Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my attention that the statement which I made on April 5 announcing the terms of the fourth victory loan has been misinterpreted. At that tinm I stated that the long term bonds bearing interest at three per cent per annum will mature at par on May 1, 1957, but will be redeemable at the option of the government at par and accrued interest on or after May 1, 1954, at sixty days' notice. This redemption date is provided in the terms of the offering merely as a time after which the government has the option of redeeming or calling the bonds before maturity and paying the holders one hundred cents on each dollar they have invested. Similar callable provisions are to be found in practically all long term government bonds.

This has been misinterpreted to give prevalence to the story that the bonds of the fourth victory loan will not be marketable until after May 1, 1954, which is absolutely incorrect. The bonds of the fourth victory loan will be just as saleable as the bonds of earlier victory loans, which have

had a ready market since their date of issue. Before every victory loan we are deluged with rumours all of which seem to attempt to impair the sale of bonds. The fourth victory loan is no exception. Such rumours are false, vicious and subversive. They could not be worse if they were enemy inspired, which they may be. I urge that Canadians everywhere do everything in their power to stamp out such rumours. I suggest that they inquire into the facts, before repeating stories which are designed to impair the effectiveness of national efforts, such as the fourth victory loan.

Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege arising out of a report in t tl.3 Ottawa Citizen of an address made yesterday by Doctor James S. Thomson, general manager of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to the Ottawa Canadian club. Among other things, the general manager is reported as having said:

The other day in the course of parliamentary debate, the status of the Canadian broadcasting corporation was discussed and fortunately the Prime Minister and the leaders of two of the opposition parties all took part.

From these answers it will be observed that there is agreement among all parties in the house that we are not a department of government.

On February 8, at pages 210 and 211 of Hansard, the status of the corporation was the subject of remarks by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and myself, and at page 211 of Hansard I said:

Those of us who have made some study of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's structure realize that it is half and half, so to speak, partly a department of government and partly a public corporation. As I understand, it is m some respects like the Canadian National Railways while in other respects it is not. One of the recommendations of the radio broadcasting committee last year was that this anomalous position of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should be clarified, and I hope the government will do something about it.

During the proceedings of the radio broadcasting committee last session, I had occasion to refer in effect to the status of the corporation as an emanation from the crown which has only half emanated. The report of that committee recognized certain anomalies in the status of the corporation and indicated

Private Bills

that the corporation may be sued, but still may not be taxed, and unlike the Canadian National Railways, with which it is sometimes erroneously compared, it has never achieved the status where its employees have been granted the right to organize and collectively bargain.

We have read of the centaur of mythical days-half man and half horse-and until this corporation has its centauric legal status clarified, it is quite improper and incorrect for the general manager to say that "there is agreement among all parties in the house" that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is not a department of government, and I want to object to having my position so interpreted.

Hon. L. R. LaFLECHE (Minister of National War Services): Mr. Speaker, may I say a word in reply to the hon. gentleman? I have seen the article in- question

Order.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The leader of the opposition referred to this matter on a question of privilege, and I think it might well now be dropped.

On the orders of the day:

Hon. L. R. LaFLECHE (Minister of National War Services): Mr. Speaker, may I say that an article which purports to report a speech made yesterday by Doctor J. S. Thomson, the general manager of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, was brought to my attention very late this morning. I did not have time to speak to Reverend Doctor Thomson, but I have asked that he come over to discuss this matter with me along with some other questions. This matter was alluded to this afternoon by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon). May I suggest that it is not well that a false impression be created in regard to the affairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Perhaps it is not known or realized or remembered that recently a very experienced gentleman in the labour field was appointed governor of the corporation. It is certainly not known to the leader of the opposition that I have written to Doctor Thomson about such matters or discussed them with him, but I have asked him to see the new governor about the staff. The corporation will have the benefit of the knowledge and long experience in the labour field of the gentleman who has recently been appointed governor.

I should also like to point out that it is difficult to get to the bottom of anything concerning radio until we reach the motion

on the order paper for the appointment of a select committee on radio broadcasting. That motion has been standing on the order paper in my name for nearly two months now. I fully realize that that is not anyone's fault, but I am very anxious to get to it.

Mr. SPEAKER:

This bill is not strictly in order. The petition to the house was not presented within the first six weeks of the session, as required by standing order 92. The six weeks' period expired on March 10. The petition in question was presented on March 26. On March 29 the clerk of petitions reported to the house that the petition should not be received. On March 31 the petition was referred to the standing orders committee and is now before that committee and therefore cannot be dealt with to-day.

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

I should like to direct a question to the ministers of national defence. It was announced over the radio that the members of the armed forces would not be granted leave for the Easter week-end because of transportation difficulties. I suggest that at this season of the year particularly, a great many men would like to be with their families. May I ask whether

Hyde Park Agreement

the announcement made over the radio is correct, and if so, whether something cannot be done about giving the men leave?

Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):

Speaking for the army, the matter has not been brought to my attention, but I shall be glad to make inquiries.