Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement of government policy on television.

For some time the government has been giving careful consideration to the development of television broadcasting in Canada. In its consideration it has had in mind the report of the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences. The commission recommended that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation proceed with the production of television programs and with plans for national coverage. It spoke of extension of national coverage both through publicly and privately-owned stations. It said that no private station should be licensed until the C.B.C. had available national television programs and that all private stations established should be required to serve as outlets for national programs. It emphasized the need for direction and control of television broadcasting in Canada to prevent Canadian stations from becoming mere channels for broadcasting material from outside Canada and to encourage Canadian content.

The government believes, with the royal commission, that television should be developed in Canada with the aim of benefiting our national life and that it should have the structure and the means required by Canadian conditions to ensure an adequate amount of suitable Canadian programs for Canadians as well as using some material from outside the country. Television will undoubtedly play a considerable part in the lives of many Canadian families. It is bound to have a strong effect on the growing minds of young people watching it in their own homes. The government believes it should be so developed in Canada that it is capable of providing a sensible pattern of programming for Canadian homes with at least a good portion of Canadian content reflecting Canadian ideas and creative abilities of our own people and life in all parts of Canada.

The government knows also that, because of the nature of our country, there must be

a wide integration of effort and resources if we are to have adequate television service suitable to our national needs and reaching at least a major part of the public in all regions. Now that national television service has started, the government believes that it should be extended as widely and as quickly as possible to other areas. Therefore, it is proposed to ask parliament to approve a loan to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the purpose of building stations on the Pacific coast, in the prairie provinces, and in the Atlantic provinces. These would be established in the Vancouver, Winnipeg and Halifax areas. Thus, in addition to the stations at Montreal and Toronto, and that to be built at Ottawa, there would be publicly-owned stations with some production facilities at least in each of the main regions of the country.

In addition the government will now be ready to receive applications for licences for private stations to serve areas not now served or to be served by publicly-owned facilities already announced. The government has indicated to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that it is prepared to consider applications for such licences which may be recommended by the corporation after being made in the usual way to the Department of Transport.

The objective will be to make national television service available to as many Canadians as possible through co-operation between private and public enterprise. Under this plan the private stations licensed will carry national program service, besides having time for programming of their own. There will be plenty of opportunity for enterprise by private interests in television broadcasting, and at the same time provision for wide extension of the national service. Since the objective will be to extend services as widely throughout Canada as is practicable, no two stations will be licensed at the present to serve the same area. A television station can serve only a comparatively small area. Canada is very large and it will require a good many stations before television can be brought to the people in most parts of our country. It is desirable to have one station in as many areas as possible before there are two in any one area.

The government believes that the policy adopted will provide for the integration of effort and resources, both public and private,

Television

that is necessary for the development of our television broadcasting serving our family and national life, and reaching as great a number as possible of Canadians.

Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, since the presentation of a statement of policy such as that which we have just received is by concurrence of the house and not by strict rule, I assume that it will be permissible to make comments on this statement which has been accepted in this way.

I would point out that what has been said seems to be an intermediate stage between the speech from the throne and the presentation of the actual legislation which will deal with the subject matter of the comments now before us. And since this is merely in anticipation of further steps to be taken, I believe it is appropriate to place before the government considerations which I think should be in their minds in regard to this very important subject, in the hope that an irretrievable plan will not be made in regard to this vitally important medium of communicating thought and news and the presentation of the events which come before our eyes.

The minister responsible for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in this house has reiterated the previous statement that was made that private stations are not to receive licences in those places where public stations are now operating, or are to operate, as stated to us today, in Vancouver, Winnipeg and Halifax, in addition to Montreal and Toronto.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, for the consideration of the government, before they present this legislation or take further steps, a proposition which it seems to me is inherent in the whole concept of the C.B.C. as I understood it, and as I believe many other Canadians understood it.

The idea- of the publicly-owned system was that it was designed to assure the reception of broadcasting to the people in Canada who otherwise might not receive it, unless there were a publicly-owned system, because of the economic factors involved in a very large country of this kind. In the case of the broadcasting of radio broadcasts as distinct from television broadcasts, it was obviously essential to provide networks into areas where the ordinary competitive private systems might not find it financially attractive to operate. All parties in this house have subscribed to that idea. There are differences of opinion as to the way in which it has been carried out; there are differences of opinion as to the manner in which the administration and supervision of this system should

be carried out. But in the case of television, which now enters the scene and is brought under the authority of the C.B.C., an entirely different factor presents itself. In the first place, as the minister has just pointed out, television covers at this time, no matter what may happen in future years, only a relatively small radius surrounding each television station. There are the two main devices for carrying the program, the co-axial cable and the microwave relay. Either one of those systems however will in turn carry only the television broadcast to another station, which in turn has a limited area of coverage, and not the wide coverage of those great radio broadcasting stations which now reach the most remote parts of Canada. Therefore, if the concept of the C.B.C., in relation to this new medium of communicating thoughts, news and pictures of events as well, is to be carried forward consistently with the original idea, then, surely it should be the purpose of the C.B.C. to provide television broadcasts in those areas where private broadcasting will not find it economically convenient to do so.

