Hansell: I was going to conclude by saying that I am afraid we shall have to oppose the bill. I can say that I really thought my time had expired ten or fifteen minutes ago.


Mr. LOW:: I was behind the hon. member when he was speaking and could not hear exactly what he said. Did he say the C.B.C. was red or was going in the red-or both?


Ernest George Hansell: I said it was going in the red; but I can well understand how some people could misunderstand my statement.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to deal with only one phase of this question, but as a preface to what I shall say I should like to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. minister for Eglinton.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not yet.


John Thomas Hackett: Perhaps my words are prophetic. I will retract them for the time being and say "the hon. member for Eglinton." I should like to associate myself also with a large part of what has been said by the hon.
[Mr. Hansell.1
member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell). I feel that the activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have perhaps been more marked by attempts to expand the fields of their endeavour than to improve the quality- some of them are excellent-of the programmes which they present to the Candian public.
However I wish to deal with the terms of the bill. I think it can be admitted, without scandalizing either parliament or the Canadian public, that the government cannot administer as economically as can private enterprise. There may be reasons why administration by government is always much more costly than by private enterprise, but that is not a reason for not keeping accurate accounts of what those costs are. The bill before us is a short one. It proposes to substitute a new paragraph for paragraph (a) of subsection 1 of section 14 of the Canadian Broadcasting Act. The original subsection is in these words:
The Minister of Finance shall deposit from time to time in the Bank of Canada or in a chartered bank to be designated by him to the credit of the corporation:-
(a) the moneys received from licence fees in respect of private receiving licences and private station broadcasting licences, after deducting from the gross receipts the cost of collection and administration, such costs being determined by the minister from time to time.
It is sought to replace that subsection with the following:
The Minister of Finance shall deposit from time to time in the Bank of Canada or in a chartered bank to be designated by him to the credit of the coporation:-
(a) the gross amount of the moneys received in each year from licence fees in respect of private receiving licences and private station broadcasting licences without deducting therefrom any costs of collection or administration.
The result is that there is to be deposited to the credit of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the amount collected without deducting the cost of effecting that collection. The explanatory note to the bill tells us that last year the cost of collecting approximately $4 million was $544,673.17. I consider that that cost is too high and altogether out of proportion to what it should be. I am certain that, did the government place the collection of this money in private hands, it could be collected for at least one-half the present cost and the collector would still make a handsome profit. It is to be remembered that a substantial proportion of these moneys are paid through the post office without even the cost of a notice.
The bill means that the science of accountancy is to be dispensed with so far as it is

Canadian Broadcasting Act
applied to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. This is disturbing. Part of the actual cost of operation is no longer to be shown in the accounts of that corporation. This is not only a violation of the great science of accountancy; it is a violation of the elements of good business, of fair dealing and of keeping faith with the public. The only reason for keeping accounts is to enable all and sundry to know at all times exactly what a business is spending and exactly what it is receiving. The sole purpose of this bill is to strike from the accounts of this broadcasting corporation one of the principal costs of doing business. It is a method of subsidizing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in a hidden and utterly improper way.
My hon. friends who sit to my left remind us quite frequently-and we have heard it today-that in their view there is some impropriety in private broadcasting companies making profits. We have heard those private enterprises criticized severely because they made profits. I ask myself whether it is more reprehensible to make profits than it is to conceal losses. I would think that the conscience which dictates disapproval of profits, whether or not they be excessive, would be highly critical of legislation which can have but one result, whatever its purpose, that, of deceiving the Canadian people.
We have been told by the minister that broadcasting in this country is much more expensive than it is in other countries. He gave what I thought was a sound reason for this, the tremendous area over which word has to be carried through the ether and sparsity of our population. He went on to explain that the licence fee in Canada is but $2.50. whereas in England it is a pound or, roughly, $5, and. if my memory serves me well, twenty-five shillings in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, or about $6. I am going to suggest to the minister that, if what he has stated is accurate, it is only right that our radio licence fee should be raised. If the sparsity of our population and the dimensions of the area in which we are attempting to carry on radio business makes the per capita cost higher in Canada than in the other lands, the natural and inevitable thing to do is to raise the cost of the licence fee. I admit I hat that would not be popular; but an honest man. even to satisfy the requirements of his own conscience, sometimes has to do things that are not altogether popular. If the cost of the broadcasting service in this country comes to $3 per head instead of $2.50, let us exact that $3 instead of $2.50 from the holder of a radio set. But let us not introduce into
this great undertaking an element of deceit which no man would tolerate for a moment in his own business and which is bound to create dissatisfaction and distrust in regard to the broadcasting corporation. It will also engender abuses. We all know that in public undertakings costs inevitably increase; the number of people employed inevitably increases. So it goes on year after year, and the burden of taxation becomes continually heavier. It is only by carefully scrutinizing all expenditures and by knowing exactly the reasons for them that we can hope to keep them under control.
I suggest to the minister-and he is not a man without experience in business-that he would not tolerate for a moment a method of accounting similar to that which is embodied in the amendment now before us, in any private enterprise of which he was a director or over which he had any control. I submit that it is almost an affront to the Canadian public to tell it that it is incapable of understanding that the cost of a certain service is greater than that which is being charged for it and that some devious way must be found in order to make up to the corporation the loss which it has incurred. To my knowledge, excepting possibly the hidden subsidies that were resorted to as a matter of expediency during the war, there has never been anything like this offered to the Canadian public before, unless it be the statute introduced some years ago whereby several hundred millions of debt of the Canadian National Railways was legislated out of existence. That I do not think was a very happy occasion.
I do not think the procedure was ever justified. I do not think it was a precedent that is worthy of being followed, especially in the early days of the development of one of the great agencies for influencing public opinion and forming character, one of the great educative and cultural agencies of the land. It should be kept as free as possible of anything which savours of impropriety or deceit.
I submit that this bill introduces into the affairs of the Broadcasting Corporation a flavour of duplicity and double-dealing that is not at all attractive, and I sincerely hope that the minister will tear up the bill and raise the licence fee to $2.75 or $3, if necessary, or bring in frankly and openly a bill in aid to make up the operating deficit of the corporation. But let us have none of the petty methods that are suggested by the bill before us.


Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker,
I have been on the radio committee for a good many years, and I do not see any differ-
Canadian Broadcasting Act

ence 'between this radio committee and others on which I have sat. It has always been the same way. We have always had the old steam-roller, the socialist and semi-socialist Liberals with their majority on the committee, so that there is really not much use in suggesting anything with respect to the report.
The hon. minister took the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) to task for not objecting to some of the items in the committee's report. One has only to read the report to see how unsatisfactory it is. I objected to the figures of profits being included in the report, but. the committee would not stand for my objection. I do not think it is right to publish these figures on profits such as these, because it does not give any kind of picture of the whole show. I do not object to these stations making profits. I think that the more profits they make, the more talent they will have and the more advertising they can do, and the more labour that will create.
So far as any careful consideration of the proposal in the bill is concerned, I do not think there was any proper consideration given to it. When these reports are being prepared I think it should be done in open session, so that the public can come and see how the different members of the committee feel on these various questions. Then we would get some results.
The report was not unanimous, and we can easily understand that. I am free to admit that there are some parts of the report with which I agree, but I should like to say that the committee was late in being set up, and, after it was set up, it was late in being called together. Our deliberations were lengthy; a lot of witnesses had to be called, and the work of the committee was hurried toward the end, so that we did not really have time to go into some matters that we should have liked to go into. There were a great many statistics and briefs placed before us, and they came so quickly that it was almost impossible to read and become familiar with them.
I agree with the report that a standing committee of this house should be set up. The whole question of radio is far more important than the question of money involved in connection with it. There were certain things that the committee did not take into consideration at all. While I was on the committee, it seemed to me that any proposals which were ever made by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters the majority of the members of the committee tried to discredit. The report almost seems to indicate, as the hon. member for Macleod said, that organizations such as agricultural organizations, coop-

erative societies and trade unions were heard. One trade union appeared before us and was examined, the musicians' union. That was the only union which came before us to be questioned. From that point of view the report is not correct.
The purpose of this bill is to give the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the whole of the $2.50 licence fee extracted from radio owners. It is proposed to give them the whole without taking away the cost of collection. In other words, the owner of a radio is to be taxed thirty cents for the privilege of paying $2.50. That is what it amounts to. Since nationally owned radio was established in 1932 there has been a radio fee. First of all a fee of $2 was collected from the owner of each radio with the exception of blind people. In 1937 the revenue was $1,750,000. In the fall of that year the fee was raised to $2.50 for ordinary sets and to $2 for battery sets. These fees were collected on account of each radio owned by every person. In 1940, in response to a political move to abolish the radio fee, it was decided to collect a fee only from each home or multiple dwelling which includes, I suppose, each person who has a radio in a boarding house or each person who has a radio in a dwelling or multiple dwelling or each person who has a radio in a hotel room. The C.B.C. now receive $3,905,841, as well as $1,900,000 from advertising. The excuse for raising the fee to $2.50 in 1938 was given by the minister of transport of that date as follows:
It is not the desire or the intention of the corporation at any time to obtain a revenue over $500,000 from commercial sources for reasons that are obvious.
It has gone up nearly four times that amount since that time, to $1,800,000. That amount of $500,000 was considered to be in the public interest at that time for reasons that are obvious. I do not know what the obvious reasons are now.
If this bill passes, as I suppose it will, it will be to all intents and purposes, as was stated, a subsidy from the public purse to the extent of the cost of collection. There is no doubt about that. In my opinion it is only a matter of time before the C.B.C. will face another emergency and will come back and want more money. To my mind the bill is hardly an honest bill. The government should not have asked parliament to pass the bill under these circumstances. I would suggest that there are two honest ways of meeting the problem. The first one is to raise the radio licence fee to the required amount and thus put a halt to this confusion, or to put

