March 18, 1953

LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Defence Production; Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Howe:

There was not a passenger plane operating in 1934.

Topic:   BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

George Alexander Drew (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Drew:

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to interrupt the general trend of my remarks. I would suggest that the minister just go back into the history of air development in this country.

Topic:   BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Defence Production; Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Howe:

I knew that history long before the hon. gentleman did.

Topic:   BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

George Alexander Drew (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Drew:

Let him recall the passenger planes which were flying at that time and which were blazing the trail for the great air developments which have taken place in this country.

Topic:   BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Defence Production; Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Howe:

Nuts.

Topic:   BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

George Alexander Drew (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Drew:

Let him recall the passenger planes which were being flown in this country by pilots who today are taking their place as executive officials of both Trans-Canada Air Lines and Canadian Pacific Air Lines.

Topic:   BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Gardiner:

They had to fly in spite of government policy then.

Topic:   BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

George Alexander Drew (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Drew:

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to bother about the minister who has just interpolated the last remark, because he is having enough difficulty explaining government policy in his own province and should not be worrying about anybody else in the house.

Topic:   BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Gardiner:

When the hon. gentleman gets to the point where he will not have any more difficulty, he may get somewhere.

Topic:   BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

George Alexander Drew (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Drew:

Then, Mr. Speaker, it was by this process of reference to these great developments which have played their part in the expansion and increasing unity of Canada that the government then brought us to the C.B.C. It was appropriate that they should remind the members of this house and the people of Canada that these were achievements of the Conservative party throughout the years. It was also appropriate and refreshing to find the government reminding the members of this house that the C.B.C. was the result of the vision and decision and initiative of the Conservative party, which brought it into being in 1932.

Topic:   BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Gardiner:

Did they build the Grand Trunk Pacific? Did they build the C.N.R.?

Topic:   BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

Clayton Wesley Hodgson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hodgson:

Not the Saskatchewan dam, either.

Topic:   BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

George Alexander Drew (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Drew:

The Conservative party took the railways to which the minister has referred out of the difficulties that had been created by the lack of supervision of the Liberal 68108-195

Special Committee on Broadcasting party under which they were built. And that also might well have been part of the story that was placed before the house. But, Mr. Speaker, let us in this instance congratulate the government on the refreshing frankness they have displayed on this occasion when they did point out that the policy of the C.B.C., as well as the creation of the C.B.C., was laid down by the Conservative party under the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett.

It was extremely interesting and also refreshing to hear these words spoken by the minister who put forward the case of the government, as reported at page 3009 of Hansard:

I can do no better than to quote . . . Mr. Bennett.

Oh, how long we have waited for that refreshing truth; how 'long we have waited for that admission that they have found where they can go for policies that will really stand the test.

Topic:   BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Defence Production; Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Howe:

He was the last Conservative worth quoting.

Topic:   BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

George Alexander Drew (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Drew:

"I can do no .better than to quote Mr. Bennett." And so the government proceeded to place before the house the statement that Mr. Bennett made at the time the C.B.C. was being brought into existence. Yes, the C.B.C. has served this country well and has developed and expanded; but at that particular point, after having referred to the statement of policy of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, as he was at that time, the government unfortunately got back to form and departed from this refreshing admission of the facts, which up to that point had placed on the record a statement which might still have stood as an example of the kind of impartial recognition of the contribution made by governments of both parties throughout the years since 1867, that one should expect.

Great contributions have been made to the development of this country by governments of the Liberal party throughout the years, just as great contributions have been made by governments of the Conservative party. It was a refreshing thing yesterday to find the government-whether in an atmosphere of death-bed repentance or otherwise I do not know, but whatever the circumstances were-placing before the house and placing on the record for the people to read the fact that these great communication and transportation systems which have played such a vital part in the development, the expansion and the unity of Canada were in fact contributed to this country by the vision, energy and action of the Conservative party throughout the years.

Special Committee on Broadcasting

At this point, Mr. Speaker, the position of the government departed strangely from what it had 'been up to then. We were then told that if the policy supported toy the Conservative party were adapted there would be no French-'language television broadcast in Canada. What a shameless appeal to prejudice by a minister who accepts the responsibility of dealing with the particular subject now under discussion. What an utterly shameless distortion of the facts.