That was the intention of the C.B.C. in relation to radio broadcasting. If the same principle is carried forward, then surely the whole purpose of the C.B.C. in relation to television should be to let the private stations, without public expense, broadcast the television broadcasts in the great areas of concentrated population where that is financially possible, and for the C.B.C. to provide the television broadcasts in those areas where the ordinary financial returns will not justify private investment. Surely that is a clear, a simple concept of the role of the C.B.C. in this new medium of communicating ideas and pictures, if we follow the same concept which has always been accepted as the guiding purpose of the C.B.C. in regard to radio broadcasting, no matter how much any one of us may think they have departed from it.

I strongly urge the government to review its position in relation to that basic concept of public ownership in relation to broadcasting, either radio or television, and that before a bill to authorize this step be presented to the house they will have given full consideration to the purpose of the C.B.C., to the reason why it was decided to have a publicly-owned system in this country. And I would hope that in reviewing the situation they would come to the conclusion that if they return to basic principles they will change the policy as now announced.

Then may I also point out that there has been no reason placed before us at this time as to why there should be only one station in any one centre. No explanation has been

given to us as to why there is this fundamental difference between television and radio broadcasting in regard to programs of this type. Whether they be private or public stations, surely competition in such areas will be beneficial from the point of view of the ultimate programs and the variety of programs available in the larger centres.

After all, what should be remembered is that in many of the large Canadian centres today Canadians already have a variety of programs available to them. They are able now in Toronto, Vancouver, Windsor, Sarnia, Niagara Falls and in many other places in Ontario and other parts of Canada to bring in several different programs which are competing with our own programs.

If we want to raise the standard of our television to the point where people will watch our television instead of American television in those areas now served, it would be well for us to take advantage of competition here in Canada as well as in the United States.

Also might I point out one inconsistency in the statement made to the house by the minister in regard to the policy just announced. He has stated it is the intention of the government to do what it can to prevent stations becoming mere outlets for programs from the United States. Now, that sounds like a very admirable purpose. But, Mr. Speaker, the interesting thing is that, although the apparent desire of the C.B.C. is to prevent our stations becoming outlets for programs from the United States, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation already, at very considerable expense, has built a microwave relay connection with what is hardly a Canadian station at Buffalo, so that we can pipe in Canadian programs from there.

We do not need to pipe programs from Buffalo because the Buffalo programs are already coming in. As a matter of fact the record shows that they are being watched by a much larger Canadian audience than Canadian programs in that area.

Mr. McCann:

The C.B.C. has no relay.

Mr. Drew:

What is that?

Mr. McCann:

The C.B.C. has not built any microwave relay anywhere.

Mr. Sinclair:

Is this a debate?

Mr. Speaker:

Order. I think now the house is entering upon a debate on the subject. Of course I cannot allow a debate on it at this time. The remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) should be directed strictly to the statement which has been read. We cannot generalize.

Television

Mr. Drew:

I am dealing strictly with what the minister has said. I was pointing out his reference to the introduction of programs here. I was referring to the fact that the C.B.C. has made facilities available for the introduction of United States programs into Canada, and indicated that the C.B.C. has expressed its regrets that it has been unable to make appropriate arrangements to bring those programs in because of certain pending discussions that are still under way.

I submit, again, that there should be a clear policy in this respect, and that the House of Commons should know what that policy is. It should be given further consideration. Although the purpose is to provide Canadian programs, if Canadian money is going to be put up for publicly-owned stations in areas where private enterprise has indicated that it is ready to go on, then I suggest that Canadian money does not need to be put up to bring programs in from the United States, because those commercial interests are ready to bring them in in any event.

Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):

When the minister refers to the quality of the programs I would express the hope, in relation to what I said in the house the other day, that he will also tell us what his answer is to be in regard to that disgraceful program which was put over the C.B.C., and which I mentioned in the house a few days ago.

Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):

May I answer that now? I think the hon. member is referring to the program called "Hilda Morgan". The government does not propose to take any action regarding the play "Hilda Morgan" recently telecast by the C.B.C. Under the Canadian Broadcasting Act, the C.B.C. itself has the full responsibility for all programming matters.