Canadian Broadcasting Act
the whole thing on a direct basis and let parliament take the full responsibility now. The public would then know the cost. Parliament should be responsible for the expenditure of the money by the C.B.C. It would be far more economical than it is at the present time, and it would certainly be less irksome to the individual licence owner.
As I have said before in the house, why should a person who has one radio pay as much as a person who has twenty? The situation is ridiculous. Why should not the person who listens be taxed? He is the person who gets the advantage. Just because a person has a radio it does not seem to me to be any reason why the radio should be licensed. As I have said before, we might just as well license refrigerators or washing machines. The owners of these machines use electricity and get service. Why should you not license them? If you are going to license at all, license the listener by taking the money out of the consolidated revenue fund.
Here is the situation. If it is right to collect a licence fee of $2.50, then it is right to raise the licence fee to $3, if necessary. Of course that would not be politically popular. Perhaps that is the answer. If it is right to raise thirty-five cents, or $554,000, at the expense of the consolidated revenue fund, it is right to raise all the money at the expense of that fund through taxes.
Let us see what the situation is. The sum of $4,406,964 was collected. The cost of collection was $547,700. or a cost of thirty-five cents a licence because there were 1,807,824 licensees. The net amount given to the C.B.C. was $3,905,841. The. cost of collecting that amount of money was fourteen per cent of the amount collected. It is absurd to have a cost of collection of that amount by a government which calls itself responsible for the taxpayers' money. I understand that the cost of collecting all the revenue in Canada amounts to less than eight-tenths of one per cent. Why spend $554,000 of the taxpayers' money when the collection could be made for so much less?
In addition to that, there were 11,621 prosecutions. How absurd it is to bring 11,624 people to court to get $2.50 from each of them and the court costs as well. Some 11,624 people were prosecuted, or six-tenths of one per cent of the licences issued. Sixty-seven per cent of these were in Ontario, where only thirty-four per cent of the licences were issued, and ten per cent in Quebec, where twenty-six per cent of the licences were issued. It is obvious, on that basis, that the policing of the licences is not being done equally all over the country.
That goes for the other provinces as well. I am not singling out Quebec, or anything like that. How many other people living in houses or multiple dwellings having radios have not bought their licences? I do not know, but there are over a million and one-half people in the metropolitan areas of Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg and Hamilton. How in the world can one expect to find out whether these people have paid their licence fee or not? The thing on the face of it is ridiculous.
This is a majority report of the Liberal members of the House of Commons, backed by the C.C.F. That is true. There are none so blind as those who will not see, and little progress has been made consistently with our democratic principles so far as this report is concerned. We still have the same feature that has dominated other reports; that is, continued allegiance to political questions. The report is purely political. Consideration of principles-freedom of the air, equity and justice, the use of the radio for communication-have almost been forgotten in the report. The report implies, as a matter of fact, that there was little purpose in the committee continuing the hearing, since the majority have no interest in analysing complaints or weighing the merits of the representations made.
There is one fundamental principle that has been before the committee many times before, and that is in connection with the monopoly of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It is a monopoly which has authority arbitrarily to regulate each radio outlet and each voice of the nation. What was new was the still stronger case made by the Canadian daily newspapers association, which added its voice to that of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. Something was said in the committee to the effect that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters had no complaint, that they did not think they had a complaint, that they were in a happy position. I simply ask this question:	Why, then, did they take the
trouble of submitting a brief and having so many of their associations here waiting, watching and giving evidence if necessary? I will tell you why. It was because the association of broadcasters and the private stations themselves feel that the sword of Damocles hangs over their heads all the time, represented by the C.B.C. The report shows what little attention has been given to the brief in reference to the aforesaid matters. It is true that a certain amount of lip service has been given to it, but the very fact that one of the private stations had its head cut off by this totalitarian corporation-because that is what it is-
Canadian Broadcasting Act

after years of toil and after years of work from the early stages of experimentation, and the progress it has made, shows that there is certainly something that needs fixing up. Their head was cut off-why? Because of the splendid audience they have built up. This shows the injustice of the present system. Whether it was legal or not, this act on the part of the dictators would not, to my way of thinking, have been allowed had an independent regulatory and licensing body been functioning. That alone, to my mind, and, I believe, to the minds of most thinking people, shows the necessity of such a body being set up.
Not only that; but time after time, in the radio committee, it has been pointed out that the arbitrary rules of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have been a great detriment to Canada. Evidence has been given to that effect. Because of the negligence, perhaps selfishness, on the part of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; perhaps because of overpaternalism in refusing licences; because of regulations done away with only after the last session of the committee, and the decision to allow them to increase their power from one kilowatt maximum to five kilowatt maximum, which was put into force only last year; because many of the channels that should have been occupied were refused occupancy by the arbitrary decision of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; because power has been denied these stations for many years-for all these reasons, Canada has lost the full use of a great many channels which could have served the public.
May I point out that the silly thought that there are only two classes of radio broadcasting in Canada is nonsense. There are three classes. There are stations which do national chain broadcasting, the high-powered stations; there are the community stations, the lower-powered stations, from 250 to 500 or 1,000 watts; and there is the station which is far more important, which gets the greatest coverage, namely the regional station. The public of Canada have been denied more regional stations because of the arbitrary action of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in refusing to allow them to go, in some cases, up to fifty kilowatts and, in some cases, from five to ten.
In days gone by, our stations would have served the country much better if they had been allowed to go to their full power; and the C.B.C. regulations in restricting them to any power arbitrarily fixed, without regard to proper occupancy of channels, has resulted in a considerable loss to Canada. Possibly there is . some opportunity for Canadian stations to