Topic:   BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Jean Lesage (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance)

Liberal

Mr. Lesage:

Did you quote Hansardl

Topic:   BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

George Alexander Drew (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Drew:

What are the facts? Has that minister not heard of the application of La Presse in Montreal? Has that minister not heard that when the application of La Presse for a French television broadcasting station came up for consideration it was deferred and is still deferred, and that under the policies established by this government will be deferred until a date so distant that we do not yet know when that may be? Had that minister, speaking on behalf of the government, not been informed of an application for a French television broadcasting station in the city of Quebec, the ancient capital of French Canada? If he had not, then there are members of the government who are fully aware of the situation connected with that application, and they should have informed him of the facts, because that application will come up for consideration on March 27, only nine days from now. It is unfortunate that the minister responsible is so unaware of matters of this kind that he should have ignored that fact.

That has been the policy of this government, which has withheld the opportunity to have French as well as English broadcasting in many places across Canada from which applications have been made to permit broadcasting. It is to be hoped that the government will not again put forward any appeal to prejudice and misunderstanding which can so easily be disposed of by the record which the government itself has at its disposal.

Then, Mr. Speaker, let us deal with the suggestion that an attempt is being made to hand over the control of television to private hands. Where has there been a suggestion of that at any time in this house from any hon. member? There has not been one, and the government knows it. When the argument is put forward that the policy of the Conservative party would be to hand over these television stations to their wealthy friends, as the statement was, I do believe it is about time to remind this house and the people of Canada that, except for those years that are described as the hungry thirties, when the economic storm swept Canada as well as the whole world, this government has

been in power since 1921, and that all the great wealth and the monopolies that have grown up during those years have been monopolies fathered by the loving care of this government throughout that period. Not only were they fathered with the loving care of this government, but fathered with that attention which fathers sometimes do not demand -a consideration from those to whom they gave their being, which no father would ordinarily exact of any child.

No; let this party examine the record. Let this party go down the list of those who have made great fortunes in Canada, and see how frequently those men were visitors in the offices of this present government. Let them do that before they start talking about wealthy friends. That is the kind of thing that has no relationship to the motion before the house, and which of necessity has involved further discussion on the subject at this time.

Let the government look at those who have applied for the right to broadcast television programs, in French as well as in English. There they will find friends-yes, and more than friends-of the government. They will find that in many cases there are people who have never hesitated to show their friendship and support of this government.

I do not criticize that. I believe it would be a very good thing for this country if every businessman in Canada declared his political colour, and came out into the open as to what his political beliefs are. But how often has the statement been heard in these past few years-"Oh, I would like to take a more active part in politics, but this government is so closely associated with our business activities that we do not think it would be a healthy thing for us to do so".

No; we say we think it would be a very good thing if businessmen openly declared their support of this government, or of other political parties. We think it is a good thing when businessmen declare their support of the C.C.F. party, and the Social Credit party as well-as, indeed, some of them do. We think it is a very unwise thing when those who have accepted and created positions of responsibility under our free enterprise system do not take their part actively and openly in the democratic processes, just like every other Canadian.

Topic:   BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

And so they would, if they were not afraid.

Topic:   BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

George Alexander Drew (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Drew:

Yes, to repeat the comment that has just been interjected; so they would, if they were not afraid. And I think that comment very appropriately fits this situation,

area is through privately-owned stations. In addition to those 30 stations which are carrying basic programs, there are 17 more private stations carrying supplementary programs for the C.B.C. So on the dominion network there is one C.B.C. station and a total of 47 private stations carrying basic and supplementary programs.

Then let us examine the trans-Canada network, the first of the two networks said to be created. On that network there are 16 C.B.C. stations and 26 private stations carrying basic and supplementary programs. Surely there is an example of co-operation between public and private ownership in which the private stations are providing by far the largest number of outlets for the programs initiated over the C.B.C.

Let us see what happens in the case of the French network. There the situation is similar. Again, in the broadcasting of French programs over what is known as the French network there are 3 C.B.C. stations and 12 privately-owned. That is exactly the kind of partnership that is healthy and in accordance with the basic policy laid down by the Conservative party under the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett in 1932, consistently supported by this party to this day, and now advocated as the policy which should be adopted in this country.

