Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved

the first reading of Bill 314 (from the Senate) to amend the Canada-United States of America Tax Convention Act, 1943, and the Canada-United States of America Tax Convention Act, 1944.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

1. What firms or individuals received contracts for supplying gas, oil, grease, coal, fuel oil, bread, meat and milk for the R.C.A.F. airport at Trenton, Ontario, in each of the years 1948, 1949 and 1950?

2. Were tenders called for these contracts?

3. What are the names and addresses of the firms or individuals who submitted tenders?

4. What was the contract price for each of the commodities mentioned in paragraph 1 above?

Mr. Mcllraith:

Mr. Speaker, when this question was called on May 31, I pointed out that the answering of it would require a good deal of time and work and would be very costly. Since that time I have been able to get part of the information for the hon. member who asked the question, and I have given to him all the information readily available pertaining to the subject matter of his question.

In those circumstances he has agreed that the question be dropped, and with the permission of the house I would ask that that procedure be followed.

Mr. Speaker:

Question dropped.

1. Did the government have approximately twenty-five houses built at Fort St. John, British Columbia?

2. If so, by what firm were such houses built?

3. What was the average cost thereof?

4. Were tenders called for the construction of these houses?

5. If so, from what firms were tenders received, and what were the amounts thereof?

1. Yes.

2. Poole Construction Company Limited, 10503-109th street, Edmonton, Alberta.

3. $15,500 (approximately).

4. No. This was a negotiated contract. Due to the urgency with which this military housing accommodation was required, and in view of the inaccessibility of the site, negotiations were carried on with Poole Construction Company Limited, considered to be the only firm in the vicinity with the necessary organization, personnel and experience to carry out this work expeditiously and economically.

5. Not applicable.

Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development) moved

that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:

That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the national film board, to define more clearly the purposes and powers of the board; and to provide, inter alia, that the board may acquire personal property, patents and copyrights, and enter into contracts for personal services for any purpose necessary for the production, distribution, projection or exhibition of films pursuant to this act; to authorize the governor in council to appoint and determine the salary of a government film commissioner, to be the chief executive officer of the board; to provide for the appointment, promotion and salaries of persons to fill positions under the board; and to provide further for the establishment of an account to be known as the national film board operating account and that expenditures made by the board from moneys in the consolidated revenue fund shall not at any time exceed the amount of receipts shown in the account by more than seven hundred thousand dollars or such lesser amount as may be fixed by the treasury board.

Mr. Fraser:

Mr. Speaker, is the minister going to make a statement?

Mr. Winters:

Yes, I am prepared to do so.

This resolution deals with the proposals designed to clarify the functions of the national film board and simplify its administrative machinery with a view to increasing the efficiency of its operations.

National Film Act

Perhaps I should refer briefly to the history

of the board's growth. Prior to 1939 the need of the government for motion and still pictures was met in two ways. The government film bureau, which was then in the Department of Trade and Commerce, produced both motion pictures and still photographs for other departments out of moneys appropriated for its operations. Other departments also contracted with outside producers for production of films and photographs which were paid for out of their own appropriations.

In 1939 the present act establishing the national film board as a co-ordinating board was enacted. Under the board the office of the government film commissioner was set up. The commissioner was authorized to act as a co-ordinator, adviser and general supervisor of government film activities. Government production of films, however, remained with the motion picture bureau, the director of which had production and distribution powers.

In 1941 it was decided to increase the production and distribution of government films. The motion picture bureau was transferred from the Minister of Trade and Commerce to operate under the national film board. Subsequently the office of director of the bureau became vacant and the government film commissioner, under the board, took over the production of films and photographs.

This method of operation was not contemplated when the National Film Act was enacted in 1939, and various expedients have been adopted to meet the new situation. The powers of the director of the motion picture bureau to employ temporary staff were used to employ the staff needed for the board. Working capital was provided for by annual appropriation and by advances from the Department of Finance recoverable at the end of each fiscal year. Operations have been carried on in this manner up to the present time.