increase their power even now. Unfortunately, however, that opportunity has largely disappeared. Many channels, as I said before, have been lost through arbitrary rules of the C.B.C. in not allowing licences to new stations for wave lengths in the past.
As an example of what I have said, and to support it, I will quote' a few lines from what Professor Bayly said the year before last and also last year with reference to the loss of stations and power and the consequent loss of coverage to Canada. Time after time we have been told in the radio committee that we have not lost any coverage and have not lost any channels. We know that we have lost channels, and the evidence of Professor Bayly, a distinguished engineer who has received fine decorations, cannot be gainsaid. This is what he said before the radio committee in 1945 and again in 1946. at page 432:
Everybody is interested in raising their power and to put a better signal into the area, but I point out that actual engineering figures on these areas are surprisingly small, and I think that after the war is finished and we get the completion of the occupation of the frequencies on the Havana agreement we will be perturbed as to how small our coverage is, especially at night.
Later on, he said:
. . . the policy which has been adopted here of keeping stations down to low power instead of having them up to their minimum power under the Havana agreement has had a detrimental effect on the coverage which we can expect in the future for the people of Canada.
This situation should be corrected before we have any further trouble. There should1 be some tribunal which is able to judge on the merits of the case after.calling witnesses, and to decide whether the propositions put before them are right or wrong. You just cannot help it when you are in the position of the C.B.C. Again Professor Bayly says:
. . . a great many regional stations are now permitted five kilowatts, but the tendency is still there. A very good example is the one 1 was quoting this morning. 1010, where if the present occupants, the C.B.C.. get off 1010 and another occupant comes in, they lose priority, and Canada as a whole, or that particular area of Canada, loses some of the available space on the spectrum that is available to Canada in the radio broadcasting band.
Surely that should be enough to convince anyone. The minister and those around him may laugh, but these are facts. Perhaps he should have a little greater interest in Canada and in service to the Canadian people. Perhaps I have a little more interest in it than he has; perhaps he does not know anything about it.. The situation is that the C.B.C., in conjunction with the radio branch of the Department of Transport, is the lawmaker,

Canadian Broadcasting Act
the law enforcer, the judge, the competitor and the policeman, as has been stated by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). I should like to point out also that in the whole of the C.A.B. brief I cannot find one word of criticism of the C.B.C. in regard to their broadcasting activities. As a matter of fact the Canadian Association of Broadcasters went so far as to say they did not mind any competition from the C.B.C., but they did object to the principle under which the broadcasting corporation was the competitor, the lawmaker and the law enforcer, judge and policeman. I do not blame them. I think something should be done about that, and very soon.
I should now' like to say a. word about commercialism. The report says action should be taken to compel private stations to devote greater attention to the development of public service features, while their tendency to overcommercialism should, be curbed. That is a laugh. The report further states that the private stations should use more local talent. I quite agree; but in the very nature of things. a9 everyone knows, a commercial station must be commercial. It cannot be overcommercial. All these stations put on some sustaining programmes, but they have to make a profit unless they are to go into the red. Perhaps then they would get government assistance, as the C.B.C. does. If they are to exist at all, certainly they must get fees from broadcasting. I do not see how a commercial radio station can be overcommercialized. The very fact that it has to seek an audience means that, of necessity, it has to put on some things which perhaps the sponsors may not want, but it has to keep an even balance. The audience is the thing that is necessary. This suggestion of overcommercialism is silly when you think of it in connection with the great C.B.C. I suppose they do no commercial work at all. From what I have read, they were supposed to have an income of only
S500.000	from commercial broadcasting; that was to be the limit. They got up to Sl.800.000. and at the present time forty-five per cent of their revenue comes from commercial broadcasting. They were supposed to be the people who would do the cultural work and carry the sustaining programmes, through the fees collected for licences. The report might better have been directed at the C.B.C. than at the private stations.
Then let us consider the latest programme of expansion proposed by the C.B.C. First of all, they intend to take over the wave length of CFRB. Why? For the sole purpose of having a key station. I asked why they wanted CFRB as a key station, and could not get very much of an answer except that they
had to have a high-powered station. What they really wanted was a key station which had a ready-made audience of from one and a half to two million people which had been built up by that station. As the hon. member for Eglinton has said, this is nothing but legalized robbery. They wanted also to be able to command a good price for advertising in order to bolster up their second network. Not commercial? Oh, no. If it is not commercial I do not know what is. Not only that; but after taking over CFRB, in all probability they will still have to occupy 1010, or we will lose it. They have 1010 now, which is quite sufficient for their purposes, but they want the advertising there, and what they are trying to do is to bring coals to Newcastle. The people in southern and central Ontario get good service now. They would have had better service if the arbitrary dictators of the C.B.C. board had not refused this station the opportunity to go to fifty kilowatts, which would have given them a good signal to serve the people of the communities in and around Toronto, as -well as more distant districts. What has actually happened is that the people of Canada have lost the coverage and the listening pleasures they might have had, as a result of that arbitrary action. An improvement could have been brought about there without any expense at all to the country, but now it will cost us this amount of money.
What is the picture as far as the C.B.C are concerned? They are going to take over CFRB. which is to cost $300,000. when the coverage might have been obtained without any expenditure. That money was voted last year. I suggest that $300,000 might have been more profitably used to do the job the C.B.C. was set up to do; that is, to give proper coverage to all the people of Canada, instead of setting up another station in a congested area which needs another high-powered station just about as much as a cow needs a fifth foot.
The report states that the deficit of the C.B.C. last year was $70,000. It should have been given as a great deal more than that, because no depreciation has been allowed for, and at least $297,000 should have been set up for depreciation. The budget proposals of this year showed a deficit of $265,000 but you have to add depreciation to get the true deficit. Anyone with any sense at all knows you must allow depreciation of ten per cent on equipment, of that kind. That would give a deficit of $492,000. so that, with this additional $544,000, the C.B.C. will just about get by.
The first job the C.B.C. was supposed to do was give coverage to all the people of Canada. That coverage should have been given
Canadian Broadcasting Act