We believe this policy should be adopted for television.. We believe competition is good in television as well as in radio. We believe there should be competition in the dense centres of population between private and publicly-owned stations. We believe there should also be a similar type of cooperation between private and publicly-owned stations. We believe that in the building of microwave relay connections or in the building of coaxial cables, whichever method may be employed for the transmission of programs, there should be the same effective partnership between private and public ownership throughout the country.

But, Mr. Speaker, there again we come to one of the difficulties we find in understanding exactly what the government are advocating. They picture to us the horrors of United States programs. Oh, it was a terrible picture that was painted to us yesterday of the United States programs to which we might be subjected if the C.B.C. did not exercise an exclusive monopoly over television in this country. Well, the strange thing about it is that this government, which says that it is so determined to keep out United States programs, entered into a most improvident arrangement for the purpose of bringing in those programs. Before they had any contracts for programs from the United

States they entered into a contract under which they are now committed to a rental of $225,564 a year, payable to the Bell Telephone Company for a period of five years, for services which they have not yet been able to make available to them.

Here is a case where private and public ownership do offer the suggestion of competitive advantage. Any private ownership dependent upon revenues for survival would have tried to find out where it was going to get the programs before it committed itself to an expenditure of $225,564 a year for a period of five years. The government has entered into an arrangement under which it has attempted to make sure of United States programs, which it condemns so roundly; but it has failed to get them, except in one or two instances, because it has not been able to make satisfactory arrangements. With their low concept of the intrinsic value of the dollar, private companies of course would have tried to find out first whether they were going to get some revenue by the use of that service if it were arranged in that way.

There is another point I should like to recall which indicates the difficulty we have in understanding some of the arguments that are put forward. We were told of the terrors of United States programs. Yet at the same time we were told of the wonderful cultural broadcasts we get over the C.B.C., the opera on Saturday afternoon, the great symphony orchestras and other musical programs. Where do those come from? Where does the Metropolitan Opera broadcast come from? I was under the impression it came from New York, and I was strongly under the impression that it is sponsored by a private enterprise which pays a lot of money so that people may hear opera and so that it may have its own name briefly associated with that very commendable cultural broadcast. Then we also hear the New York philharmonic orchestra, one of the greatest and finest in the world, every week during the fall, winter and spring months. There again, strangely enough, this "evil" of private enterprise rears its ugly head, and again from the United States we find this "evil force" asserting its influence.

Again, on Sunday night, when so many people are at home, we find cultural programs, and some not quite so cultural but entertaining, being broadcast by the C.B.C. There again, strangely enough, they come from the United States and are sponsored by these "evil" private enterprise organizations which the government, at least in the speech of yesterday, held up to such abhorrence.

18, 1953 3075

Special Committee on Broadcasting

We do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that the control of television would safely rest in the hands of private enterprise if over-all control were entrusted to them. Never at any time, nor at this time, has a single member of this party suggested any such thing. Never! What we do suggest is that the competitive advantages, so simply and clearly stated by the chairman of the C.B.C. should be assured by a truly competitive system operating under an independent and impartial commission just as the private and public railways do, just as the private and public shipping lines do, just as the private and public air lines do.

We remind the government that never at any time has the government suggested that the operation of the C.P.R. in competition with Canadian National Railways or other rail lines in Canada be placed under the exclusive control and supervision of the Canadian National Railways. I do not believe that a single member of the government would ever make any such suggestion. Never at any time has the government suggested that the air lines of the country should be placed under the exclusive control of Trans-Canada Air Lines. I do not believe the government will make any such suggestion. There again the licensing and making of regulations are carried on by an independent body and not by the competing and operative organization. I do not believe the government would suggest for a moment that the public and privately-owned shipping lines, carrying goods and passengers in our domestic waters or overseas, should be placed exclusively under the control of the government-owned shipping lines. This government has asserted the proposition in relation to those enterprises that there should be competition and that the competition should be supervised, with licensing controlled and regulations made by an independent body not actively engaged in those operations.

But we are told, when we come to examine television, that the wave lengths and frequencies are in the public domain and must not be made a monopoly in the hands of any private enterprise. There never was a speaker of the old Marxian school who enunciated a clearer declaration against private enterprise than the government did yesterday when it pictured the horrors of private profits that might grow out of assigning wave lengths and frequencies to private enterprise.

