August 24, 1946

LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of Veterans Affairs; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE:

I am not complaining.

Topic:   VETERANS AFFAIRS
Permalink
SC
LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of Veterans Affairs; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE:

Let us get on with the work.

Topic:   VETERANS AFFAIRS
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

This case has been brought before me; I should like to read to the minister the findings of Doctor Frank Emmons, this man's specialist, as made on December 4, 1944. As a result of this doctor's examination he found, and I quote the doctor's words:

A rupture of two of the cartillagenous discs, cushioning the vertebral bones of the spine, with pressure on the spinal cord.

In the light of that diagnosis the minister will see the absurdity of such treatment as putting this man in a plaster cast, applying heat, and injecting substances into the buttocks and other parts of his body.

Topic:   VETERANS AFFAIRS
Permalink
LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of Veterans Affairs; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE:

I am sure my hon. friend does not want me, a layman, to adjudge questions of medical treatment. We shall be glad to look into the matter.

Topic:   VETERANS AFFAIRS
Permalink

Item agreed to. Progress reported.


RADIO BROADCASTING ACT

CORPORATION TO RECEIVE LICENCE FEES- ADVANCES ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES


The house resumed from Friday, April 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. McCann for the second reading of bill No. 391, to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936.


PC

Douglas Gooderham Ross

Progressive Conservative

Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):

Mr. Speaker, when the house rose last night I had made a few remarks on the monopolistic position of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. With more and more power being placed in

Radio Broadcasting

the hands of the corporation, the situation is getting worse. The corporation writes its own regulations, both for itself and for its competitors. It dictates to the private stations what they shall carry, and it controls completely the dissemination of all radio news when broadcast over its own network and indirectly, through restrictive orders, when carried over private stations. The corporation has power over all broadcasting, and there is no appeal from its decisions except through the channel of parliament. Yet it can be dominated by any political party which might favour the continuation of this semi-public system as the most important and powerful factor in political control. I think the country should be freed from this unhealthy state of affairs.

I think also that the private broadcasting stations should be afforded some relief. That is why they came before the parliamentary committee. From the evidence given before the committee there is no doubt that the corporation does not intend to give up the power it has unless it is forced to do so. As has been stated, it is in the peculiar position of holding in its own hands legislative, executive, judicial and police powers, and that pertains not only to its competitors but in seme degree to the listeners as well, because C.B.C. can and does decide what the listener shall hear and when he shall hear it. With the development of television and facsimile the situation will get worse. The range of facsimile being so small, and the facsimile stations having to be fed from one source-a complete monopoly. I submit that no government which pretends to be democratic would allow such powers to be placed in the hands of the corporation. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters indicated how therr had to go about making any representations to the corporation. The situation as stated by them, and this is on evidence in the record, was that they were required to state their case to the board of governors in the presence of senior officials of the C.B.C.-

Topic:   RADIO BROADCASTING ACT
Subtopic:   CORPORATION TO RECEIVE LICENCE FEES- ADVANCES ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Permalink
CCF

William Irvine

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. IRVINE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I wonder if the hon. gentleman will broadcast a little louder, because his transmitter is somewhat weak.

Topic:   RADIO BROADCASTING ACT
Subtopic:   CORPORATION TO RECEIVE LICENCE FEES- ADVANCES ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Permalink
PC

Douglas Gooderham Ross

Progressive Conservative

Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):

I think I need a new transmitter this morning. As I was saying, they are. required to state their case in the presence of senior officials of the CJ3.C. Then thej^ retire, and in camera the board of governors hears and decides on their representations. No opportunity is given to the private broadcasters to make any rebuttal

or to correct any misapprehensions there may be on the part of the board. It is said in the report that the private broadcasters have no grievance, but that method of hearing their representations is a serious grievance in itself. To me it seems intolerable. The one recommendation which the Canadian Association of Broadcasters made to the committee was one which they had reiterated for many years before former committees. It was this:

We believe and recommend that the public interest would be served by creating a radio board of appeal-an independent tribunal holding open meetings to which both branches of the radio industry possess free access in the customary judicial manner.

This has been an urgent and burning question for some years, and although the report says "Your committee in making these suggestions desires very emphatically to declare that it is not even tentatively giving its blessing to the proposals," the committee was by no means unanimous on that point.