by one chain, instead of biting off more than they -could chew by setting up another chain which was absolutely unnecessary to give service to the sparsely populated parts of the country that do not and cannot get service a't the present time. If necessary, this money Should be used to establish more stations in outlying -areas. Give all the listeners service; that is what we want of the broadcasting corporation. Instead of that, they are setting up this second chain -because they want the advertising revenue. In addition, they have done a little legalized robbery, as I said before, in order to get this key station. As a consequence, for some time to come -there will be parts of this country that will not have the coverage they should have. This has been done for the sake of advertising, I am referring to the second claim. One realizes just how facetious the report of the committee is when it states that the private broadcasting stations are not to over commercialize to any great extent, in the face of the fact that a non-commercial business C.B.C. gets forty-five per cent of its income from commercial business, something that was never anticipated under former circumstances.
Private stations are doing more than the C.B.C. are doing by way of developing talent. It can be said that they are doing just as much, anyway. And, so far as local service is concerned, the service they are giving is just as good. I am willing to give the C.B.C. more money to do the job of work i-t was set up to do, namely to cover every part of the country. But I am not willing to give them money -to spend in the closely congested centres of poulation where there is no need for any more service.
Then, private broadcasting stations have been refused the right to do chain broadcasts. I say they shouild be given that right, and should be allowed to buy their line service on a competitive basis with that of the C.B.C., although I agree the C.B.C. should have priority.
My reasons for saying that should be done are these: it would relieve the C.B.C. from some of its obligations in respect of coverage; it would' do a better job for the listening public; it would' increase the variety of programmes and, most important, it would give the people of Canada another voice. That is something which we must always keep in mind.
It is all very well to say that the C.B.C. is an independent corporation. While that may be true at the present time, there is a tremendous danger that it may not remain so in the future. The danger is there. We have plenty of voices in this chamber,, but the point

is to get these voices outside. To a great extent the C.B.C. have been fairly impartial in this respect, and I give them credit for it. The same can be said for the Canadian press. But the danger of only one voice in radio is still present, and unwarranted control of radio makes it all the more important that that, danger should be removed.
Radio broadcasting is greatly different from what it was when the first commission was established; it has grown, like Topsy. To my mind, now is the time when a thorough investigation into the whole question of radio in Canada should be instituted, and I suggest that a royal commission should be set up to investigate the situation.
In my view, the C.B.C. has a definite role to play* I should not like to see it removed, and I do not criticize it for wanting to play its role-if it would only do so. But I see no reason why it should be allowed to pick off the ripe plums which have been cared for and nurtured by the private stations, just for the purpose of obtaining commercial revenue and a ready-made audience.
The C.A.B. was criticized because of the campaign it lodged recently. Some members of the committee thought it should not have taken that action. I am wondering whether this is another interference with free speech, or if those stations will be under threat of cancellation of their licences if they continue to launch campaigns in which they seek to obtain the rights which they believe they ought to have, and rights which over fifty per cent of the people of Canada think they should have.
Then, the matter of having two ministers has been discussed. The statement is made in the evidence time after time that the C.B.C. is independent of the government. I do not believe it is. If it is independent of the government, why does it need a minister? If it is independent a minister would have nothing to do with it; so why does it require a minister? I do not think it does-unless the government makes its policy. And it is my view that that is what happens. I believe the government has a finger in the pie. and I would not be at all surprised to find that it had a finger in the pie in connection with the matter of granting private licences.
Radio has two ministers. An effort is being made to have two ways of collecting money; first of all. from licence fees and, second, from the consolidated revenue fund. That would seem to be in line with the policy of having two ministers. I suppose some things will be done by the Department of Transport under the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) and some by the Minister

Canadian Broadcasting Act
of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), and that is why we have the two ministers. I say there should be only one, or that, conversely, the C.B.C. should be stripped of its regulatory powers, its licensing powers and its powers to make recommendations for licensing.
It should be simply an operating company, and should be made to look after its own knitting and do a better job of broadcasting. Possibly it should be allowed to do experimental and research work, just as the private stations would do, if they were allowed. However, up until recently they were refused that privilege.
The C.B.C. is supposed to operate for the benefit of the listening public, but I say there has been too much parentalism in connection with its operations, something which should be outside its scope altogether. It should not be in a position to say whether it is a good thing for the public to have one kind of radio set or another kind.
In the report the most important people have been overlooked. Those who should have been primarily considered are the listening public, the great masses of the people who do not belong to any organization, federation, society or chamber of commerce. Those are the people who should have been considered. The views of organizations should be respected to a certain extent, as listeners; but what would be best for the great masses of the people, those who must remain silent in this matter, has been forgotten in the report.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon.
member's time has expired.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I can finish in a
moment. In Ontario and Quebec we get all the radio entertainment we require, and if we do not like what we get we can turn our dials, and turn off those programmes.
In closing, I should like to read an excerpt from the brief presented by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, which states my views as follows:
To sum up; radio legislation, which has grown up haphazard, needs complete revision. The revision should be made in the light of our past experience and present knowledge; the revision should recognize the potentialities of radio and the essentiality of providing that it be free from interference and even the threat of interference, while subject to necessary regulation.
In such a revision recognition should be given to the fact that there has grown up in Canada not one national system of broadcasting but two separate and competing systems and each should be accorded its proper and rightful place in which it can fully serve the people of Canada.
It is desirable, in the interest of all our people, of all political parties, that so great a power should be removed from even the possibility of political control and should be given a charter under which it can expand, prosper and serve. .
To conclude:
For the reasons given we urge that the public interest requires-
1.	The firm establishment of the legal right to freedom of expression on radio similar to the legal right to freedom of expression in print.
2.	An independent radio licensing and regulating body appointed directly by. financed by and responsible directly to parliament with power to license and regulate all radio in Canada.
Any board of this kind would, of necessity, take evidence from the transport board and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Mr. II. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I shall try to confine myself to quality rather than quantity. The C.B.C. has been referred to quite often in the debate this afternoon as a monopoly, but the opposition to the C.B.C. seems to be in a healthy financial position. There are many' private concerns in this country who would like to be able to put out the balance sheets published by these private radio stations. The argument was advanced this afternoon that a separate regulatory body should be set up over and above the C.B.C. That idea was expressed first by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), who stated that would be far better than the present set-up. He said that there was no argument which could be advanced against that.
There is in this country one institution which would compare with that idealistic body of which he was speaking. I believe this is called the railroad commission. They act like Mussolini; they compel the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National to run their trains at the same time, when it is a well known fact that the Canadian National can get across this continent much faster than the Canadian Pacific. If the C.B.C. allowed itself to get into a jack-pot like that, it would be just the same as any other greenhorn in a tinhorn gambling game.
The hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) pointed out that the government could not compete with private enterprise when it came to administering any institution. I notice that when private enterprise gets into financial difficulties it comes weeping and crawling on its hands and knees for help from the state and the government which it condemns.
We want to see the C.B.C. grow through the north country. We criticize them because we cannot get enough. The people in the urban centres contend that the C.B.C. should not operate stations in the large centres. If they were allowed to operate only in the north country, what a howl one would hear when they presented their statement from the so-
Canadian Broadcasting Act

