Order. I asked the hon. member for Villeneuve to co-operate with the Chair and to accept my suggestion that he should confine his remarks to the motion under consideration, and I am sure that he will do so.
Topic: INTERIM SUPPLY
Subtopic: MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Sub-subtopic: FEDERAL EXPENDITURES BY PROVINCES
Mr. Speaker, I will respect your ruling, but I would like you to call the hon. member for Lotbiniere to order, because he is always interrupting us.
Coming back to the matter under discussion with regard to the motion introduced by the hon. member for Lapointe asking for the production of papers showing the moneys collected and spent in the provinces, I feel that the hon. member for Lapointe is not talking through his hat. He knows what he is talking about, because he is aware that such a report exists.
In addition, we read in the papers a report which was denied of course by the Minister of Finance, to the effect that the minister is very much annoyed at the report submitted by his high officials and which points out that for a very long time the province of Quebec has not been treated as it should.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that it is not only the present administration which is to blame; the previous one carries its share of the responsibility.
The leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) was in office for six years and, during that time, not only do we feel that less money was spent in Quebec, but the money collected there was used to pay western farmers, at election time, to nab people's votes, to try to win seats. This was done on three occasions.
Now, today we are insisting, and we shall keep on insisting, that the motion for papers proposed by the hon. member for Lapointe be implemented. Even if it is rejected, we shall keep on demanding the tabling of those documents, not at the country's expense, but to find out exactly what is going on.
If the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Pennell) tells us that it is not the procedure or the custom to make public communications between officials and ministers, we believe that the people who pay the taxes in Canada, that the citizens of the province of Quebec and the other provinces who pay federal taxes, have the right to know the truth as far as taxation is concerned, and the whole truth. I do not think that one should play hide and seek, as has been done before and as they are trying to do at this time.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
Topic: INTERIM SUPPLY
Subtopic: MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Sub-subtopic: FEDERAL EXPENDITURES BY PROVINCES
Mr. Chairman, when I was interrupted at five o'clock I was speaking on the need for extension of television service, and in particular on the need to make this service available to the interlake area of Manitoba. I had just begun to outline the history of the C.B.C. station in Winnipeg.
Station CBWT Winnipeg began operation in May 1954 on channel 4, with an antenna height of 192 feet, this height limitation being imposed because of its proximity to the Winnipeg airport. At that time channel 4, assigned to Winnipeg by the Department of Transport, was the best channel available to give maximum fringe area coverage. In July 1954 KXJB-TV, Valley City, North Dakota, went into operation on the same channel with a transmitter located only 192 air miles from Winnipeg, at a power of 100 kilowatts and tower heights of 1,090 feet. This resulted in considerable co-channel interference in the area north and south of Winnipeg.
Following a study of the problem, the C.B.C. decided to make a change from channel 4 to channel 3. This channel was selected
since it entailed no change in the existing transmitter and antenna. This is what the C.B.C. said. Another consideration favouring the choice of channel 3 at that time was the fact that receiver antennae in fringe reception areas of CBWT would be almost as effective on channel 3 as they had been on channel 4. CBWT changed to channel 3 with a power of 57.8 kilowatts on April 16, 1958. However, people living beyond the A aid contour area had to purchase new antennae, and I have personal experience of this as my home is at Gimli, Manitoba, approximately 50 miles north of Winnipeg, and we could not operate with the former antenna. The limitation of power and tower height also meant that CBWT's coverage was correspondingly limited.
After the change took place from channel 4 to channel 3 the reception in most places north of Winnipeg became worse. The C.B.C. had assured everyone that this change would bring about better reception, but actually it was worse than ever before. This is the television service we are still getting today.
Following this changeover and the subsequent deterioration in t.v. reception I again pleaded the case for the need of improvement of t.v. services in the interlake area, and the C.B.C. advised me as follows:
Because of the heavy demands on capital budget due to general extension of the national service in t.v. and radio, no provision could be made to improve CBWT's coverage until 1962, when an application would be made to increase the power and move to a new transmitter location with an antenna 1,027 feet effective height above average terrain.
When it was learned that the C.B.C. planned these changes the people in the interlake area took it for granted that television service would now be made available to them. Subsequently they learned that the C.B.C. had a site selected at Starbuck, Manitoba, which is south of Winnipeg and therefore not likely to bring about substantial improvement in television reception for the interlake area.
Subsequently the C.B.C. made application for an increase in the effective radiated power, a change in channel and a change of antenna site for station CBWT. This application was heard by the board of broadcast governors in April 1962. The people of the interlake area organized and presented a brief requesting that the antenna be located at Argyle, Manitoba, which is an area north of interlake. At the hearing Mr. Joe Karsin, of Arborg, Manitoba, presented the brief and answered questions relating to it. I have a transcript of the
hearing that was held and will make some reference to it. I may say this is sessional paper 129A.
The feeling of the people in the interlake area was if the antenna were located north of Winnipeg it would serve all the interlake district. It would appear that there is little cooperation between the Department of Transport and the C.B.C. It now appears that most of the land within 25 miles north of Winnipeg is restricted to antenna heights which would not be suitable. This is most unfortunate and does not make for good planning. Subsequently the board of broadcast governors approved the application for the Starbuck site.
During the hearing, officials of the C.B.C. indicated their reason for wanting the Star-buck site was because it would serve a heavier populated area than the Argyle site. This, they said, was their only reason. By locating at Starbuck, the so-called "B contour" will reach 20 miles into the United States. The area south of Winnipeg is served by the private station CJOY, Winnipeg, whose antenna is located at Ste. Agathe, Manitoba. The southwestern part of the province is served by Brandon, and there is a station just inside the U.S. border at Pembina. People in this part of Manitoba will have several choices of t.v. station, while people in the northern part of the interlake area will still be without television.