What about the land that is set aside for rail lines? Is that not part of the public domain? When a government of Canada sets aside thousands of acres of land across this country for a rail line, public or private, is that not setting aside a monopoly over that

3076 HOUSE OF

Special Committee on Broadcasting particular part of the public domain for long years ahead, and so far as we are concerned in our lifetime, for perpetuity? What about airports and other land requirements of the air lines, public and private? Are they not part of the public domain set aside indefinitely throughout the years ahead by this government as a monopoly for the public or private operations to which they are assigned? Yes, certainly, those are monopolies, monopolies placed under control. We assert that either a public or private monopoly should be under impartial control at all times. We do not believe that a private or public monopoly should be used either for the benefit of a government or for the benefit of any group of people, private or public, in an enterprise of this nature.

Now that the government has at last seen the light, has adopted the policy of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett and says we can use no better words than his in describing the position we take, we hope that at last it will come to an understanding of the type of competition between private and public enterprise that has been the genius of this combined system in the case of railways, air transportation and radio broadcasting, and will be so in the case of television if it is properly employed. Mr. Speaker, the party which was- responsible for the creation of a publicly-owned broadcasting system in Canada, the party which brought the C.B.C. into existence, believes that the C.B.C. should be protected, and should be at all times removed from government interference which will be detrimental to the operation of that system for the general advantage of the people of Canada. Any time we have raised objection to interference with the C.B.C. by this government, we have done so in the belief that the C.B.C. has played, can play and will play a vitally important part in the cultural development of this country. It would be the hope that we will not again hear such a misrepresentation of the facts as we heard in this house yesterday.

This government is not uninformed in regard to what has taken place. This government knows quite well that in the case of educational broadcasts, which are of such immense value to the people of Canada, those come under the supervision of the provincial departments of education because education is still exclusively the responsibility of the provincial governments. I have had excellent experience in the remarkable work done by the C.B.C. in the field of education. For a while I had some responsibility for the educational broadcasts going out to the schools in one province, and to the children at home. I received the utmost co-operation,

the most wholehearted support, in broadcasting the types of programs that the department of education of that province thought would be of advantage to the young people. From conferences I have attended where ministers of education from other provinces were present, I know the same experience has been common throughout Canada. There has been remarkable cooperation between the C.B.C. and the departments of education in broadcasting educational programs in French and in English in- every part of this country.

The C.B.C. has given excellent service to this country through the Farm Forum which regularly permits discussion over the radio of the problems of the farmers, so they may hear the views the farmers exchange concerning this great and basic industry of Canada. Every day the. farm news, which digests the latest prices and interesting information concerning farm activity, goes out across Canada and is of great advantage to the farmers. In many cases they arrange their day so they are in their homes to hear this excellent broadcast. The people right across this country have come to appreciate the news broadcasts which go out over the C.B.C. I have stated my own belief that there are no better broadcasts going out over the radio stations of any country of which I know than the regular news broadcasts going out over the C.B.C. Where there has been criticism, it has been in cases where there has been interference with that measure of independence which is so important to the C.B.C., as it is to the private stations as well.

The way to assure that measure of independence which will maintain a broadcasting system second to none for the advantage of Canadians is to 'create an independent body similar to those which exercise even-handed justice in the case of the railways, the shipping lines, air lines and other similar services within this country. There may be cases where the parties are not satisfied. Even before our impartial courts the litigants are not always satisfied. But on the whole we Canadians have reason to be proud of the impartial service given by these public servants of different political persuasions who accept responsibilities on these important boards and commissions, recognizing the highest traditions of the civil service of this country and giving Canadians a great service. It is that kind of body that we suggest should exercise control. We wish to make quite sure that the control of television or radio is not in private hands.

We want to make equally sure that the control of these great media of information

and, propaganda as well-if that be the purpose for which they are employed-should not be in the hands of any government which is prepared to abuse the relationship which it has to those great public media of information and communication.

Subject to that reservation, in the case of either private or public distribution of programs of this nature we think there should be complete freedom of broadcasting, both in radio and television, subject only to those decencies which apply to ordinary communications between decent people. We believe that there certainly should be standards of decency with regard to programs either in the case of television or of radio broadcasting. As was pointed out by the government yesterday, a much higher measure of responsibility rests upon those who distribute programs by television than rests upon those who distribute programs which go out over the radio.