The position of CFRB has been dealt with ably by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). It is not for CFRB that I am speaking particularly, but for the metropolitan area of the city of Toronto, and farther afield than that, in connection with CFRB. Its coverage extends as far as London on one side on Kingston on the other and far to the north. There is no doubt that CFRB has given this area a splendid service. It was established before the committee that CFRB has the largest listening audience notwithstanding the two public stations of the C.B.C. serving this area. I am certainly not convinced by the evidence given before the committee that any better service can be given than is given by CFRB; nor am I convinced that we shall get as good a service by C.B.C. taking over that wave length. If CFRB is deprived of its present wave length, it will be required to spend at least $300,000' on new equipment, without compensation of any kind when it is assigned a new wave length. This is a very serious matter. I do not agree that no compensation should be paid. I am not a lawyer, ' and I cannot express any opinion on the legal position as to compensation. Certainly that is not a question for the committee to decide, but one for the courts. But not only that; at a time like this, when taxes are so high, the least we can expect is that a government or a government corporation should try to reduce its expenditures as much as possible. The taking over of these three wave lengths, in Calgary and Winnipeg and CFRB, Toronto, is going to cost the corporation anywhere from one to two million dollars; as a matter of fact nearer two million dollars.

Radio Broadcasting

The corporation in its operations over the last couple of years, instead of making money, has gone behind in the neighbourhood of $300,000. Also it has not set up a reserve. It is said that this is only a matter of bookkeeping, but the facts are clear: if you make a deficit and do not put up a reserve you have lost that much money.

Station CURB have given a good service to the city and region. Thinking that they would be able to retain their wave length, at considerable expense over the years they have developed their facilities and have encouraged professional talent, in this respect doing something which a great many stations have not done. I have spoken to a good many professional people in the city, both on CURB and CBL, and I know what they have been doing. I believe they deserve some consideration, as do the listeners of Toronto. Further than that, this private station CFRB has not cost the taxpayers of Canada one cent, and over the years has paid into the treasury taxes in the amount of $575,000. If C.B.C. takes over this wave length the corporation will be required to spend on the station they take over, for equipment for broadcasting alone, at least $300,000.

Private stations are being reiegated to the position of subservient vassals of the C.B.C. by the policy of the broadcasting corporation. The very fact that it is said they like a broadcasting chain goes to show that they want to get on the chain, but instead of being developed they are being dominated more and more all the time. Mr. Dunton stated in the committee that in the scheme of radio there is a "big place" for local commercial stations. The national radio authority, he declaimed, sought to encourage their operation on a local basis, "under impartial and benign supervision." But it is abundantly clear that what he called "a big place" is destined to diminish to the point of being negligible, if not invisible, under the actual and ruthless application of C.B.C. policies.

I want to say a word about radio frequencies. We can go back to the time when Mr. Bennett had the investigation made and the commission set up. One reason for this was the increasing chaos in the field of broadcasting ; things were getting in very bad shape. The second reason was that Canada was losing channels to the United States, and while the voice of the broadcasters singly could not be heard, the voice of the government of Canada diplomatically could be heard. Order was brought about through the North American conference, frequencies were allotted to 63260-335i

Canada, and a Canadian programme was outlined. But times have changed very rapidly. Is Canada again going to lose and suffer more radio interference through the policy which the C.B.C. have followed of keeping down the power of stations which should go up? It seems to me it is a stupid policy. Not only that, but when the conference took place the officials and engineers of C.B.C. were the ones who were there making the arrangements. At that time the private broadcasters asked that they also be represented-they had a big stake-but that was not permitted. It is all very well to say that we have the best engineers in the country, and so on, but you know that in a big law case one does not depend on one person; he calls in counsel and gets their opinions. Canada is a country of approximately twelve million people scattered over a vast area. As time goes on, there is no doubt about it, we shall fill up and we shall need all the channels we can get for our broadcasting.