called saviours of the taxpayers. They should be permitted to get some of the cream, so that they can give more service to the remote sections of the country.
In the central part of British Columbia we cannot get enough Canadian radio programmes. There are pockets in the mountainous regions where radio reception is very poor. We would like to have more booster stations established. Boards of trade and other organizations throughout that north country have demanded more service from the C.B.C. I hate to see people who are living off the dividends they receive from gold mines away up in the north sabotaging the people who live there from getting decent radio reception, I say to the C.B.C.: Long may your chimney smoke.


Norman Jaques: Mr. Speaker, I was not a member of the radio committee, but I wish to say a few words as an ordinary member of the Canadian public and as a radio listener. I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) and others who have spoken in agreement with them. As I say, I wish to speak merely as a member of the Canadian radio listening public.
My opinion is and always has been that the chief purpose of radio is to amuse, to entertain and to give factual news, not to educate the public or try to educate the public or to miseducate the public. It should leave propaganda to recognized spokesmen of the various political parties or movements.
I should like to go back to 1945 when radio time was allotted to the different parties. The Social Credit party was then allotted the same amount of time on the radio as the communist party. At that time the social credit-ers had a dozen members in this House of Commons; there had been a Social Credit government in Alberta since 1935, and they had organizations throughout the rest of the provinces. The communist party had, I think, two members in the house, one of whom is now in prison. They had no provincial government, and they have not had any since. Yet they were given the same amount of time as the social crediters. I contend that this indicates that there is communist socialist control of radio in this country, and that that has been so from the start.
I have not the time to go into the matter fully, but I have made a few investigations of some of the propagandists or employees of the C.B.C. I would refer, first, to Richard Stanton Lambert. He was president of the writers,

artists, broadcasters war council. He arrived from England in 1938 after having been on the staff of the B.B.C. He was C.B.C. supervisor of school broadcasts and chief adviser on talks to C.B.C. He was counsellor of the Toronto civil liberties league and has publicly encouraged subscriptions to the Canadian Tribune. In 1942 he was chairman of a meeting for Anna Louise Strong and assured the meeting that it -would never do to return to the outmoded democratic society of 1939. He always supported lifting the ban on the communist party.
Then there was Raymond Arthur Davies, whose real name is Divinski. Davies is prominent in communist circles in this country which describe him as "popular leader of Young Communist League", "recruiting agent for Young Communist League". In 1938 he edited the communist paper New Advance. In 1939 he was a teacher at the Young Communist school in Toronto. He worked on the Daily Clarion and retains full party membership. In 1940 he was made secretary of the national council of the Y.M.C.A. and secretary of the Canadian Institute of Economics and Politics. Since a visit to Russia, he has written a number of articles for Saturday Night. He formed the writers, authors, artists, broadcasters war council. He left for Russia in October. 1943. The C.B.C. refers to him as Canadian correspondent in the Soviet Union and C.B.C. correspondent Raymond Arthur Davies. I sometimes wonder who finances these people. The Lambert-cum-Davies alliance with C.B.C. and writers, artists, broadcasters war council, plus the fact that Davies is featured as Moscow correspondent of C.B.C. only after Lambert came on the staff of C.B.C. show that Lambert is a communist actively working for the communist party. Those are facts and I can prove them to any person interested enough to look into them.
I could go on, but I think I have said enough to show the danger of propaganda by C.B.C. and by men who have no responsibility, or at least who are not openly responsible to any political movement in this country'. It is all right when the leader of any recognized party or recognized movement in this country' broade casts and is introduced to the public as Mr. So-and-so, the leader of such-and-such a party or movement. That is one thing. The people know who he is and for whom he is speaking. But many' of these commentators, in fact all of them, so far as we are told, have no connection with any' political organization in Canada, and some people naturally think these commentators are actually speaking for the government or purely for disinterested purposes.

Canadian Broadcasting Act
I might mention two men who have certainly done their level best to wean away the loyalty of the Canadian people by selling communism to them. I refer to Elmore Philpott and Matthew Halton. I happen to come from the same country that Matthew Halton does, and I know that those who know him will admit that he is a communist. Yet he is given the free run of the air over C.B.C., while social crediters as such are banned from it or appear under great handicaps.


William Irvine: That shows some wisdom anyway.