This situation has given rise to difficulties in the operation of the board and to certain weaknesses in its structure. The purpose of the legislation proposed by the resolution now before the house is the removal of the causes of these difficulties and the establishment of a structural framework which will enable the board to operate on a businesslike basis.

To this end, it is proposed:

1. That the functions of the board conforming with its actual operations be defined.

2. That the board be reconstituted on a basis which will make it possible to carry out these functions efficiently.

3. That powers appropriate to these functions be conferred on the board and that the

National Film Act

board's responsibility to parliament through a designated minister of the crown be clearly established.

4. That executive machinery which will make efficient administration possible be established.

5. That appropriate power to staff the board be conferred and that provision be made for continuing members of the staff to come under the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act.

6. That financial arrangements suited to the board's present operations be established; and that, subject to control under the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, provision be made for the settting up of a film board operating account and of working capital which will enable the board adequately to finance its operations.

I shall have more to say on this subject when the bill reaches second reading. Essentially the resolution seeks leave to bring in a measure to clarify the functions of the board and authorize administrative machinery which will make possible its efficient operation.

Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):

Mr. Speaker, I did not expect that this resolution would be up this morning, as it was announced that we would continue with the Indian Act; therefore I shall not take up much time. I feel that in the last five years I have done nearly enough talking about the film board. I have criticized it severely, but I think in most cases it was with just cause. During those years I asked on many occasions about communists who were employed in the film board, and this situation has been cleared up. I asked that real businesslike methods be used, and I understand that since the report of the business consultants was issued and a new commissioner engaged, different methods have been used. I feel that members of parliament and the public should give the new commissioner a chance to show what he can do.

I asked that the report of the business consultants who had checked the operations of the film board be tabled, and that was done. That was an unusual procedure, but I think it was necessary in order to give hon. members and the public a chance to know the ins and outs and the whys and wherefores of the national film board. Because of the suggestions and criticisms I have offered, some of the matters that I complained of have been rectified.

It is stated on page 2 of the summary of the report of the business consultants that the board should be provided with a permanent

working capital fund of not less than $700,000. This matter is also referred to on page 7 of the report as follows:

The board has been hampered in its business operations by the lack of adequate working capital to finance inventories, accounts receivable, work in progress, etc. In addition to a working capital fund of slightly less than $300,000 a revolving fund of $200,000 has been provided in recent years ($300,000 is to be provided in 1950) but advances from this fund have had to be returned in full at the end of each fiscal year. This practice has caused an unnecessary disruption of the board's activities towards the end of March each year as efforts are directed to converting assets into cash in order to repay the advance.

It is obvious that some of the difficulties referred to above are inherent in government film production in Canada and will continue to be problems. They are mentioned here simply because they should be kept in mind in Judging the board's performance. Other difficulties can be overcome and these are dealt with in the balance of this report.

The resolution provides that the film commissioner is to be the chief executive of the board, which would mean that a minister of the crown would not be responsible, as at present, but that the board itself would be responsible to government. This is mentioned on page 8 of the report, where it states:

The operations of the national film board are quite different in many fundamental respects from those performed by regular government departments.

In regard to that I might say that a few years ago they were very different.

And if the board is to operate efficiently it will be necessary to continue to exempt it from certain parts of the over-all machinery of government control.

One obvious way of doing this would be to set up the national film board as a crown corporation organized, for example, along the lines of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation . . .

I do hope that if such a corporation is set up it will not exercise the same powers as have been exercised by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, in order to curtail the production of commercial films throughout Canada. We now have some very efficient motion picture companies in Canada. They are trying to make a go of their businesses, and they are doing a good job. I have seen their films, and they are good. All they need is a chance.