In regard to radio frequencies we had the evidence of Colonel Bailey, professor of electrical engineering at the university of Toronto, a man of very high standing, who did a great deal of secret work during the war for the government of Canada. He must be a good engineer; he received the O.B.E. for his services in a technical field. Profesor Bailey has been before the radio committee in times gone by, and has pointed out at various times that through the policy of the C.B.C. of keeping the power of stations down to one kilowatt and less, we were losing channels and that we will be losing more all the time. As a matter of fact I believe it was through his evidence that the new policy of allowing five kilowatts as the maximum for private stations was decided upon. I take a little credit to myself for that. But if this policy is still followed and we do not have our stations go up to full power, Canadian stations will be in a much inferior position and will be subject to more interference all the time from the United States. Professor Bailey stated at a meeting of the committee in 1943:

I think that after the war is finished and we get the completion of the occupation of frequencies on the Havana agreement, we will be perturbed as to how small our coverage is, especially at night.

In his evidence on page 433 before the committee this year, in answer to a question which I asked him if, by keeping power down, we were in danger of more and more interference from the United States, he said:

While admittedly the Toronto area is probably the worst area in Canada because it projects down so close to the American border,

Radio Broadcasting

the tendency is more and more that people to the south of us are filling up the air with five to fifty times the speed which we are.

He gave some very interesting information as to the difficulties. As soon as possible we should give our stations the opportunity to go to their full power. If Canada has lost the full use of the channels which were allotted to her, and if she loses more in the future, the C.B.C. and government policy will be directly responsible for this arbitrary action.

It is wrong to say that we have two types of broadcasting in Canada. There are or should be three. We have a national system, a high-power network, but there are also the regional stations, of which no mention was made. A regional station such as CFRB could be more useful if it were high powered and it covers a larger area than a single community; but there are also the small community stations. Some of these stations are not really doing the job because they have been hampered by arbitrary limitations of their power. There should not be such limitations. In Canada to-day we have three networks; the trans-Canada, consisting of seven C.B.C. stations and seventeen basic stations affiliated with them, operating sixteen hours; the French network, three C.B.C. and eight basic stations affiliated with the C.B.C.; and then there is the dominion network which has one C.B.C. station and twenty-eight private stations.

The policy is to operate the dominion network longer, that is, to increase the number of hours on the air; and the reason given is that the listener should have a choice of two programmes. I agree that in certain parts of Canada there should be a choice of two programmes, but the private stations have not found it possible to bring this about. In my section there are a number of choices of programmes. There is a choice among many private stations; there is a choice among United States stations, so that Ontario listeners in that section have more than two selections.

Why spend the taxpayers money to give them more than they have now? It is better to use the private stations already established and let them go up to their full power in the meantime. Changes in radio to-day are so rapid that we do not know what will happen in the near future. Why not wait, therefore, for a year or two, and allow the private stations to go up to their full power? In fact, make them go up, instead of biting off more than you can chew and losing more money on the corporation in the next year or so.

The question of networks comes up. Without networks, stations cannot perform their

proper function. There is no doubt about that. It was stated in the committee that the private stations could not be allowed to buy wire from the wire companies because C.B.C. had to have the use of the wire. But the C.B.C. does not use all the wires in Canada; there are many more. There is no reason why from time to time private stations should not be allowed to perform the function of network broadcasting, thus giving the people another choice. Not only should they be allowed to do it; I say they should be made to do it in the interests of the country.

A word now about radio fees. Last year we collected 84,260,379 and the cost of collection was $527,435, or about twelve per cent of the amount collected. These were licence fees for private receiving sets only. There were 1,745,916 licensees from whom we collected money last year. There is also the cost of policing, seeing to it that people pay their fees. There were 8,749 convictions last year. The sum of $2.50 is collected from a man who has one radio set and from the man who may have fifteen sets. That is what is paid, and the old pensioner has to pay the same sum, $2.50, for his receiving set. There is no justice in that. But why should a person, because he has a radio, have to pay a licence? Why should not the person who listens pay, whether he has a set or not?

Topic:   RADIO BROADCASTING ACT
Subtopic:   CORPORATION TO RECEIVE LICENCE FEES- ADVANCES ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

You might as well pay a licence fee for a washing machine.

Topic:   RADIO BROADCASTING ACT
Subtopic:   CORPORATION TO RECEIVE LICENCE FEES- ADVANCES ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Permalink
PC

Douglas Gooderham Ross

Progressive Conservative

Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):

Yes. There is no rhyme or reason in it and it ought to be cut out. Apart from these 1,745,916 licences that were issued, I wonder how many more ought to have been sold. I do not think it is possible to see that everyone pays the licence fee.