Norman Jaques: It does, of course, to the communist people and to their fellow travellers who make up the bulk of the C.C.F. party.


Solon Earl Low: Including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Norman Jaques: After the secret session we
attended last Tuesday, we had, I think, warning enough of the dangers of softening up the people of this country and of other countries to the ideologies of communism, if I understood the speaker and I listened very carefully-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I do
not think the report of those proceedings has been presented to the house.


Norman Jaques: I did not hear you, Mr. Speaker.


William Ross Macdonald: It is out of
order to refer to the proceedings of any committee until the report of the committee has been presented to the house.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Especially a committee
meeting in secret session.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I interrupt for
a moment without taking any part in the debate? I wonder if I might assume the unaccustomed role of peacemaker and appeal to the house to get this measure through, because we still have plenty of work ahead of us. We have all been working very hard, and our objective is to have the business concluded by Tuesday. I wonder if my hon. l'riend will be kind enough and considerate enough and indulgent enough to curtail his remarks so that we can get this measure through before six o'clock. I am not at all interfering with the rights of debate. I want that clearly understood but I should like the cooperation of my hon. friend so far as he feels able to extend it.


Ernest George Hansell: You mean of the whole
house.


Norman Jaques: I do not think I have taken up too much of the time of the house during
the session. Before I sit down I wish to pay a tribute to certain aspects of the C.B.C. I should like to say how much I and, I am sure, a great many others have appreciated the opportunities	which	the C.B.C.	havegiven us of listening to	some	really	goodmusic, symphonic	music	and	concerts ofvarious kinds. As I say, if they would confine themselves to amusement and entertainment and to the encouragement of the arts, and, of course, give us the news, merely factual news, and leave all propaganda alone, I think the C.B.C. would	render	very	much	more
valuable services than it has rendered in the past.
(Translation):


Mr. REAL CAOUETTE (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take a few minutes only to speak on radio as it applies to a section of my area, in the north of the province of Quebec. Our private radio stations in Rouyn, Amos and Val d'Or broadcast, at different times, the French programmes of the C.B.C. and there are instances, in the Temisca-mingue and La Sarre-Makamick areas, where our citizens cannot possibly receive the programmes originating from the C.B.C. stations. This situation could certainly be remedied by increasing the power of the private stations in the north country; this would require helping the owners to secure the equipment necessary for increasing power of their transmitters so as to be in a position to cover the whole district, thereby giving a satisfactory service.
Representations have come from some of these areas for five, six and even ten years, requesting fair treatment in this connection. It is therefore a matter of urgency that a solution be found that will satisfy these people.
Now a few words only on the broadcasting periods allotted the Social Credit all through Canada and especially in the province of Quebec. Since broadcasting time is allotted the various political groups, we have had one-quarter of an hour each three or four months. Two fifteen-minute broadcasts in four months for the Union of Electors, in the province of Quebec, are decidedly not enough.
For my part, even if we are told that the blame goes to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which allots those fifteen-minute broadcasting periods, I hold the government responsible as regards the time allotted to the Social Credit group. If, after the next general election, only two or three or even four Liberals are elected throughout Canada, I wonder if the Liberal party will be quite satisfied bo have a quarter of an hour for broadcasting
Canadian Broadcasting Act

every four or five months. The golden rule should never be departed from; therefore, I ask that justice be done to the Union of Electors and all other groups, and that several fifteen-minute broadcasting periods be alloted to us so that we may freely expound our principles throughout Canada. We advocate not slavery, but freedom. We want to be allowed to voice our opinions freely and sincerely over the radio and to organize in our own way our propaganda in accordance with the wishes of our French and English-speaking fellow-citizens.
(Text):


Edmund Davie Fulton: On this occasion, speaking on a bill of such importance, and particularly as it is the only opportunity we have had to discuss the whole question of radio broadcasting and the constitution of the C.B.C., I regret I shall be unable to finish by six o'clock. I want to say at the outset that for several reasons I am opposed to this bill, the result of which will go to increase the amount handed over to the C.B.C. by over $500,000. The first reason, is that at this time, when our tax rate is already so high and when it is so important to reduce the burden on our people, I am opposed to a measure which will increase the expenditures and will, therefore, increase taxation, without giving a corresponding sendee or result to the people of Canada. If this were simply a question of giving extra revenue to the C.B.C., and it could1 be done without increasing the direct financial burden on the people, then certainly it should not 'be opposed, because in the committee I think a clearly convincing case was made out for the desirability of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation getting increased revenue. But when it is done in this way, in a measure which looks on the surface as though there would be no increased burden, but when actually what is happening or would happen under this measure would be that the people themselves would have to bear the costs of collecting the licences and would have to put up over $500,000, I am opposed to it. My opposition is made stronger because, as was pointed out by an hon. member earlier this afternoon, it means that both those who have radios and those who do not pay licence fees at all will have to pay the extra taxes, since this money can only come out of the consolidated revenue fund of the country. This means that all the taxpayers, not only the radio owners, will be bearing a share of this burden.
There is an additional reason why I am opposed' to this measure. I think the con-