The government properly pointed out that great care should be taken that pictures, which make such a great impression on the minds of youth, should not be carried into the homes if they convey any impressions that might be detrimental to the splendid youth of Canada. Most certainly that statement should be kept in mind by the government itself in its decisions as to the kind of programs which will be broadcast. There have been in this country television broadcasts by government-owned, stations which no private station would have undertaken. Before every private station is held up to scorn for the kind of programs it gives, let the government examine the mote in its own eye. Let it examine the text of some of the broadcasts that have gone out over the government-owned television stations and see whether those are the kind of television broadcasts its members would like their own, children to receive in their homes if they did not ha,ppen to be there at the time the program was coming in. Surely that is a fair test, since they themselves have put forward the importance of recognizing the special importance of television broadcasting.

Mr. Speaker, we Canadians certainly have reason, to look with some concern at the situation with which we are confronted today. As the government said yesterday, television may now be the most important means of communicating ideas that has ever been made available to man. Of course the people of most of Canada are not going to know that, from their own experience, for some time to come. But as the government pointed out, we are living next door to a country which has a tremendous number of television programs. When the government

18, 1953 3077

Special Committee on Broadcasting told us that the restrictive course they are following with regard to television programs in the larger cities is designed to protect our people from United States programs and to give them Canadian programs, let them look at the real facts of the case.

Let us take Toronto as an example, where it is possible for people to see both C.B.C. and United States programs at the same time, depending on their own choice. The C.B.C. has decided, that it is going to maintain, in the Toronto area, a monopoly for the publicly-owned system. Let us see what has happened. Ever since the C.B.C. station started broadcasting, the audience which has been tuning in on the C.B.C. programs has been steadily going down with the result that today only about 20 per cent of the television audience is tuning in on C.B.C. programs while 80 per cent is tuning in on United States programs from Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse. We have not kept out United States programs by that device.

This would be a good time for the government to listen to the words of the chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which were to the effect that competition will keep the C.B.C. on its toes, and that competition naturally develops the kind of spirit that improves programs and builds up better programs. That is what we are advocating. We are advocating that there be publicly-owned and privately-owned stations in the great centres right across Canada. That is what we have advocated at all times. Never at any time have we suggested that there be either a private or a public monopoly in any centre in Canada. We want the advantages of competition under impartial control and supervision such as that which we have described.

What we have said is that we believe in the policy laid down by Right Hon. R. B. Bennett-a policy now adopted by this government-that in those places where it is not possible to have private broadcasting, the C.B.C. should provide facilities. That is perfectly sound. This is what Right Hon. R. B. Bennett said on May 18, 1932, in, the speech quoted with such great approval by the government yesterday. It may be found at page 3035 of Hansard of that year:

Private ownership must necessarily discriminate between densely and sparsely populated areas. This is not a correctable fault in private ownership; it is an inescapable and inherent demerit of that system. It does not seem right that in Canada the towns should be preferred to the countryside or the prosperous communities to those less fortunate . . . Equality of service is assured by the plan which calls for a chain of high power stations throughout Canada. And furthermore, the particular requirements of any community may be met by the installation of low power stations by means of which local broadcasting service may be obtained.

3078 HOUSE OF

Special Committee on Broadcasting

Those words, Mr. Speaker, were particularly sound with regard to radio broadcasting, and they are sound with regard to television broadcasting. Of course a new feature arises in connection with television. The area within which a program can be picked up directly from any station is smaller and consequently it becomes more difficult to carry those programs to more distant points. If there is to be equality of cultural opportunity, throughout Canada, which we believe should be made a reality as far as possible, it is essential that the publicly-owned system go into those areas where it is not likely or practical that private enterprise will enter the field of competition and provide facilities, just as they did in the case of radio broadcasting.

That was the concept in 1932. It has been the concept all along, and since the government does exercise directly or indirectly such an influence over the committees set up by this house in which there is a majority of members supporting the government, these arguments have been put forward in the hope that the deliberations of the committee will be carried on with the knowledge in the minds of the members of the committee who ordinarily support the government that it is the hope of the government that there will be continuing competition and continuing partnership between the two types of broadcasting.