So far as the minister's own department is concerned, I have made a rough calculation and I believe it costs eight tenths of one per cent to collect his whole revenue, and here is twelve per cent being paid to collect these licence fees, or a loss to the people of Canada of $527,500. The minister asked me in the committee whether I had a suggestion to make. I have. The corporation must have a limitation upon the amount they should have. Taking the collections amounting to $4,260,000, and the population of 12,000,000 so that is roughly 33 cents per capita. Suppose we gave the corporation forty cents per capita; that would be a basis on which to suggest how much money they could spend. Many people do not like to be bothered with this licence fee, especially nowadays when nobody may be in when the collector of the fees calls; or the householder may have forgotten to buy the licence and someone comes to the door

Radio Broadcasting

and tries to collect. It is a nuisance, and it is ridiculous to have these people prosecuted as criminals for not paying their licence fee.

As I said at the beginning, it is about time we had an independent tribunal set up-not a political parliamentary committee, because that is what committees always are-to review the whole question of radio broadcasting in Canada. The report which is now before us might Just as well have been written by the C.B.C. In fact I almost thought it was when I went to the meeting. There is no criticism in it. It is the greatest piece of whitewashing that I have ever seen.

Although the C.B.C. have done a good job -I am not uncritical of them-what is needed is a revision of the act, and it should be done as soon as possible.

I shall not discuss the bill now. I shall wait until we get into committee.

Topic:   RADIO BROADCASTING ACT
Subtopic:   CORPORATION TO RECEIVE LICENCE FEES- ADVANCES ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Reid

Liberal

Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) :

I rise at this time to make a few remarks about this bill, and to criticize some of its provisions and also some of the omissions from the report and from the bill.

First of all may I say that as one who listened to the speech of the Right Hon. R.

B. Bennett when the bill setting up the

C. B.C. was introduced, I should like to correct one general misinterpretation. Those of us who sat in the house at that time did not visualize or realize the C.B.C. set-up which we have to-day. I say that unqualifiedly. Those of us who listened to the speeches on that bill visualized something like the Canadian National Railways. We visualized a set-up like the present air service, so that if anybody wanted to enter into competition with the Trans-Canada Air Lines they would go before a different board entirely and ask for a licence. If you want to run a railway you do not go before the Canadian National Railways, and ask for permission. The same principle applies to air services. I think we should definitely keep that in mind, when discussing the C.B.C.

I have heard the leader of the C.C.F. and some hon. members on this side say that there is something -wrong now when we criticize the C.B.C. W'hen I have taken exception to some of the things that have happened they say to me: "You voted for it. didn't you?" Of course I voted for it, but I doubt whether I would vote for it to-day if it came before the house, particularly in the light of what has taken place since the commission was set up.

Nothing much was done on the committee, and I am not making any carping criticism of the members of that committee with regard to the appeal board, but anyone who

has had any experience at all in going before the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and I have, cannot help but feel if there is one thing needed more than another it is a board to whom the public and the people of Canada can appeal when unjust decisions are made.

I want the Minister of National War Services (Mr. McCann) and the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) to consider the case I have in mind. In the city of New Westminster we were good enough to have a licence for a radio station granted. It was meant to serve the district and the city of New Westminster. The owner of that station was given a frequency of 1230 on the dial and 250 watt power. After they had been in operation they experienced a great deal of criticism from the stations in Vancouver because of the aggressiveness and the splendid programmes put out by the owner of the station. Protests were made to the C.B.C. that the station in New Westminster was crippling them. It was not long before we found out that 250 and 1230 on the dial covered only a certain portion of the district. During the day you could hear the station fairly well for a distance of about twenty miles out; but those living close to the boundary found that at night time there was so much interference from radio stations across the line that it practically blacked out radio station CKNW. Therefore an appeal was made by the owner of CKNW to have a change made. I do not like to say this, but I think he made the unfortunate error of asking a member of parliament to assist him. I know there are a lot of carping statements made about the interference, so-called of a member of parliament. I am making no apology, for when one of my constituents appeals to me and tells me that he believes an injustice has been done I shall make some representations on his behalf. I maintain that it is the duty of a member of parliament, if he is truly representing his people, when an appeal is made to him with regard to an injustice, to see what he can do about it. An appeal was made after being refused by the CJ5.C. Since we were sitting in Ottawa I was asked to go before the board, and I did so. I think perhaps it was a mistake, because it was intimated quietly to me that it was just too bad for a member of parliament to appear on behalf of anyone.