I maintain that the principle adopted here by the C.B.C. is wrong. It should have been its first duty to provide service to the people who at present are excluded. Every taxpayer in Canada is a shareholder in the C.B.C. and every shareholder is entitled to equal service.
I have asked questions in the house with regard to this changeover and wish to make brief reference to them. The questions are to be found at page 1218 of the 1963 Hansard and 2707 of Hansard for April 29, 1964. In the first question, I asked:
1. Did the B.B.G. approve a C.B.C. application for an increase in the effective radiated power, a change in channel, and a change of antenna site, of station CBWT, Winnipeg, Manitoba?
The answer was yes. In the second part of the question I asked:
2. If so, when was approval given and what changes are proposed in regard to video, audio, channel and antenna?
The answer to that part was:
The application was for an increase in effective radiated power from 57,800 watts ERP (video), 34,700 watts ERP (audio), to 100,000 watts ERP (video), 50,000 watts ERP (audio), a change in channel from channel 3 to channel 6 and an increase in the effective height above average terrain from 196 feet to 1,027 feet. The board's recom-
mendation for the approval of this application was contained in its public announcement of April 18, 1962.
One of the questions I asked was:
What site was chosen for the location of the new antenna; when was the property purchased, from whom, and at what cost?
The site chosen, I was informed, is at Starbuck, Manitoba. I asked whether any other sites were considered. The answer to this question was: "Yes, and the most suitable site acquired". Well, the C.B.C. said it would serve the most heavily populated area, but it will not provide a service in a large part of the northern area of Manitoba.
Another question I asked was when work on the project would be completed, and the answer given was, October, 1964. Mr. Chairman, we are near the end of October, now, and so far this change has not taken place.
On April 29 I asked further questions. I again asked when it was expected that the new service would come into operation and the answer, once more, was October, 1964. I asked, also:
Will this changeover improve television reception for the interlake area of Manitoba and, if not, how soon can one expect action to be taken to bring about this much needed improvement?
The answer to this question was:
It is anticipated that some areas of the interlake region will receive an improved reception but it is not possible to guarantee reception in specific areas.
I had also asked:
Should these changes fail to bring about an improvement in television viewing in the interlake area, what action will the C.B.C. or the B.B.G. take?
The answer was:
The corporation intends to conduct a survey of reception in the area following the completion of the proposed changes. The results of this survey will be used to determine what action if any should be taken.
At the hearing the C.B.C. officials made it abundantly clear that they could not guarantee that this change would improve the service in the interlake area. The applicants expressed the fear that if they did not get reception as a result of this changeover they would be left without television for many years to come. Remember, this is an area right in the middle of Manitoba; it is not an outlying area; it is not an area in the north. Surely, a situation like this should not be allowed to exist.
I wish to quote briefly at this point from the transcript of the hearing as reported in sessional paper No. 129. Mr. Pearson, for the
board of broadcast governors, is questioning Mr. Karsin who appeared for the interlake people. He is referring to a contour map of the Department of Transport where the original B contour of CBWT cuts across north of Teulon over, roughly, to lake Francis. The exchange reads as follows:
And the B contour will now pass somewhere up south of Oak Island Marsh and across Lundar and Mill End and Camp Morton- they would all be within the B contour? Would this not give beyond that some better signal than is presently received?
Incidentally, channel 7 is a private station. When it was established in Winnipeg the people in the interlake area thought they would get a television service. But the station built its antennae south of Winnipeg and reception did not extend to the northern part of the interlake area. Mr. Karsin's answer continued:
-we have a map there from CJAY and the fringe just goes north of Teulon and it does come in at times-it depends on atmospheric conditions. It does come in; sometimes it is good and at other times it is not, so this at Starbuck on channel 6 with 100,000 watts would be about the same-we would get reception just some of the time.
As I have said, the fear was expressed that adoption of this proposal would leave the area without television service for a long time to come. There are a couple of questions and answers toward the conclusion of the hearing to which I would like to refer. This is the part I want to quote. Dr. Stewart is now putting questions to an official of the C.B.C.:
Dr. Stewart; I am not sure if I missed this point, but supposing you were wrong and Mr. Karsin is even underestimating the deficiencies in this interlake area-supposing you make your move and it is still obviously quite inadequate service in the significant part of the interlake area, is it technically possible on a VHF band to correct this?
It would be technically possible, but I think this would be a matter of economics. Here again, depending on the number of population to be served-the population in that area is quite scattered-they are quite small communities-and a satellite normally doesn't cover a large geographical area. That would be a matter that would have to be figured out.
Dr. Stewart: I thought Mr. Karsin left the impression that if this didn't work, then the interlake area was lost for all time, in so far as service. Technically this is not so?
That is right. Technically, it is not true. At the same time the people of the interlake area fear that if the present set-up will not provide improved service they will be there for a long time without any service whatsoever.
No, it is not carried yet. I want to point out that station CBWT in Winnipeg went on the air in 1954. From 1954 to 1958 it was on channel 4. In 1958 it switched to channel 3 and the service became worse. It has been on channel 3 ever since. Next month, I presume, it will be changing to channel 6 and it has been indicated to me that as a result of this change the people in the area will have to buy new antennae at an expenditure to them of between $40 and $50 each. It seems to me there has been poor planning on the part of the C.B.C., otherwise they would not have had to switch the station twice.