The report continues:

-the national research council or the national harbours board. Looking at the problem from the viewpoint of the national film board alone this would seem to be a logical solution. But it is also necessary to consider the relationship of the board to other governmental agencies and to ensure to the government a measure of control commensurate with its responsibility for the policies and activities of the board. On balance, we think it should be possible to establish the national film board within the regular government organization plan and yet

give it the flexibility which it must have to operate efficiently. To do this, it will be necessary to amend the National Film Act, 1939, in a number of respects:

In 1939 the National Film Act was passed in this house, and it was said at that time that there would only be one paid member of the board. The way in which the board has functioned in the last ten years is entirely different from the way in which the national film board was originally set up. It was like Topsy; it just grew up, "put on new clothes, and where it went nobody knows." The report continues:

1. To authorize an adequate working capital fund.

2. To permit the board to keep its accounts on a revenue and expenditure basis (i.e. on an accrual rather than on a cash basis) and to retain proceeds of sales.

3. To permit the board to engage necessary help during pleasure for positions within a plan approved by the governor in council and to permit such employees to be brought under the Civil Service Superannuation Act.

The situation at the present time is that practically all employees of the national film board are on a temporary three-months basis.

4. To permit the board to enter into contracts on behalf of His Majesty and in the name of the board for any purpose necessary to the production or distribution of films, filmstrips or still photographs.

I should like to pause there to say that I hope the new management will see to it that there is a definite curtailment in the taking and production of still pictures by the board. There is no doubt that the stills department has encroached on the business of commercial photographers throughout Canada. I know that is so, because I have had hundreds of letters from commercial photographers, and they have quoted instances in which the national film board has stepped on their toes. Press photographers have also been hindered in many ways by the national film board's activities in taking and selling still pictures. The report continues:

5. To grant authority for the transfer of funds from other departments and agencies to the board to cover the costs of activities undertaken on their behalf.

That would cover work undertaken for other departments of the government, such as the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the travel bureau, and so on. Films would be ordered by these departments from the national film board and paid for out of departmental funds. At the present time I think some departments still owe the film board for pictures made for them. Perhaps the pictures were so poor that they do not want to pay for them. I understand the Department of Agriculture had some films made by the national film board, and when they were completed they were so poor and

National Film Act

had such a communistic leaning that they were put in the vault and held there. They have not been released.

The report continues:

At present two ministers of the crown are members of the board, one of whom is chairman. While the ultimate responsibility for the board's activities must necessarily be assumed by the government, and the government must therefore have knowledge of its policies and activities, it should be possible to maintain the necessary control without requiring ministers of the crown to devote so much of their time to the board's affairs.

I should like to pause there. I do not believe that ministers of the crown, before the present minister assumed responsibility for the film board, devoted very much of their time to its activities. If they had devoted to it as much of their time as they should have, the national film board would be a better organization today, and they would not have made the mistakes that they did.

The report continues:

Furthermore we question the propriety of a minister acting as an equal member of the board and thus being placed in a position where he can be overruled by the other members. In future we suggest that the board should report to a designated minister through its chairman and that the practice of having ministers serve as members of the board should be discontinued. The designated minister would be responsible to parliament for the board's activities.

If a special committee of the House of Commons was established each year to go into the accounts and activities of the national film board I feel it would be worth while, and also it would help the board. I have always found that a little criticism helps. We like to be praised as much as possible, but it is the person who is enough of a friend to criticize you who generally is your best friend. That is the way I look at it.

The report goes on:

Matters requiring the approval of the treasury board or of the governor in council should be submitted to the minister for his prior approval-

As I understand it, that would have to do with obtaining more funds.

-and the amending legislation should provide that the board should comply with any directions given by the minister from time to time with respect to the exercise of its powers. In this connection the minister should approve the appointment of all the senior officials of the board subject to confirmation by the governor in council. The chairman should keep the minister advised at all times of the work which the board is doing and supply him with any reports he may require in, this connection, including :

(a) Copies of minutes of the meetings of members of the board.

If this proposal is carried out I hope the minister will read the minutes.

(b) An annual budget of revenues and expenditures subdivided by months.

National Film Act

That is something we have not had.

(c) A monthly statement comparing actual revenues and expenditures with the budget forecast.