Taking the view of the leader of the C.C.F. that politics should be kept out of it, I wish to say to him that if he wants to represent his people fully and truthfully and faithfully he will fight for them when he believes they have a grievance. Apparently it is now felt

Radio Broadcasting

by some that it is wrong for a member of parliament to listen to an appeal. If a man has a case before the Canadian pension board and fails, are we to tell him when he comes to us that it is political interference? Will any member of parliament care to do that? It is up to us to fight on behalf of our constituents when we feel they have a case. Parliament is the court of last appeal. If any member of parliament cannot be appealed to on any matter, then democracy is gone. I view with alarm what has taken place in the past.

Let me return to the case to which I was referring. Station CKNW was allotted, as I said before, 1230 on the dial. The only other station on the same wave band is in the district represented by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). That station is located at Prince George and appears at 1250 on the dial. Prince George is in the interior.

At one o'clock the house took recess.

The house resumed at three o'clock.

Topic:   RADIO BROADCASTING ACT
Subtopic:   CORPORATION TO RECEIVE LICENCE FEES- ADVANCES ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Reid

Liberal

Mr. REID:

When the house rose at one o'clock I had been dealing with the highhanded methods, or what I termed the highhanded methods, of the C.B.C. in dealing w'ith appeals which came before them from private stations. I am going to repeat what I said, because I think it is worth repeating. I was pointing out that when the C.B.C. was set up, not a man in this House of Commons ever visualized that it would ever have or obtain the control and authority it has to-day.

I have maintained that we are acting dangerously for our democracy in that we are taking a heritage of the people, and not making the board responsible to the people. We have in fact set up a board which is above the people themselves. I had mentioned that perhaps it was unfortunate that I appeared before the board on behalf of the local station in the city of New Westminster-at least that is my view, until I get a better answer as to why they refused the application. Until I get that answer I will stay by the statement I am now making. Be that as it may, the residents in the Fraser valley, twenty miles or more out from the city of New Westminster, found that this radio station was practically blacked out at night time. They have a frequency of 1230 on the dial, and because these people live close to the boundary line the frequencies allowed United States stations come in, with the result that radio programmes presented

over CKNW after six o'clock at night are not heard twenty miles away-in fact sometimes only sixteen miles-from the radio station.

The owner applied for a change in that frequency. To prove what I am saying regarding the high-handedness of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, may I point out that there are only two stations in British Columbia which have a frequency of 1230 on the dial, and 250 watt power. The other station is some 600 miles away, and conditions are such at that point that, even if the station in Prince George had 5,000 or 10,000 watts, we in the valley and in Vancouver and New Westminster would not hear the Prince George station. That is well known, because I believe even the Vancouver station, with over 5,000 watt power, is not heard beyond the mountains. Prince George is just through the mountains so that their radio station with a low power of 250 watts, and 1230 on the dial covers only a small district around Prince George. As I say there could be no reason at all for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to reject the application made by the local station in New Westminster to change the frequency because it was not interfering with, nor would it interfere with, any other station in British Columbia. Oh, yes; it did interfere with some of the larger stations who, shall I say, became a little bit jealous because the station for which the licence was granted in New Westminster soon became one of the most popular stations in the Vancouver-New Westminster area. I do not know whether the committee studied what I am going to mention, but I have looked through the report and I cannot find mention of it anywhere. I am subject to correction, of course. I cannot find where they discussed whether the C.B.C. was as popular, or discussed its popularity as compared with that of private stations.