The C.B.C. has received only three unfavourable comments on the play, and a considerable number more of favourable comments. The only press comment found was in the Toronto Telegram, and that was favourable.

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

Most members of the House of Commons have been receiving postcards reading as follows:

I am deeply disturbed by sections 46, 49 , 63 , 365 and 372 of Bill H8 (the proposed revision of the

Criminal Code

Criminal Code), now being reviewed by the standing committee on banking and commerce in the Senate.

These and other sections of the bill have no place on the statute books of a democratic country, and I strongly urge you to oppose such police state legislation if and when it comes before the House of Commons.

The name and address of each hon. member to whom these cards are sent is not typewritten but printed on each postcard, indicating clearly that those responsible for this campaign are making it as easy as they can for the citizens to whom cards are circulated to merely sign the card and send it on under the franking privileges of the hon. member to whom it is addressed. The contents and purport of the sections of the code referred to are not indicated in any way, so that it is impossible for those who send the cards to get from the cards themselves any idea as to what they are protesting against. These cards are the latest phase of a well-organized and financed campaign directed against the enactment of these clauses of Bill "O" of the Senate. Although the revised code, or as it is now numbered Bill "O" of the Senate is not yet before the house, it is desirable in the public interest to place before the house information about the true origin, character and intent of this systematic campaign to discredit this legislation.

Certain hon. members have indicated some puzzlement as to what the significance of it was and suggested that it might be of interest to all hon. members that a statement be made.

This intensive campaign is conducted by the communists in Canada. To disguise the real communist control behind the campaign, the attack on Bill "O" is operated through the league for democratic rights, a front organization which is thoroughly communist-controlled and communist-inspired. The propaganda by the league for democratic rights, while directed to a wide variety of groups, is especially aimed at the trade unions.

Long before these postcards were circulated amongst many Canadian unions, I checked with the Ottawa head offices of the Canadian Congress of Labour and the Trades and Labour Congress to make sure that they were aware of what was going on. Not only had they been for some time well aware of the efforts the league for democratic rights was putting forth to line up their respective unions in opposition to Bill "O" but I am glad to pay tribute to the measures which they have taken to expose this barefaced communist manoeuvre to influence their locals and members.

[Mr. Garson.l

As examples of the measures they took, I think perhaps hon. members would welcome my quoting from some of the editorials in the labour papers, if for no other reason than that the hon. members themselves might use those quotations in replying to the postcards they have received. In many cases, I am sorry to say, good, patriotic, innocent Canadians have been taken in by this sort of propaganda. I should like to quote from the November issue of the Trades and Labour Congress Journal which, I believe, has not yet come to the attention of all hon. members of the house. It is as follows:

One of the most difficult problems confronting democratically elected governments is how to frame laws that will give needed protection against those who work and scheme to destroy democracy and democratic institutions and at the same time not Infringe on the fundamental freedoms and rights which people in the free world cherish.

Most right thinking citizens desire some protection from the treachery or the Boyers, the Allens, the Mays and the Roses, and many others who are actively and continually exploiting the weaknesses of democracy with the sole objective of substituting dictatorship for democracy and slave camps for freedom. None recognize this problem more than the international communist party. It was for this reason that such fronts as the league for democratic rights came into being. In Britain they are known as the National Council of Civil Liberties.

At the present time a flood of circulars are being mailed out by the so-called league for democratic rights regarding some of the proposed amendments to Canada's Criminal Code as contained in Bill H8. Reading this stuff one is supposed to believe that the writers of the circular are really concerned with the organized labour movement and are fronting an expensive campaign on its behalf in order to protect Canadian workers from the hangman for the well-established crime of criticizing the government. To cinch this eyewash, the league for democratic "wrongs" with the assistance of the communist-controlled press (which has instructions to play it up) is quoting: "British opinion deplores Canada's Criminal Code amendments". Take a look at this British opinion. It is not that of the British Trades Union Congress, the British Labour party or the Churchill government, but it is the propaganda views of the counterpart of the same front in Britain.

The reference there to Bill H8 is really to Bill "O" of the Senate. This bill was introduced into the Senate last year and was given lengthy and careful consideration by the Senate. It has been reintroduced in the Senate this year and is now being considered by the Senate banking and commerce committee. When it is reported to this house we shall set up a committee with power to hear evidence from interested persons and organizations, as I stated in reply to a question by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) just the other day. The unions of Canada from the beginning, as I am informed, have planned to study this bill from the standpoint of organized labour

and will have an adequate opportunity to make representations concerning it.

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved

for leave to introduce Bill No. 18, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1952, with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons.

Explain.