I am not saying, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the committee are going to be necessarily subservient to the government in anything they do. I only suggest that the government, with that relationship which it has to the members of the party to which it belongs, should indicate to them quite clearly that it does support the policy that was enunciated by the Conservative party in 1932 and that is put forward by the Conservative party today; and that when this committee meets the government hopes that it will conduct its deliberations with the idea that it is the purpose of the government and of this house generally to give to the people of Canada as complete equality as possible in the cultural advantages that can flow from this new medium of communicating ideas.

Topic:   BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
CCF

Clarence Gillis

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

Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breion South):

Mr. Speaker, I would be quite willing to give way to the minister provided he had time to make a proper answer, but there are a few words that I should like to say at this time.

I sat here and listened to the debate with a great deal of interest. I am awfully pleased to hear the speeches from the government side of the house and from the official opposition at this time. I was particularly pleased

[Mr. Drew.}

this afternoon to hear the Leader of the Opposition, in no uncertain terms, lay down what is the policy of the Conservative party at this time in regard to public ownership as related to this debate. Well, now, if you believe in public ownership to the extent that has been announced, both from the government side and by the Leader of the Opposition, then you must go along with that philosophy in other things.

I have listened to speeches yesterday and this afternoon on this particular subject, that I am glad were made, and I hope the newspaper editors across this country, supporting both the government and the official opposition, will take very careful note of this debate and the principles that have been accepted by both the Conservatives and the Liberals; because since 1932 to my own knowledge, up to a few weeks ago, the policy of the C.C.F. has been practically what has been accepted by both the opposition and the government at this time in relation to this debate, except that we were logical and carried it forward into other basic industries and natural resources in this country. Speeches such as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) made yesterday and the Leader of the Opposition made this afternoon received scare headlines. Editorials were written to the effect that the C.C.F. were socialists and communists because they dared to suggest the kind of things that have been accepted in this debate as being a desirable development for this country. I just wanted to make that observation because if this debate has proven anything it has proven the correctness of the C.C.F. policy since 1932 in regard to the development of the resources of this country.

Today everybody wants to take credit for the C.B.C. I am not particularly concerned as to who gets the credit for it as long as the Canadian people get the service. I have heard other opinions expressed in the years I have been here. There is no doubt about it; the Leader of the Opposition read into the record this afternoon the beginning of the discussion in this house as far as the C.B.C. is concerned; but during the time I have been here I have heard other opinions expressed from that direction, and if I were going to give any individual credit for the C.B.C., for T.C.A., for Polymer, for Canadian Arsenals and those organizations that are of great benefit to this country today I would select the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) because from 1940 until the present time he has been a minister of the government and I have been a member of the house.

During that period of time I heard many discussions in this house on this subject,

and I saw the Minister of Trade and Commerce moved from transport to reconstruction and juggled around in half a dozen different departments; but no matter where he went he took radio with him and he took the T.C.A. with him until very recently, until he was assured that it was consolidated and was accepted by the members of this house.

I have heard him have many a bitter fight in this house over the development of T.C.A., and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. If I were picking any individual I would pick him. Mind you, I do not think he had very much support in the early years on that side of the house, and he had none on this side, with the exception of the small group that sat here who used to take up the cudgels and help him in the kind of development we knew was desirable for this country.

Of course the part of the country you live in conditions your thinking in so far as the services of the C.B.C. are concerned. We accept the principle; we believe that is how it should be developed; but if you are living in the part of the country from which I come and you stay there exclusively you do not get a good opinion of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. For a start, you have the station at Sackville, New Brunswick;

I think it is CBA. It is supposed to be the voice of the maritimes. I am safe in saying that in 75 per cent of the maritimes you cannot get that station at all.

Second, in the area in which I live we cannot forget that we had private broadcasting in that area for 20 years at least before the C.B.C. station made its appearance there, and in that area that private station does a good job. We cannot forget that. I know that in 1950 a C.B.C. outlet was established in Sydney, but it has an unfortunate position on the dial. Most of the radios in the area will not pick it up at all, and quite naturally the only station left to you is CJCB. That station does an excellent job, and I was glad to hear it announced in the house that the management of the station will be granted a licence to establish a television station in the area when there is a Halifax station with an outlet that may be picked up and relayed along there.

Will you call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?

Topic:   BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink

March 18, 1953