Let me tell you why I am asking that question. I have here-and private individuals are not supposed to have them be'cause they are given only to radio stations-a publication put out by a firm in Toronto called Eric Hayes Limited. This company goes out and take surveys, similar to gallup polls, among radio listeners. For instance, they telephone to housewives and say, "Are you listening to the radio?" Mostly the reply will be "Yes". The next question asked is, "What station are you listening to, and what programme?" With this information they turn out a report each week to every private radio station. This report, which I hold in my hand, shows the following, that the programmes of the C.B.C. have the least number

Radio Broadcasting

of listeners in the New Westminster-Van-couver area, or a lesser number than those of the private stations. I do not know whether the committee discussed that matter or that phase of it. But if they did not, I suggest that when the committee meets next year they certainly should take it up, and try to get an opinion on the question whether C.B.C. programmes hold a place in the public life and confidence of our people as favourably as that held by private stations.

Topic:   RADIO BROADCASTING ACT
Subtopic:   CORPORATION TO RECEIVE LICENCE FEES- ADVANCES ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Permalink
PC

Arthur Leroy Smith

Progressive Conservative

Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):

May I tell the hon. member that that was discussed, and evidence was given with respect to the Toronto area. It disclosed the same condition in that area that the hon. member has mentioned with respect to British Columbia, namely that CFRB in Toronto, according to the Hayes rating, was above the C.B.C. 50,000-watt station in Toronto.

Topic:   RADIO BROADCASTING ACT
Subtopic:   CORPORATION TO RECEIVE LICENCE FEES- ADVANCES ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Reid

Liberal

Mr. REID:

I thank the hon. member for that information. So that we in the cities of New Westminster and Vancouver are not alone in the matter to which I have just referred.

I am going to continue with one further point. In the report of the committee and in the bill before us there is a proposal to increase fees. Yes-not exactly to increase fees; they are not honest about it, because they are actually increasing licence fees in a subtle way. Why do they not come out boldly before the public and say, "We need an extra fifty cents"? They will get pretty close to forty cents from the people of Canada, because the cost of collecting those fees is not going to be deducted, if this bill passes, from the $2.50 radio fee. In other words, Mr. Speaker, about fifty per cent of our people who have no radios, and no licences for radios, are going to be taxed for the collecting -of fees. If you take the number of licensed owners as 1,745,916, and multiply it by four, which would be the average number listening in on each radio in any home, you will find it comes to about seven million people. So that there must be about five million people who do not listen to radios, or who have no radios at all. But these people are going to contribute to the public treasury of Canada a sum running up to $500,000 to pay for the collection of radio fees for which they receive no benefit. As I say, it is one of those subtle ways of raising the licence fee. Why do they not come to the people of Canada and say, "Look here, we are giving you first-class programmes"-which is a debatable point-"we want more money, and we recommend that the licence fee be raised

by twenty-five to fifty cents." But no, they know that would not be popular. That however is the test. If the C.B.C. stands high in the estimation of the people of Canada they would gladly agree to an increase in the licence fee. Just note that they are not proposing to the people of Canada in this report that they raise the licence fee, they are doing so however, and that is one of the reasons why I am going to oppose the bill.

Topic:   RADIO BROADCASTING ACT
Subtopic:   CORPORATION TO RECEIVE LICENCE FEES- ADVANCES ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Permalink
PC

John Thomas Hackett

Progressive Conservative

Mr. HACKETT:

No, you won't oppose it.

Topic:   RADIO BROADCASTING ACT
Subtopic:   CORPORATION TO RECEIVE LICENCE FEES- ADVANCES ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Reid

Liberal

Mr. REID:

Did I hear someone say no? I sat over there once, and watched the scene over here. The hon. member who has just interjected knows that what I am doing is for the people of this country-and that is the only reason that is prompting me. I am trying to safeguard the interests of the general public when I speak to-day. Oh, I know that if you want the emoluments of office, or if you want to be put into the senate, or want recognition as a cabinet minister, you had better slap backs, not slam them. I know that. I have seen men do it. I have been here sixteen years. I was elected by the people of New Westminster constituency, and I have always considered I have a duty to all those people. I have never been afraid to get up here and champion their cause, without looking for personal reward. If I had been looking for personal reward from the government I might have been a back-slapper and everyone knows what that means. I am also going to try to keep this government Liberal, if I can.

Topic:   RADIO BROADCASTING ACT
Subtopic:   CORPORATION TO RECEIVE LICENCE FEES- ADVANCES ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Permalink

August 24, 1946