stitution of the body which controls radio in this country should be fully investigated and extensively changed. Therefore I am opposed to paying over $500,000 to an organization whose set-up I do not approve, in so far as my constituents are concerned at any rate. If the constitution of the C.B.C. were changed and the control of radio in Canada put on a proper footing, then the corporation would be in a much better position to come to parliament and ask for more money. To register the protest which I think should be registered on behalf of those whom I represent, I am going to oppose this bill.
The reasons why I am opposed to the present constitution of the C.B.C. and, therefore, why I am opposed to the granting of this money, have already been discussed in the speeches made earlier this afternoon; but I should like to indicate the three main weaknesses, as I see them, in the present situation. First, there is no doubt that the C.B.C. is in competition with private radio, yet under the present Radio Act and the regulations which govern radio in the country the C.B.C.-chiefly the chairman of the board of governors and the board of governors itself-is made judge and jury on any question of conflict which arises between the government-controlled network and the private stations.
May I say here, before going any farther, that my position is not that there should be an end to government control of radio in Canada. It is exactly the opposite. Government control of radio should be made effective and should be removed from the sphere of political controversy. I feel-and I shall give my reasons to substantiate that feeling- that it is not at present out of the field of political controversy, and that to continue the present set-up will only continue a situation in which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation cannot help but be influenced by government policy quite apart from the field of radio, and reflect that political influence in its dealings with other radio broadcasting concerns. That very set-up weakens the whole structure of government control of radio.
What I should like to see is government control of radio, but on a proper basis, a basis in which the people of Canada through their parliament will enact afresh the principles which they wish to govern radio broadcasting in this country, and then to entrust the supervision and the enforcement of these laws to a body independent of the C.B.C. and of the private stations. If that were done, then the objections which are to be found at present to the giving of public moneys to the C.B.C. would be largely removed. I wanted

Canadian Broadcasting Act
to make that clear before going any farther. The position we take is not that government control of radio or even a publicly owned network should be removed and the whole thing be handed back to private interests. The propaganda which has gone out recently, since the radio committeee met this session, has sought to represent that both the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and those who appear to favour this view, are trying to put an end to government control of radio and hand the whole field back to private interests. That, of course, is not the case. At no time in their brief presented to the committee or in their advertising which was inserted in the daily newspapers did the Canadian Association of Broadcasters suggest that government control of radio should end. Indeed, I would say that some of the attacks which have been made on the Canadian Association of Broadcasters' brief, and upon the members of the official opposition taking the position I have just outlined, are deliberate distortions of what are the facts. In his remarks this afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) stated, in effect, that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and those who agree with them were trying to put an end to government control of broadcasting and were attacking the C.B.C., trying to destroy the C.B.C. and its work. That, of course, is not in accordance with the facts. The C.A.B. never at any time attacked the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation either in the committee or in its advertising campaign. What they did attack was the regulations and the present set-up which, as they pointed out. have in them tremendous capabilities of abuse and potential danger. That was what they were attacking. They did not allege that the C.B.C. is at present abusing its power. In fact this year they were so careful to make their position clear that they did not even attack the policy of the C.B.C. in taking over the frequencies now enjoyed by the three private stations. They accepted that as a matter of C.B.C. policy. It is not quite fair to say that they were thinking of nothing but their vested interests. They see-and I certainly agree with them-a potential danger in the continuation of the method under which control of radio is exercised, and they wanted to improve that.
My second objection to the present set-up of radio in Canada is the apparent confusion in the role of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation itself. I realize that at the time when public control of broadcasting was first instituted in the country conditions were not as they are now. so that it is not. proper to blame anyone for not having foreseen what would
be the present state of affairs. The position we have arrived at, however, is that the C.B.C. is both a regulating and an operating body, and the one function cannot help detracting from the other. We are in the position now where there is obviously room for both a publicly owned network and privately owned stations, and I have not yet heard anyone suggest-I do not think anyone would be likely to suggest-that privately owned stations should cease to operate and that we should not have any more such stations. That being the fact, it seems to me that it is not logical, it is not in keeping with the way in which we do things in this country, to have one body both operate its own network and regulate other stations which, on occasion, come into competition with it.
My third objection is that the C.B.C. is subject at the moment to political influence; and especially in view of the situation I have described where it both regulates its competitor and operates its own network, that is an undesirable situation and one that shouldi be ended. There are tremendous possibilities of abuse, for instance, in the fact that there are three separate departments all interested and taking their share in the control of radio. The Department of National Revenue, through its minister, in entrusted with the actual supervision of the C.B.C., and with responsibility for the actions of the board of governors. The Department of Transport, through its communications branch, has separate responsibility for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and allocation of frequencies in Canada. In turn, supervision over that branch is in part entrusted to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. So that when you have three ministers each with a finger in the pie you have an opportunity for misunderstanding and confusion and, moreover, you have also a multiplication of opportunities for political interference.


James Joseph McCann: You are the only one who is confused on that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister had an opportunity to explain it, but I did not hear him give any explanation. Let me give an illustration of what happened before the committee. One day an official of the communications branch of the Department of Transport presented a statement, and the next day responsibility for the statement was denied by the Minister of Reconstruction.


James Joseph McCann: That has already been debated and is on the record.
Mr. FULTON; And that made plain the confusion which exists in the set-up; and wheu
Transport Commissioners

we asked to have the ministers called before the committee to clear up the matter, it was so engineered that we were not allowed to have the ministers come before us. One of the most important things that the committee should have considered, and would like to have considered, had it been able to have the ministers appear before it, was the elimination of this duplication or triplication in the control of broadcasting in Canada.
I have said that I believe there are opportunities for political interference with the affairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and I do not propose to let it end at that. I will cite instances to substantiate the statement I make. But it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: May I ask the
lion, gentleman a question? Is there not an amount of $544,673 of political patronage represented in this bill in respect of radio licences and what-not? Of course there is.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The three ministers can
answer that.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at six o'clock.
Monday, July 14, 1947