With these safeguards the minister should be in a position to control the general policy of the board without having to concern himself with the details of its administration.

I have said before during this session, and as I said a few moments ago, there has been a definite change in the films produced by the national film board. I was talking to a well known motion picture man the other day and he told me that he felt that not only the pictures but the sound effects had improved. He said that during the first five or six years of the existence of the national film board the sound effects always reminded him of the man who was in charge of the board at that time, Grierson. They sounded like communistic music to him. Now we have a little softer music and the effect is much better. It used to grate on one's ears. I have been in theatres when one of the "Canada Carries On" series was shown, and people in the audience, not only in the front or back rows but all over the theatre, would say, "Oh, that darned thing again." They were absolutely sick of them.

We do need good films for our rural and urban schools. As I have said before, we also need good films to advertise Canada in foreign countries. I notice that one suggestion contained in this report by the business consultants has not been carried out by the new manager. In the report it was suggested that film distribution in foreign countries, with the exception of the United States, should be carried on by the Department of External Affairs, but within the last few weeks I believe an agent of the film board has been appointed for the United Kingdom. I have not the newspaper clipping here, but I saw it either in the New York Times or in one of the Canadian newspapers.

I said in the beginning, Mr. Speaker, that I would be brief. I believe we should wait until we have the bill before us, when we can go through it clause by clause. I also said I thought we should give the new manager a chance, and I honestly feel that this should be done.

Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):

Mr. Speaker, this is an important matter and, like many other important matters, should have been brought before the house earlier in the session. Like the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser), I propose to leave any detailed discussion until the bill is before the house, but there are several points I should like to make at this time.

Over the last few years I have felt that both this house and the film board itself

would have been well served by bringing the officials of that board before a parliamentary committee similar to the committee before which the officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation appear. I believe that would have obviated much uninformed discussion that has taken place across the country, and would have eliminated some of the criticism to which the board was subjected some time ago.

I feel that on the whole the national film board has done a very good job since its inception. Its documentary films depicting the life of the people of this country have been exceptionally well done, I think, and their distribution has been quite wide in North America, in the sister countries of the British commonwealth, and indeed in some of the countries of South America. From time to time I have heard very complimentary references by people from those countries to the films produced by this board. I would agree that there is a place in Canada for the commercial film, the commercial documentary, but I am not forgetting that the success of the commercial film organizations doing this type of work, of which we have one or two in this city, is due very largely to the encouragement, assistance and advice that has been given by the national film board. Therefore to a large extent many of these smaller commercial organizations have been beneficiaries of the work done by this public organization.

It is true that the activities of the film board, the staff and so on, have grown far beyond anything we anticipated when it was set up before the war. To some extent, of course, that was due to its activities during the war, when it filled a real place both in educating the public to our war needs and in letting the people know what the country was doing in many aspects of our war activities. Some of the films dealt with agricultural production in this country. Others I have seen had to do with industrial development. Others, of course, brought to our people some of the tragic scenes that occurred during the war, giving them perhaps more of an understanding of the dangers and devastation of war than they could have obtained otherwise. The same is true of our troops. Some of the films showed the activities of our soldiers overseas; some showed our naval vessels on convoy duty, while others showed the air force in action. Many of those films were not only interesting to our people during the war period but will be of great historic interest in future. I have no doubt that a century from now the people of this country will be viewing these films depicting what was done by the

men and women of Canada in the armed forces, in industry and in agriculture during the period of the second world war. In other words we have here to a considerable extent a visual history of our country in recent times compiled by this government organization.

I am very glad to see some of the recommendations contained in the report that has been made by those ifivestigating the activities of the film board. I want to say, too, how much the circuits of the film board are appreciated in the rural communities. I know that in my own province of Saskatchewan, and in the neighbouring provinces which I have had the opportunity of visiting from time to time, the periodic visits of projectionists with their films are appreciated by those in the country districts. Before, during and since the war people have gathered together in country school houses to enjoy what many may consider to be an evening's entertainment, though in reality it is an evening's education. The educational films that have been made by the board and distributed to the schools and community associations that have projection machines have been of great value, and I have felt that much more could be done along that line.

I should like to see films portraying the coming to this country of the French explorers, who first opened it up; the expeditions of the Hudson's Bay Company; the growth of our country historically, and the achievement step by step of our national status. I believe such films could be made with very great advantage to the country, both now and in the future. That would require a great deal of money, however, and even under this legislation we are not providing the necessary working capital to undertake projects of that kind. I should think that at a time like this, when we are trying to build and strengthen our democratic institutions and our democracy, the national film board could, given the facilities, perform a very useful service by making historical films which could be distributed, over the circuits I mentioned, to the schools, and indeed to the classes that are being held throughout the country for the newcomers who in the countries from which they came were not given information about our democratic institutions.

I believe it is essential, however, that the national film board retain a considerable amount of independence from day to day supervision by the minister. We are setting up a number of organizations to undertake certain public activities, both economic and social. We sometimes refer to them as crown corporations. These crown corporations must be answerable in some way to parliament and to

National Film Act

the representatives of the people, and a means has been developed by which they may be answerable, through appearance before committees of this house of representatives of such organizations as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canadian National Railways, Trans-Canada Air Lines, and so on. Yet we have to find a balance between the control of public institutions and the desirability of having them free from political interference. I believe that is something we have not yet worked out satisfactorily. But I feel that as we develop more and more public institutions, it is essential that we evolve ways and means of maintaining the independence of such corporations from political interference. I am not sure whether I like-in fact, I dislike it in some ways-the idea of bringing the employees of the national film board under the Civil Service Superannuation Act. I think they should be under a superannuation plan, but I believe we are endangering the freedom of the individual in this country by bringing more and more people under direct or indirect ministerial control through the civil service.

During the recent by-elections I saw letters that had been sent out to employees of organizations that were not, in my opinion, civil service organizations, telling them that they must have nothing to do with any form of political activity. At the same time I believe there were persons in the public service who did not fear the government and who supported government candidates. That sort of thing is entirely wrong. Where a man is in the public service, provided he does not occupy a confidential position in which he could use confidential information gleaned in his capacity as a public servant, he should be free to exercise all the usual functions of a citizen in a democratic state. Consequently I am hesitant about bringing the employees of some of these crown corporations into too close association with what I might call the political arm of our democratic society. I am not reflecting on the present minister or the present government when I say that, because governments of all stripes are faced with this particular problem.

As I said at the outset, I do not propose to discuss this report at any great length. I am glad that, so far as I have been able to read the report-and the extracts read by the member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) confirm this point of view-the film board was given a clean bill of health as a result of the investigation. I believe that is satisfactory, having regard to the criticism that was made through the press across the country, and sometimes in this house. I have known the new commissioner for a good many years in various capacities. I followed his work as

Judges Act

editor of Maclean's magazine, and I feel that ihe government made a good choice. I believe that Canada will be well served by the commissioner who was appointed some few months ago. I believe that the staff is a good staff. In spite of the criticism, and in spite of the fact that three or four members of the staff retired, I believe that on the whole the staff was trying to serve the best interests of the country in a democratic way. Over the years, with the resources at their disposal, they did a job of which they and this country can be proud.

Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.

Mr. Winters thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 317, respecting the national film board.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved

the second reading of Bill No. 316, to amend the Judges Act, 1946.

Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):

Mr. Speaker, the proposed increase in the number of judges in British Columbia would appear to be justified by the amount of litigation in that province. The provision with respect to district court judges is merely a change in the numbers in order to meet the situation, and as such is accepted. As to travelling expenses, the amounts designated are fair and reasonable and to that provision there can be no objection.

In the matter of appointments to judicial positions, I believe I speak for the bar of Canada when I say that political fitness ought not to be a prime consideration. I shall not refer to any appointments made since the minister has been in his present position, but I do impress upon him the necessity, if the bench is to retain the high reputation it has enjoyed over the years, of considering carefully all selections for appointments to superior, district and county court benches.

If political fitness be the only qualification, the judiciary of Canada will suffer, as will the administration of justice and democracy itself. More consideration should be given to the appointment of able members of the bar and outstanding leaders who do not happen to be government supporters. Since 1921, with the exception of five years, one party has been in power in this country, and in the

last seven or eight years there have been but two appointments to the bench of supporters of a political party other than that of the government. This situation demands the serious attention not only of the Minister of Justice, but of Canadians generally.

In the United States, in judicial appointments made by the federal authority and ratified by the Senate, as they must be, the usual method is to select a percentage of members of the bar, outstanding in their learning and ability, who do not happen to be supporters of the government of the day. Thirty per cent of the appointments to superior courts is the allocation given to outstanding members of the bar of political parties other than that of the President of the United States.

Unless greater consideration is given to the selection of outstanding leaders of the bar, learned in the law, I fear for the continuance of the inviolability and sanctity of the bench. I make this statement knowing that I represent the views of the majority of the bar of Canada, irrespective of political considerations. Appointments to the bench should not be dependent merely upon the consideration that a member of the bar has been a defeated candidate in an election. Some years ago a distinguished member of the United States bar who was addressing a meeting in Canada, was introduced in eulogistic terms by a distinguished member of the Canadian bar. But the Canadian took it upon himself to say that there was only one criticism he had to offer of the United States system of jurisprudence. He felt that an elected judiciary was a dangerous expedient, particularly when a federal or state election was about to be held. He said it was difficult to understand why the majority of the members of the bench of the United States were elected. The United States leader of the bar said that having been in Canada only a matter of two days he was beginning to wonder whether one of the prime qualifications in Canada is not to be elected, but rather to have been defeated once or twice.

Above all else we must maintain the supremacy of the bench, its detachment, its freedom from the suggestion that any qualifications other than ability, capacity and integrity-and I place integrity above all- shall be matters of consideration in appointment.

Not only must justice be done; it must be done expeditiously. There should be no unnecessary delay between the hearing of a case and the rendering of the judgment. I am sure the Minister of Justice has known of occasions on which members of

the bench have waited so long to render a decision that if they remembered the name of the case they certainly did not remember the facts of the case. It is not a matter of recent occurrence. Over the years there has often been too much delay between the hearing of the case and the delivery of judgment. Reserving judgment is a good idea, as long as it does not carry over for such a length of time as to be detrimental to the administration of justice.

Because of the fact that there has been a great increase in litigation in British Columbia, I feel that that portion of the bill deserves the support of all. Above everything else, justice must be administered, and litigants must believe that they have received justice. Delays of one, two or three and a half years in rendering judgment are inexcusable. Where they do occur, the minister should be able to say something to these judges that they would understand.

Recently I asked how many judges were employed on provincial royal commissions without having received the permission of the Minister of Justice. I asked how many provincial royal commissions there had been in the last three or four years upon which superior court judges have sat. The answer given by the Department of Justice is that the department has no information. "No information"?-with a judge away three or four or even five or six months from his duties? "No information" was what the department wished to furnish, rather than the facts.

Surely when a superior court judge is serving on a royal commission for a period of three months, and particularly when he is chief justice, his absence would be noticed. I suggest that the salutary provision in the law that no judge may serve on a provincial royal commission without first obtaining leave from the Minister of Justice should, in the interests of justice, be observed to the letter.

Anything that we on this side of the Kouse, and indeed hon. members in all parts of the house, can do to preserve and main'ain the highest type of administration of justice of which this country is capable will be done. This is one question as to which t .ere s. ould be no party considerations. I repeat that the Minister of Justice, as the custodian of the king's conscience, owes to the people of Canada the duty that, in making recommendations for appointments to superior courts, integrity and ability, and not political fitness, shall be the prime consideration.

Mr. Speaker:

If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

Judges Act